Whistleblower concerns are totally legit, but that assumes the whistleblower follows common-sense normal procedures (e.g., telling the event organizers in private, or even calling their boss). The learning point here is about the manner in which the alleged harassment was "reported" -- trumpeted to the entire world via social media with photos attached.
If she really was fired, if I were company counsel, I'd be more concerned about the employment law issues vs. the public statement. They did keep the post brief and factual, and I don't see anything actionable about it.
As a startup lawyer (and a social media lawyer at that) I couldn't agree more. Even big companies make some unbelievably stupid mistakes when rushed to "do something."
This is a cool service, although I have to say I'd never use a website or app (especially a free one) if going into it I thought I'd ever have to sue them for anything. Litigation is a time-sucking expensive PITA. This ain't exactly like a doctor's arbitration waiver where you might be signing away the right to sue for millions if they remove the wrong kidney. :P
Not just privacy. Any consumer class action -- as long as AT&T Mobility holds -- can theoretically be avoided by a well-drafted arbitration/class-action waiver clause in the site TOS or other customer agreement.
Outstanding summary and links. I constantly refer people to the CMLP and EFF sites (as well as chillingeffects.org and Stanford's fair use site) as great references for bloggers and other online publishers.
Those disclaimers shouldn't be necessary under US law provided we're talking third-party, user-generated content. See discussion of CDA Section 230 in an earlier comment. As a social media lawyer I thank God every day that that section (and DMCA Section 512) exist, because with out them, social media wouldn't exist as we know it in America. Every site of any scale would be sued into bankruptcy within weeks.
I realize the person in this example is the OP's girlfriend, but in my experience, the most common explanation is third-party payers. (For example, kid off at college, credit card bills get paid by parents or grandparents. Or corporate card used for many office-type overhead expenses where the recurring charge is so small, relatively speaking, it falls beneath the scope of any audits.)
Two comments from a consumer Internet lawyer's perspective:
- Any company of any size in America has been sued in a consumer class action -- many reputable companies scores or even hundreds of times. Some lawyers make their living that way. Most of these suits involve highly subjective elements such as whether there was enough disclosure in the right place of the right type to avoid consumers being misled. (Inevitably, in any mass-market consumer business, some consumers will be misled -- not necessarily the sharpest tools in the drawer.)
- Don't ever believe the version of the facts portrayed in a plaintiffs' complaint (in any suit). Ours is an adversarial system, meaning that, as in politics, you can count on each side to overstate its version of reality about 10X or 100X so that it looks like they're inhabiting alternate universes.
FWIW, I've personally worked with partners at a couple of these funds, as well as some of the senior execs at the parent company, and they are stand-up guys, not con artists. Aggressive direct marketing isn't a crime (have you ever watched TV infomercials?), although there are certainly gray areas where disclosure could be clearer, etc.
IMHO the most important consideration is that the more aggressive any company is about acquiring new customers under this kind of model, the more liberal it should be about returns/refunds/cancellations. There were many lessons learned a couple years ago when discount-membership checkout programs (WebLoyalty, Affinion, Vertrue) and their e-commerce partners (Fandango) got the smackdown from various state AGs. There's enough similarity here to warrant paying close attention and making sure to stay on the right side of a thin line. Here's example coverage of the previous controversy:
I've encountered the same thing in another subscription business where there was system data showing the customer hadn't used it in a long time. My personal (not legal) opinion is that, assuming these account for an immaterial percentage of revenue, the safe approach is to go ahead and cancel them. The reason is that to do otherwise would make the company look really ugly if ever questioned by a state AG or the FTC or in a class action suit. It's tough to say "Yes, we had computer records clearly showing the customer hadn't logged in for 16 months but kept charging her each month anyway because she never said stop." Folks whose jobs entail protecting consumers (even against themselves) don't like hearing that.
The cleverness of Columbia's approach was that a certain percentage of people at the margin would keep (and pay full price for) CDs that they'd never have bothered to go out any buy on their own. Just like credit cards: Issuers hate people who pay the balance off every month and earn them zero interest -- but most consumers aren't quite that disciplined.
The interesting question is whether the business model would be deemed illegal outright (highly unlikely). Under US law, at least, it's all about disclosure. False/misleading claims and deceptive business practices are usually what get companies in trouble. Those are subjective, to be sure.
How hard can it be to retain this data upon registration? Site operators would be insane not to. It's one bit per user in a database: Checked box or not?
Note that regardless of what the screen shot looks like today, it's very possible the site already improved its disclosure in response to complaints/threats. It would be interesting to go back in time and compare the disclosure at launch to what's on the site today.
Assuming for the sake of discussion that there are unlawful deceptive practices going on, either this company isn't getting the right legal counsel or is choosing to ignore it. Either way that sounds like bad news.
There are plenty of legitimate businesses operating on continuity models (monthly charge, keep sending you stuff until you cancel), but they are regulated at both state and federal levels, and many states have laws with very specific requirements about what must be disclosed and how (e.g., CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS disclosure on the checkout page, not buried in the site TOS, confirmation by e-mail, easy-to-find link to cancel, etc.). I'm not going to give an opinion on this particular site, but we did a meticulous 50-state review at eHarmony for just this reason, to head off any claims that consumers were somehow being misled about recurring charges. It has to be updated as states change or adopt new laws. The FTC also has jurisdiction but it's much easier to get the attention of state regulators and especially class action plaintiffs' lawyers.