This site is about having enough potential clients are able to sue Chase at some point in the future, whenever a class action lawsuit comes up - and heck, they even will have a customer list and a relationship with you from sending this "free" letter for you in the past.
Usually in those kinds of cases, the end recipient gets very little - perhaps some subscription to a ID protection service or a few bucks but the firm who runs the class action makes a lot.
On the one hand, maybe it helps keep them honest (they cite Wells Fargo) so its good to be able to. But clearly there is some vested interest here on the part of Radvocate.
We're excited to partner on this project partly because it is very "on brand" for us from that perspective — we can help people, get our name out there, and shine light on an issue that matters to us. We're a business, but we're also all in this business (instead of some other business) because we want to make the system fairer for consumers.
ETA: Also, to correct one misapprehension: we are not in the class action business. We actually help consumers pursue individual arbitrations. We think more people should know that even if their contract doesn't let them sue, they actually do have a way to assert their power through arbitration. If anything, we'll have more customers for our current business if no one opts out of their Chase clause.
Very clever marketing, good on you for managing this, and I hope you see a great return for your efforts.
And an interesting business concept - to help consumers pursue individual arbitrations. That could be really cool especially against large corporations when they are abusive. What do you charge as people go through their individual arbitration process/ how does the profit model work?
I really have mixed feelings about the legal system - on
Also, Radvocate, wondering if you can address the PII concerns other's have raised, as that is a very big deal.
On the business model – we charge a commission currently set at 15% of whatever compensation you recover. Hopefully that's from a negotiated settlement with the company before a full arbitration process is necessary. (More details at bottom). We currently process against 20+ cable / ISP / wireless companies.
Re: PII, first I want to make clear that I can't speak with legal standing about the terms & conditions as written. That said, if someone checks the (optional) box giving us permission to do so, all we plan to store is an e-mail address (plus an anonymized token?). We at Radvocate don't have current plans to use that e-mail address, but it is true that it likely would be most useful for the purpose of putting together a future class action against Chase. We'd only partner on that with firms we trust and who will make respectful use of the information.
We think this could be of interest and beneficial to someone opting out of arbitration. To repeat a point on this thread, it's another way to take action against Chase. Additionally, while we all have experience with a class action of being mailed a gift card three years later, if someone does make direct contact with a lawyer on the lawsuit, that may put them in a different position (though I'm not a lawyer).
More on our process: The way arbitration works is you usually have to send the company a notice letter (which we automate) 30-60 days before filing. When you do that a lot of companies suddenly want to negotiate, instead of ignoring your dispute, and we provide data and process guidance to help you negotiate most effectively. If negotiation fails then we automate escalating your claim to arbitration by filing with the American Arbitration Association, and we continue to provide guidance as the case moves through their system, including preparation for the hearing (which will typically happen by phone).
Surely you're aware of massive and prevalent data breaches. You're collecting sensitive information to help people, but not providing any convincing bonafides on information security, let alone an actual plan for how sensitive information goes in your web form, then (many technical/logistical steps later) ends up in Chase's P.O. box, without leaking out to some unintended party.
I don't think anyone should feel comfortable with "all we plan to store is an e-mail address"
1 - https://haveibeenpwned.com/
Would you help us go after them? I'd sign up in a heartbeat for that. When I moved from Connecticut where we have a relatively benign ISP (Cablevision) who doesn't have data caps, to California where we only have Comcast/Xfinity, my monthly price for Internet doubled and I have less than half the bandwidth available to me.
For credit cards at least, you aren't giving any more information to them than you would any random website where you make a purchase.
Less, even, as there's no expiration date or CVV.
I know many here consider this to be ideological heresy but it's possible to have a transaction where both parties come out ahead and this seems like one of those win-wins to me. They do a little work for you in exchange for putting your name on a list of people they can use in a class action, you might even get $5 or something out of it if they win.
Putting your PII into a random website should be what raises red flags here. I hope they're not storing the account numbers, or at least not storing them with the associated personal details.
This suggests to me you feel that class action judgments do not adequately compensate claimants. This shouldn't dissuade us from fighting back against businesses who treat their customers unfairly.
The problem isn't the class action lawsuit or Radvocate. It goes much deeper. It's goes to the core of businesses (e.g, banks) who provide critical access to the financial system forcing you, the consumer, to resolve disputes through their shadow justice system in which they pay the arbiters, which have a history of siding more frequently with the corporation.
I don't have direct access to the fulfillment of this particular initiative, but in general we can take advantage of the efficiency of sending multiple legal notices in the same packet. So the cost per individual letter can be much less than one would assume.
...that sounds good to me! I certainly don't have the resources to take Chase to court myself, and who knows, maybe the existence of this class-action-in-waiting will keep Chase from being as shady.
"We’re a group of like-minded companies who like building things that help people. "
They're just doing this out of the goodness of their hearts!!!
On top of that, it's further identifying them as both Chase CC holders and receptive to scams, qualifying them as leads for further phishing/scamming.
But you don't just let them download it. You make them give you their email address first.
Edit: Haha! No wait, you have to click through two levels of "Don't want to give us your info? Click here to get the letter". The first one asks for you email, only after the second do you actually get the letter. Why? They already said "dont want to...". Just give it to them!
Edit2: Also the form letter, prepopulated with the Chase customer service P.O. box address, is another scam pitfall. Anyone using this kind of form letter should always check the address with the financial institution before sending any forms, especially that include PII/financial information.
Yeah. That got me a bit irritated. Here's the form without having to give any info : https://www.chaseoptout.com/ChaseOptOut.pdf
They're pretty clearly trying to collect email addresses through this campaign. I'm okay with that. My email address isn't exactly private, and this site is going to pay to mail physical letters for me.
> Also the form letter, prepopulated with the Chase customer service P.O. box address, is another scam pitfall. Anyone using this kind of form letter should always check the address with the financial institution before sending any forms, especially that include PII/financial information.
Is the address fradulent? If so, please tell us. If not, I don’t see the concern.
really? No concern downloading a form letter from some web site and mailing PII/account information to the address they provided?
Call me paranoid, but that kind of behavior is just waiting to run into a scam.
My point was not about the address, it was about general wariness of scams. No different than always calling your financial institution using a valid/known number, rather than a number provided to you by a voicemail/email/letter.
If I don't use this website, there is a 100% chance I will "agree" to binding arbitration. I know myself. There is absolutely no way I am going to print, fill out, and mail in a paper form.
Is this website a perfect solution? No, but I don't see a better option under the circumstances, and from what I can tell, the people running it are doing the right things within the confines of what is necessary for their solution to work.
If that's not the case, criticize away, and certainly let us know if you have a clear reason to believe this specific project is a scam. But keep the goal in mind. It certainly set off some alarm bells for me, but when I read through the site it all made sense.
Tomorrow, an enterprising scammer might clone the site to chaseoptoutservice.com, and do all the nefarious things mentioned above, and they'll be neck-and-neck in SEO.
If the response is to attack the legit version, then Chase wins! That's not an acceptable outcome either.
It's a false dichotomy to say its either this web site or Chase wins.
Promoting risky and insecure behavior is just wrong. period. That's independent of whatever Chase or any other company is putting in their agreements.
I think you'd be helping people far more by pointing out all the problems with this kind of website, so they can be aware of the risks and hopefully avoid scams, rather than getting them out of binding arbitration clauses.
But it's not! No one is going to mail in a form. Chase specifically chose that go that route because they know nobody nobody is going to mail in a form. The only way to get around this is to make the process easier. How else do you do that?
It strikes me as a very shortsighted to say "this behavior is wrong in all circumstances, period," while ignoring the benefits. Everything in life is some kind of risk trade-off.
Edit: I suppose your larger point is, the potential harm of this project greatly outweighs any potential good. I can respect that, but I'd really encourage you to research how messed up binding arbitration agreements are, particularly with regards to institutions like a bank.
I would say that more broadly speaking the harm of arbitration agreements is solvable in other ways, such as government or advocacy actions. I'm guessing that's what led to this letter/form in the first place: some regulator, or litigation resulted in Chase having to provide an "opt out", and they fulfilled their requirement by making it a mail-in form to discourage opt-out.
If the harm persists then consumer advocates, elected representatives, and regulators can take another crack at it.
Educating people to be wary and careful with personal information is trickier. It's hard enough to spot a very well crafted spear-phishing attack, even when you know better and are generally vigilante. I don't know how else to deal with that except hyper-vigilance, and yes "this behavior is wrong in all circumstances, period,"
But again, I guess I'm weighing that risk higher than you are.
Disclaimer: I work in governance/risk/compliance, but have not performed PCI compliance work in the last several years.
In terms of what users are taught (which is plainly the context of the comment you are replying to), this website is identical to ecommerce sites.
But they also do B!
Doesn’t matter. A is bad.
People who order stamps online?
If the problem is writing the letter or stamps, then why not just send the user a postage-paid envelope, pre-addressed to Chase, with a generic letter that she can fill in with her personal information and deposit into the mail?
You should now be wondering how this "service" can be "free". As someone else has figured out, this is a company that wants lists of Chase customers to which they can market their consumer arbitration-related services.
This is interesting since the whole point of opting out here is that consumers want to avoid arbitration and reserve their rights to sue.
Other websites are offering a more sensible solution for those who cannot be bothered to write a letter: templates for a simple letter a customer can just print out, fill in her information, sign and mail.
Everyone here fearmongering this site is the enemy of good enough. Your credit card information is no more at risk than at a gas pump that possibly has a skimmer (and you’re not liable). Your PII has already been leaked by Equifax. Why give up even more rights by not opting out through a service that has taken reasonable precautionary measures for data protection?
It seems to me that it's pretty flimsy? In particular:
> To conduct research and to improve and promote our services . We use the information wecollect to conduct research and to improve or enhance and promote our Services.
Both promotion and research are pretty damn broad terms, right?
Personally, I'm very much okay with the exchange in this case, particularly given the cost of mailing physical letters.
They literally ask for their customers to pick up the phone from unknown numbers and give your bank details.
Idk but I only have Chase through Amazon. Chase might get effed, but my Amazon account will probably always be fine.
"Can I (the customer) reject this agreement to arbitrate?
Yes. You have the right to reject this agreement to arbitrate if you notify us no later than 8/9/2019. You must do so in writing by stating that you reject this agreement to arbitrate and include your name, account number, address and personal signature. Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. Rejection notices sent to any other address, or sent by electronic mail or communicated orally, will not be accepted or effective." (emphasis mine)
How does this service handle the "personal signature" requirement?
It makes electronic signatures as good as regular ones in interstate commerce. Period. Full stop.
Caselaw supports this in spades.
The only meaningful case otherwise is where statutes explicitly require in-writing signatures (a good example is copyright transfers).
There is an intra-state version of this is UETA.
The whole point of the act is to say that clicking a button on a computer to make a signature that is valid. That it later gets transmitted in some other form is irrelevant.
If i create and print out a docusigned document and mail it, it is still a personally written and signed document.
It is no different if I fill out a form that makes a document for me and click a button to sign it.
If this is confusing, answer my reply above and I'll try to start seeing where the confusion is
Actually it's just like how if you send someone a letter via USPS that you typed and printed from Gmail then you've sent them mail, or perhaps a physical copy of an email, but not "an email".
We are going to mostly put aside the third for now.
First: A signature does not change form once created. A physically signed document is a physically signed document, regardless of whether i scan it in. An electronically signed document is electronically signed regardless of whether i print it.
Period. The form does not change once created. Only it's originalness and acceptability as evidence.
So then what is electronic.
Second: Your definition of electronic is ... not encompassing enough.
Let's go to the E-SIGN act:
"ELECTRONIC– The term 'electronic' means relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic, wireless, optical, electromagnetic, or similar capabilities."
That's a lot.
"ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE– The term 'electronic signature' means an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record."
Note that because of the definition of electronic in the first part, the second is a lot broader than it looks despite it also being fairly expansive.
It only has to be associated with and then executed/adopted by a person with intent to sign a record. Note that it does not say electronic record (which the act defines) or electronic contract. Other parts of the act are restricted to electronic records/contracts, but given the duality, no court i'm aware of has read the limitation into this part of the act (the opposite is in fact true).
So what i gave you what a clear electronic signature. It was electronic process associated with a contract or record, executed by a person with intent to sign it.
It doesn't matter if it was later printed. The act itself will even support this.
Now we move on to what does the act say about such signatures or contract or ... ;
(1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form;
(2) a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.
(g) Notarization and Acknowledgment.--If a statute, regulation, or
other rule of law requires a signature or record relating to a
transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce to be
notarized, acknowledged, verified, or made under oath, that requirement
is satisfied if the electronic signature of the person authorized to
perform those acts, together with all other information required to be
included by other applicable statute, regulation, or rule of law, is
attached to or logically associated with the signature or record.
(h) Electronic Agents.--A contract or other record relating to a
transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce may not be
denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because its
formation, creation, or delivery involved the action of one or more
electronic agents so long as the action of any such electronic agent is
legally attributable to the person to be bound.
Remember again our definition of electronic is very broad here.
The first says the signatures and contracts are valid even when they were in electronic form. That is again true even if i print it out and later mail it.
You may run into the issue about what is acceptable evidence to a court for the document itself, but you will not run into the issue of "is the signature on this document, which was originally electronic, valid as a signature".
The second says that a contract (again, very broad definition, definitely includes letter like this one!) can't be denied validity just because you used an electronic record or signature in forming it.
The printing it out doesn't make it less of an electronic signature.
The section on notarization makes this even more clear.
It doesn't even require an electronic record (as other parts of the statute explicitly do), it says you can electronically notarize a regular record, as long as you attach or associate it somehow.
Even further, e-sign destroys the argument that you didn't make the contract. It even allows me to use an electronic agent to make, form, and deliver contracts if i like, as long as it's attributable to me.
UETA is even more straightforward (though inapplicable in this particular case):
(c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.
(d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.
It even says email does not change form:
"“Electronic mail message” means an electronic message or computer file that is transmitted between two or more telecommunications devices; computers; computer networks, regardless of whether the network is a local, regional, or global network; or electronic devices capable of receiving electronic messages, regardless of whether the message is converted to hard copy format after receipt, viewed upon transmission, or stored for later retrieval."
Note the last sentence.
There are lots of state court and federal court opinions on this.
Outside of other laws, etc, clicking a button on this form will be considered mailing a physical copy of an electronically generated signature.
(1) This is less relevant to this particular debate, but it's highly relevant to the actual opt-out page. On the webpage, I don't see the word "sign" at all. I imagine merely filling in your name into that box and clicking "Submit" doesn't turn your name into your signature. In fact the page explicitly says "the information for the Chase account holder"... which need not be you, so it definitely can't account as the account holder's signature... right? So regardless of the electronic vs. paper issue we still seem to have a pretty fundamental problem that even this page hasn't been signed by the account owner in any shape or form.
(2) This is more specific to our discussion. So if there were a signature box on that form and you put your name in as your electronic signature, what exactly would you have electronically signed? I never (I think) said that you wouldn't have electronically signed anything at all, but rather, that what you signed electronically would not have been the agreement of interest, i.e. the one to be sent to Chase. Rather, as I see it, you would have signed something separate from that -- more like a contract (if it even counts as a contract... not sure how considerations play into this, given it's free) with whoever's running that website, to write your intended letter, put a copy of your signature on it, and basically impersonate you in sending this to Chase. Leaving aside the question of whether this is fraud (which is also something I've been pondering, since Chase would seem to think it came from you), that would mean you never signed that agreement at all. At best, I feel you could only try to argue you gave this site a power of attorney to represent you... not sure how valid a court would find that with the form currently as-is. So I'm still struggling to see how you could claim to have signed the agreement sent to Chase.
(3) The "electronic agent" thing seems like a red herring (I'm not sure why you brought it up) since it seems to refer the software, not the human on the other side.
(4) Is this really a question of whether the agreement is valid "solely because it is in electronic form"? In my view it's a question of whether it's valid "because its terms for it taking effect are followed". One of the terms was signing it in electronic form, but that's just (if you will) an implementation detail the way I see it. This may be my CS-y brain but the law sounds like it's intended to address governmental "discrimination" against electronic signatures (if you will), not private decisions on how to form valid agreements. It seems kind of like how, even though the law requires that a $100 bill be valid as legal tender for all private debts, no store owner is obligated to accept a $100 bill as a payment of $100 for goods you haven't officially bought yet.
Unless Chase explicitly said wet signature, then a government court would find the electronic signature valid.
Edit: Also, I'm not sure what "wet signature" means. The claim was not quite that the signature has to be in ink. The debate is over whether you (not someone else) are performing the signing, and whether you (not someone else) are mailing (not emailing etc.) it on paper (not e.g. a flash drive) or not. Which, to me, means you could sign on your computer/tablet/etc., then print that as your signature with a printer and then mail the form, with no ink involved anywhere in the process. That seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation of "personally signing" the letter and "mailing" it, so Chase would have a hard time arguing you didn't do that. But to type your name on a random website for someone else to print and mail the contract on your behalf? You neither personally signed that letter (whether on the computer or on the paper) nor did you mail it... all you did was casually tell some random guy on the internet to impersonate you to your financial institution.
> Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298.
That sounds like it has to be mailed, but who does the mailing doesn't matter. Similarly, wouldn't matter if you used the post or a courier.
I'm not sure what that means though. If I printed off the form from the website would that count as me writing the letter to be mailed?
In any case, in the stuff quoted up top, I don't read this concept that it must be done personally. For example, it seems like it would be fine for my accountant to do it for me (though they may need me to sign it? maybe they can affix a seal or something)
There must be a way for a business to opt out of this clause, right?
In terms of you as a consumer using the template they gave you, I mean, in principle I would assume it would count (you put your signature on it and mailed it; it clearly signals your own volition and intent to opt out), but I could see a judge saying no if Chase gave a convincing counterarguments why (e.g. hypothetically if Chase had a habit of getting a lot of legitimately fake opt-outs that they couldn't distinguish from yours, and if it would be obviously bad public policy to accept them, then yours probably shouldn't be valid either). Ultimately I'm not claiming gray areas are nonexistent...
Original comment below:
I'm likewise not an attorney, but how hard would it be to do a simple "Type your name here to represent your signature" type of deal? This is the most common lay practice I've seen, with the more common CYA practice for electronic records being e.g. what Docusign or Adobe offer, or the use of cryptographic signatures.
The document is not actually present.
I told them that I am rejecting the agreement to arbitrate. I also said that since their message portal feels official, this would be what I would use as proof of my opt out in court, if the need arises. I saved some screenshots as well.
They have updated me once already to say that they are still working on a response.
AFAIK in the Netherlands oral statements, when overheard by a witness, have the same legal standing as a signed contract.
OK, seriously, they don't technically get to decide what makes a binding agreement, a judge does that. But US law and US judges are very business-friendly. I mean there's the whole invented crime of "identity theft", whereby a bank who is defrauded by an individual gets to pass off their victimhood to a completely uninvolved third party.
Essentially, under the common law here, all that a contract needs in order to be valid is three things: a valid offer, a valid acceptance, and valid "consideration," where consideration is a legal term of art referring to 'something of value' gained through the agreement.
The idea is that, there is no servitude. Companies can offer whatever terms they want (subject to a very few number of restrictions, dependent on the industry/regulatory domain). You are under no pressure to accept. You can easily reject the terms by simply not using the product. Courts have generally been reluctant to prevent parties from agreeing to whatever lawful thing they want to agree to. The main exception is that you cannot have contracts which serve 'an illegal end.'
In the US, there's no need for a contract to be written or overheard at all. There need be no written document, no witnesses, no record whatsoever. So long as there is a valid offer (obvious jokes are not held to be valid offers, for instance), valid acceptance (you generally need to affirmatively signal acceptance, but this need not be oral or even explicit), and valid consideration (really nothing more than a formality nowadays, this is why many deeds say "exchanged for consideration of $1"), the contract is valid, even if it only exists in the minds of the two parties.
Obviously, proving such a contract can be difficult, but it can be done, particularly if the parties were acting in accordance with the terms of the claimed contract. If we orally agree that you will start working on building a shed for me, you buy supplies and deliver them to the site, but then stop work, you can't claim the contract never existed, because you've acted in accordance with that oral contract.
In this area specifically, there's been some progress made in getting the courts to understand the enormous power differential at play here. You nearly can't survive in this country without at least one credit card, and if all the major companies' cards have terms like this, then you don't really actually have a choice in the matter. It's been a slow process however.
That being said, I have read through the email from Chase, and there is nothing that explicitly states that they will close it as a result of the user opting out of arbitration.
Does anyone have experience with similar situations with Chase or other banks and agreement opt-outs that they could share?
I would actually like to see that service. A website that closes your bank account for you. They can be very tricky when you try to do that.
This is disgraceful behavior from a bank and they also made clear that they tend to close accounts for arbitrary reasons.
Generally, opt-out is added to reduce the risk that courts will throw out the arbitration clause as unconscionable (unfair). Companies know that most people won't opt out, and any class action brought by somebody who opts out will only apply to other customers who opted out- cutting damages by 99%+.
We track news about arbitration pretty closely, and I've been surprised and impressed by how much this Chase issue has "broken through." I no joke overheard a random convo about it on BART on Sunday.
The arbiter is permitted the following:
* To make an arbitrary judgement outside the scope of the agreement.
* The arbiter is not required to follow any law but the arbitration act. They are permitted a manifest disregard for the law.
* The arbiter is not required to be fair or impartial. They aren't a judge.
* The arbiter may be blacklisted by companies if they rule against the corporation. The companies know who rules against them.
* The arbitrations are secret. You may research how the arbiter acted in the past. The company knows, though. You just don't.
To engage in a corporate controlled mandatory binding arbitration is to leave the rule of law and enter into a dystopia where even the courts of law are privatized. Consumer protection laws? Gone. State consumer laws? Gone.
Maker of the site here! Our servers don't touch any of this data, it goes straight to Very Good Security and lives in a PCI compliant vault ... We ourselves are building a new kind of bank so we take security very seriously and are not phishing.
Happy to talk through in more details but the FAQs do a pretty good job of that too!
Does Lob hold any PCI level certifications? It appears they hold HIPAA but I see no mention of PCI?
Does Lob provide any interface that shows sent mail and the content (it appears they do)? If so and they don't hold any PCI certifications what benefit do we really have with ever getting a VGS token?
What stops you from scraping this data from Lob's API?
Original comment below.
I'm confused on how this data lands at Lob with an account number if you never get it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the letter you send includes the account number and not the VGS token?
All of my following questions assumes an affirmative answer.
How is the account number landed in Lob? It appears something must be calling the Lob API with an unencrypted account number? What is making that call?
Does Lob provide any interface that shows sent mail and the content? If so and they don't hold any PCI certifications what benefit do we really have with ever getting a VGS token?
Other than "user training", if it's legitimate, it is not unethical.
What has counsel advised about any risk of federal authorities investigating you as possible CC phishing operation (perhaps initiated by monitoring for bank-phishing-like domain name)? (Obviously you have some defense, but the best case might cost you money and misery.)
Also, do you expect to keep the domain name past an ICANN dispute?
"JPMorgan agreed to pay $110 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over its procedures for charging customers overdraft fees. It was among more than a dozen big banks sued by their customers for reordering debits from their accounts to maximize the possibility that the accounts would become overdrawn, which would generate more fees."
Unfortunately Chase forces customers to mail a letter with this information on it so there's not much we can do
In another comment you talked about starting another kind of bank? details?
tbh I'm not trying to use this as a platform for advertising but I'm happy to chat if you want to email me. zach [at] hmbradley.com
Open-source a script I can run locally to generate PDFs with the information your form uses.
That's a really shady move and I'll take note to avoid any business with Chase in the future.
It's legal because of a staggeringly overbroad reading of the Federal Arbitration Act that the Supreme Court has said is fine and Congress has refused to reign in.
> I really hope we can take the concept to court and murder it completely.
Many will enter, zero will win. Virtually every attempt at limiting the Federal Arbitration Act's scope in legal proceedings has been turned down by the Supreme Court.
https://www.chaseoptout.com/PrivacyPolicy.pdf - let me know if you mean something else?
I've been party to some interesting convos about whether it would be legal for them to do so.
What would be really cool is to see this extended to many types of opt-out-by-email things — I know it's a pretty widely-used dark pattern by e.g. newspapers and spam mail companies.
From Chase's perspective, wouldn't they be asking for more details especially if their business hinges on retaining people into their business as much as they can?
Update: Additional wording
Chase Customer Service
P.O. Box 15298
Wilmington, DE 19850-5298
P.S. The website gave the info. Don't sue me :-)
This seems to be, at least in part, advertising for your bank. I clicked on it, but could get no real information about it. Would be curious for more info about it, as I'm generally tired of dealing with bad online presence.
Corporations do have a stake in contractual and legal systems continuing to function, as well as in not calling down negative news coverage on themselves.
TL; DR arbitration is not the corporate-controller enigma many seem to think it is. You trade off real benefits by opting out of Chase's mutual binding arbitration terms.
Most people should opt out, but not everyone. (Nobody should opt out unthinkingly.)
Snail Mail As A Service
Also, are baseless allegations OK here?
I have mentioned my Twitter in previous comments (https://twitter.com/peterkimfrank) and you'll see my submission history maps pretty well to my role at my company (https://dev.to/peter).
This was a weird comment thread to wake up to...
Astroturfing is big business and can be very profitable. An account itself isn't worth much, it's the overall execution that matters.
A+ for guerilla marketing
F- for anything related to privacy, etc...
Might as well leave a box for the SSN while you're at it
We also give customers a way to just download the form without giving us the info but then of course we can't mail it for them ... we were just trying to make this easier for customers to opt out with the shitty options we were given
If you actually care about privacy and claim to not be using or selling our information for anything, why don't you make it easier to avoid giving information entirely?
Having said that, thank you for creating this. I had left Chase's email about the terms change in my inbox, starred, so I'd remember to take care of this, but not having to formulate my own letter makes things so much easier.
Hmm, I don't see it that way. It seems like people are learning about the chase issue for the first time through this website. Ideally you'd have another website/article informing you about the issue, and then a link to this website for sending the letter. And so it would be weird to go to a website designed to send a letter, and be told that you can also not send the letter through the website...
Good on you guys for making the thing and showing some effort, wasn't aware of their opt-out policy.
Are you just going to discard all the data afterwards or is it just a ploy to build a mailing list for your bank?
I'd love for us to have that problem.