ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, January 05, 2019

Discovery

This weekend, we discovered that Indiegogo actually broke their own refund policy when they refunded all the AH:Q backers.
When are contributions not eligible for a refund?

Contributions cannot be refunded by Indiegogo, if any of the following are true:
  • The contribution funds have already been transferred to the campaign owner
  • The campaign has ended [emphasis mine -VD]
  • The perk associated with the contribution has been fulfilled (contribution is marked as fulfilled on Indiegogo by the campaigner)
  • Indiegogo determines that there has been an abuse of our Terms of Use, or the refund policy.
The AH:Q campaign ended on September 26, 2018. On October 11, Indiegogo froze Arkhaven's account and announced it was initiating a review process. Less than an hour later, but two weeks after the end of the campaign, Indiegogo sent ineligible refunds to all the AH:Q backers in violation of its own refund policy. It wasn't until the next day, October 12, that Arkhaven was informed that Indiegogo "will be processing refunds for your campaign."

UPDATE: It just keeps getting better. From the same Refund Policy page.
Please note, we are unable to cancel your campaign or issue mass refunds for any campaign that has raised funds.
C-can you feel that? Can you hear that? That sounds like... rubble. And it's... it's bouncing!

Labels: ,

70 Comments:

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 05, 2019 11:01 AM  

Splended. Eager to see what happens next.

Blogger Salt January 05, 2019 11:04 AM  

Should be interesting to hear what IGG has to say about that.

Blogger Solon January 05, 2019 11:14 AM  

So, let me get this straight: because the campaign ended, they cannot give refunds, per their policy, presumably because the campaign ending signals that the money is officially transferred to the crowdfunded project and no longer held in escrow by Indiegogo.

Meaning, if they refunded the money, that money no longer belongs to them. What they did was fraud with respect to their own stated policies, as well as theft, since the money is no longer theirs to do with what they will?

Is that the basic gist of the legal battles going on?

Blogger Salt January 05, 2019 11:14 AM  

From the same page link -

"Please note, we are unable to cancel your campaign or issue mass refunds for any campaign that has raised funds."

Fascinating.

Blogger Silent Draco January 05, 2019 11:18 AM  

After the original campaign and entertainment were disrupted for no apparent reason, I had not expected this additional level of amusement. The Ralph Kramden explanation of "humma, humminah, humminah ..." from "The Honeymooners" comes to mind.

It's always time for more popcorn. Light on the butter now, because this looks like a triple feature.

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 11:23 AM  

"Please note, we are unable to cancel your campaign or issue mass refunds for any campaign that has raised funds."

Nice catch. I should have read the rest of the page.

Blogger P Glenrothes January 05, 2019 11:47 AM  

Throw another SJW on the barbie. Enjoy another cup of liberal tears. I will donate any proceeds to building the wall.

Blogger Azimus January 05, 2019 11:49 AM  

Katyushas sounded awesome when they were launcehd. I always wondered what Katyusha's sounded like incoming though. How do they sound, Indiegogo?

Blogger Robin January 05, 2019 11:51 AM  

Odd that they make unnecessary usage of absolutes: “Contributions cannot be refunded by Indiegogo...” and “we are unable to cancel your campaign”. Obviously both of those have been proven false. They’d have been much better served with “shall not be refunded” and “we do not cancel campaigns”.

Blogger Salt January 05, 2019 11:58 AM  

Indiegogo, a lesson in gravity.

Blogger Ken Prescott January 05, 2019 12:21 PM  

"Odd that they make unnecessary usage of absolutes"

"Only the Sith believe in absolutes." -- NPC Jedi

Blogger Longtime Lurker January 05, 2019 12:22 PM  

Remarkable. IGG left the baggage train unprotected!

Blogger James Dixon January 05, 2019 12:24 PM  

"The rules don't apply to us, we're the good guys." - Every SJW everywhere.

Blogger Crew January 05, 2019 12:27 PM  

They will now attempt to retroactively change their terms of service and claim all those cached pages are fake news!

Blogger Wraithburn January 05, 2019 12:29 PM  

Best money I've spent on a campaign!

Blogger Doktor Jeep January 05, 2019 12:34 PM  

Destroy them and wear that organization like a skinsuit. Turnabout is fair play.

Blogger Silent Draco January 05, 2019 12:35 PM  

Salt, nice catch indeed. There is no logical or relational procedure on their own refund policy page for Indiegogo to initiate refunds after a campaign has ended, and not send funds to the campaigner as required. If the campaign has ended, their own words tell the backer to contact the campaigner for a refund. I re-read the page, then converted it to a logic diagram:

Backer:

IF

Campaign live = YES
AND campaign end = NO
AND perk fulfillment = NO
AND funds distributed to campaigner = NO

THEN

Refund from Indiegogo

ELSE

Contact campaigner for refund

END

Campaigner:

IF

Campaign live = YES

THEN

Refund to backer = YES

ELSE

Refund = NO

END

Right at the top, they ignored two of their own four refund conditions.

This does make one wonder if there were other campaigns canceled ex post facto, where the funding sits in limbo.

Did someone begin playing John Willimas' theme from "Jaws" in the background?

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener January 05, 2019 12:35 PM  

@15 I was surprised to see that they hadn't done that prior to refunding the AH:Q contributions. But as of now this language is still live on Indiegogo's site.

https://support.indiegogo.com/hc/en-us/articles/526876-Refunds-Can-I-get-my-money-back-

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams January 05, 2019 12:39 PM  

Not enough popcorn in the world.

Keep going, legal legion of evil!

Blogger OGRE January 05, 2019 12:41 PM  

So the campaign was already fulfilled and all that was left was to deliver the funds? Indiegogo may well have had a fiduciary duty at that point to deliver. They are essentially an escrow agent holding the funds in trust. If the terms of the agreement were completed then the duty to disburse the funds would be near inescapable.

Its comparable to a real estate transaction where a buyer deposits funds with a bank in escrow toward the purchase price. If the closing is completed the bank can't then decide they don't want to be involved and refuse to distribute the escrowed funds to the seller absent some very compelling reasons (such as a court order).

Point being, while the contract will define the actions and obligations that the parties owe to one another, the nature of the relationship created will determine the strength of the duty to fulfill those obligations. And at that point in time--where the other parties had performed all their obligations and Indiegogo was holding funds belonging to the other parties in trust--Indiegogo would have a fiduciary duty to fulfill the agreement and disburse the funds. Theres no discretion involved in that situation, you can't just back out.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener January 05, 2019 12:51 PM  

This brings to mind an old joke: What do you call the man who graduated at the bottom of his class in law school? Your Honor.

Blogger SemiSpook37 January 05, 2019 12:54 PM  

So what you’re saying is I owe you $25 since Indiegogo stole it from you?

Blogger Crew January 05, 2019 12:59 PM  

Salt, nice catch indeed. There is no logical or relational procedure on their own refund policy page for Indiegogo to initiate refunds after a campaign has ended, and not send funds to the campaigner as required.

Well, they probably also said they have the right to change the terms of service as they see fit and when they see fit, however, unless they informed people of that before they applied the policies of the changed terms of service I think they have lots of problems.

Blogger James Dixon January 05, 2019 1:00 PM  

> Indiegogo may well have had a fiduciary duty at that point to deliver.

Oh, definitely.

> Theres no discretion involved in that situation, you can't just back out.

Exactly. It's breach of a financial contract.

But let's wait and see. We no longer have a government of laws, as the handling of Hillary and Trump by our legal system has thoroughly demonstrated to everyone.

Blogger James Dixon January 05, 2019 1:08 PM  

> So what you’re saying is I owe you $25 since Indiegogo stole it from you?

No. IndieGoGo owes him the money. The fact that they refunded it to us is immaterial. In a properly run legal system, they'd be on the hook for the entire amount, plus interest, reimbursement for time and effort, legal fees, and some relatively large proportional amount to emphasize to them they shouldn't do it again (there's a term for that, but it's escaping me at the moment).

Blogger Alex January 05, 2019 1:26 PM  

The lawyer in me wishes I had a case as seemingly open and shut as this.

Blogger seeingsights January 05, 2019 1:36 PM  

@ James Dixon

Vox Day has a very strong case here, in what is a contract dispute.

We get crazy judicial rulings when a case has political social/political import.

Blogger Daniel January 05, 2019 1:39 PM  

Indie-uhoh.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer January 05, 2019 1:42 PM  

Its pretty clear that the lawyers weren't consulted, or ignored. SJWs think they can do pretty much anything they want in opposition to the bad thinkers because when they were in school they could. There were no repercussions. In fact, in college you get rewarded for repressing the bad thinkers. Its the natural order of things. They determine what speech is acceptable and use any means necessary to prevent speech that they disapprove of. After all, they are superior moral beings. How else could it be?

Blogger Ada Verdant January 05, 2019 1:42 PM  

The refund policy creates an agreement as between Indiegogo and the donor. Indiegogo did not breach the refund policy as between itself and the donor. The provision is clearly written for the benefit of Indiegogo and delineates circumstances under which they are not required to issue a refund. Because the provision is for Indiegogo's benefit, they can waive said provision and issue a refund anyway. Contrary to one poster's implication, waiving it in one case does not mean they have to always waive it. Indiegogo may have breached another agreement as between Indiegogo and the donor, but the refund policy isn't one of them, in my opinion. A breach of the refund policy would occur if they were required to issue a refund, but didn't.

It's a bit of a stretch, but I suppose you can make an implied contract/third party beneficiary argument as between Indiegogo and the campaigner. Essentially, the campaigner is an intended beneficiary of the refund policy and the campaigner justifiably relied on the language in the refund policy which states that "Contributions **cannot** be refunded by Indiegogo" once the campaign has ended. Essentially creating an implied contract that Indiegogo would not issue refunds after the campaign has ended, and said agreement was for the campaigner's benefit. Indiegogo then breached that implied agreement when it issued the refunds after the campaign had ended to the campaigner's detriment. However, if there is some other written agreement as between Indiegogo and the campaigner that allowed them to issue refunds after the campaign had ended, or cancel the campaign after the campaign had ended, then that would supersede the implied contract.

I haven't taken the time to look at all the terms, but that's my two cents as to the refund policy.

Personally, I like the "trust" argument made by Ogre (post #20)- an argument that can be made by the donors, even, but then it becomes a question of what are the damages to said donors. In fact, this is one reason why escrow agreements usually have liquidated damages provisions, since actual damages can often be difficult to prove in those scenarios.

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 1:56 PM  

Indiegogo did not breach the refund policy as between itself and the donor. The provision is clearly written for the benefit of Indiegogo and delineates circumstances under which they are not required to issue a refund. Because the provision is for Indiegogo's benefit, they can waive said provision and issue a refund anyway.

You're incorrect. The language is clear. They made assertions about being literally UNABLE to do so, not about reserving the right to do so. Nor did they "waive" the policy. They broke it. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, especially with regards to the obvious implications if they try to stand by their actions under the policy.

I have no doubt that Indiegogo will make the very case you are trying to make here. We're very much looking forward to that.

Blogger Crew January 05, 2019 1:58 PM  

/me wonders if Ada Verdant is an IndieGogo shill or employee even.

Blogger Ray - SoCal January 05, 2019 2:02 PM  

Congrats on making the rubble bounce.

And you have not even gotten to discovery...

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener January 05, 2019 2:04 PM  

The Refund Policy is incorporated by reference into Indiegogo's Terms of Use. Also, a basic provision of contract law is that provisions are for the mutual benefit of the parties unless a contract explicitly states otherwise.

Blogger Johnny January 05, 2019 2:05 PM  

It is always possible to lose in court, but it seems to me that the major issue here will be damages. Do you merit a money payout. And if so, how much.

Blogger Dave January 05, 2019 2:08 PM  

Vox, do you know if it's a single arbitrator, a panel, or tbd? Pros and cons either way, but I'd be inclined to go with the panel.

How does IGG's refund policy compare to the rest of the industry? If more or less the industry standard, it would be unusual if the arbitrator were to yield to IGG.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira January 05, 2019 2:12 PM  

Make it bounce.

Blogger Ada Verdant January 05, 2019 2:14 PM  

>They made assertions about being literally UNABLE to do so

The "unable to do so" part is covered in my second paragraph and the implication as to the campaigner.

You're misunderstanding the difference between breaching an agreement and waiving a condition. If I have a policy that I won't do something, I can always waive it to my own detriment. Again, it was also to the detriment of the campaigner, which was covered in my second paragraph.

I will add, you can argue that they committed a fraud as to the donor by misrepresenting that they were unable to issue a refund, but issuing a refund does not amount to a breach of their agreement with the donor as to their refund policy.

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 2:15 PM  

Kickstarter does not issue refunds, period.

Kickstarter does not issue refunds. Transactions are between backers and creators directly. To request a refund for a pledge, please contact the project creator. To message a creator, visit the project page and click on the creator's profile name. This will open their bio page where you can then click the "Contact me" button.

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 2:19 PM  

You're misunderstanding the difference between breaching an agreement and waiving a condition.

No, you're misunderstanding the difference between "unable" and "able but unwilling". They even emphasize the term cannot in their Refund Policy. You're trying to claim that "cannot" means "can".

Furthermore, this is the only "agreement". There is no signed contract. The Refund Policy and the Terms of Use are literally all there is, and cover both the backers and the creators. There is no separate "agreement" for backers and creators.

Blogger Ada Verdant January 05, 2019 2:22 PM  

>/me wonders if Ada Verdant is an IndieGogo shill or employee even.

I like Vox and I think he has a strong case. But I'm not a "yes" person, and in my experience people are better prepared if they fully understand counter arguments.

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 2:26 PM  

Hell, if we're going by industry standards, we should nail them for tortious interference too.

Kickstarter is not a part of this contract — the contract is a direct legal agreement between creators and their backers. Here are the terms that govern that agreement:

And what have we here in the Indiegogo Terms of Use?

When you, as a Campaign Owner creates a Campaign on the Site and asks for Contributions, you understand that you are entering into separate legal agreements with both Indiegogo and with Contributors, and the following rules apply (in addition to the all other Terms and Additional Policies).

We have tortious interference. And this section specifically explodes your argument.

Indiegogo offers a limited refund to Contributors in accordance with our Refund Policy. Refunds outside of our Refund Policy must be handled by the Campaign Owner, and Indiegogo has no obligation to provide any refunds or become involved with any dispute between a Campaign Owner and Contributor.

Right there in the terms of use: Refunds outside our Refund Policy must be handled by the Campaign Owner.

Were those refunds inside or outside the Refund Policy, Ada?

Blogger OGRE January 05, 2019 2:35 PM  

@30 Ada Verdant

but then it becomes a question of what are the damages to said donors.

A couple things to consider. The reason I used the term 'escrow' and not just 'trust' was because the platform is holding the funds for the benefit of both the donors and the beneficiaries, not just the beneficiaries. The duty of the escrow agent extends to both, not just the ones who will receive the property as would be the case in a simple trust. (For clarity, an escrow arrangement is a class of trust.)

I see no way to plausibly argue that theres not a trust here. Indiegogo had no ownership claim to the property, they were in control/possession of the property, and they made promises with regard to what they would do with the property. They can print out however many 1000 page contract agreements they want, they can update their terms of service very minute, but they can't redefine or contract away their status as a trustee.

But heres the interesting part, the one related to damages, and why I stressed that Indiegogo had a fiduciary duty: A breach of a fiduciary duty can give rise to an award of punitive damages. Thats not going to happen in arbitration, and it depends on the substantive law of the applicable jurisdiction if this were ever to proceed to court whether a punitive damage award requires fraud or malice, but just in general punitive damages are available as a remedy for breach of a fiduciary duty, whereas they would not be for most causes of action arising from a breach of contract.

Blogger Yordan Yordanov January 05, 2019 2:38 PM  

How did they fuck up this much? Did some intern cancelled it and they decided to play ball? Has no one in multiple departments read the terms of service? At what point does a person with reading comprehension comes in?

If this is the quality level Indiegogo is bringing to the table, it's going to be a short lawsuit.

Blogger Ada Verdant January 05, 2019 2:41 PM  

>Were those refunds inside or outside the Refund Policy, Ada?

Just want to say, I'm only trying to be helpful.

The difficulty is that it's not a typical refund in that it was not initiated by the contributor or campaigner. My guess is that they'll argue that since the refund was not initiated by contributor or campaigner, the policy doesn't apply

This particular language is quite bad for campaigners:

"Right to Withhold Funds. Campaign Owners should not assume that they will receive Contributions made to a Campaign. Disbursement of Contributions to a Campaign Owner may be delayed, or withheld in their entirety, for a number of reasons including, but not limited to, refunds, chargeback disputes, fraud, violation of the Terms or Use or any other policy, ***or any other situation where Indiegogo determines that Contributions should not be disbursed in its sole discretion***. Contributions may also be used to reimburse Indiegogo for any chargebacks and refunds incurred by Indiegogo for a Campaign. Indiegogo may also seek reimbursement from a Campaign Owner by any other lawful means, including by using third-party collection services."

"In it's sole discretion" is lawyer speak for they can do it just because they want to.

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 2:42 PM  

I like Vox and I think he has a strong case. But I'm not a "yes" person, and in my experience people are better prepared if they fully understand counter arguments.

I very much appreciate your counterarguments here. I knew your take on the Refund Policy was off - although you said you hadn't read the Terms, so that's understandable - and doubt I would have picked up on the tortious interference angle if I hadn't had to go back and look more closely at the industry standards, which caused me to pick up on the "separate legal agreements".

Blogger Ada Verdant January 05, 2019 2:43 PM  

@43 Oh yeah, like I said, I quite like the trust argument. I was thinking in terms of adding the donors as Plaintiffs and then wondering how damages would be measured as to the donors.

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 2:47 PM  

This particular language is quite bad for campaigners

It is. Fortunately, they specifically told us, separately, that they would deliver a certain amount on or about a specific date.

I don't disagree with the notion that Indiegogo probably COULD have gotten away what they did if they acted sooner, even one day before the end of the campaign. We wouldn't have even bothered to seek recompense in that case. But doing it two weeks AFTER the end of the campaign, and AFTER establishing a separate agreement to deliver a specific amount on a specific date, AND engaging in defamation of both creator and contributors, no, that simply won't fly.

Keep in mind that they acted 11 minutes after telling us that they were reviewing the campaign and a day before they actually retro-cancelled it. There is no way their lawyers even knew what happened until a day or two later.

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 2:47 PM  

I was thinking in terms of adding the donors as Plaintiffs and then wondering how damages would be measured as to the donors.

They are bringing their own class-action demand.

Blogger Ada Verdant January 05, 2019 2:54 PM  

>It is. Fortunately, they specifically told us, separately, that they would deliver a certain amount on or about a specific date.

If it was in writing, provided it didn't also mention additional conditions, I'd argue that created a separate "promise to pay", equivalent to a promissory note.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit January 05, 2019 2:54 PM  

Good on you and your team. It's a beautiful sound.

Blogger Pierre Truc January 05, 2019 3:45 PM  

So it appears that "Contributions cannot be refunded" yet IndieGogo already had the software infrastructure in place to do this at the press of a button...

IndieGogo sent me an email on 11 oct. 2018 at 23:36 saying "Your transaction to ALT-HERO:Q has been refunded". I'm sure if other backers look at the email timestamps it will be clear that the entire refund took maybe a few minutes, clearly not doable by humans but only by software.

Blogger Alphaeus January 05, 2019 3:47 PM  

Hey, all their Indiegogo now is belong to us?

Blogger Don't Call Me Len January 05, 2019 3:49 PM  

@45 - Indiegogo can withhold money to cover refunds that are impossible to make according to their own stated policy? The legal eagles at Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe are both impressed and appalled.

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 3:51 PM  

If it was in writing, provided it didn't also mention additional conditions, I'd argue that created a separate "promise to pay", equivalent to a promissory note.

It was, it didn't, and we did.

Blogger SirHamster January 05, 2019 3:51 PM  

James Dixon wrote:In a properly run legal system, they'd be on the hook for the entire amount, plus interest, reimbursement for time and effort, legal fees, and some relatively large proportional amount to emphasize to them they shouldn't do it again (there's a term for that, but it's escaping me at the moment).

Punitive damages. Intended to hurt the punished party and prevent future bad action, rather than compensating the damaged party.

Blogger rumpole5 January 05, 2019 3:56 PM  

It doesn't matter. Many judges just ignore law and contract and do whatever they think is fair. Moreover, everyone knows (because leftist told them) that you are a white nationalist evil nazi (even if you are native american enough to belong to a tribe) so you don't have any rights, and even if the contract is with a corporation and not you. Evil white nationalist native americans shouldn't be protected by limited liability concepts.

Blogger Dave January 05, 2019 3:58 PM  

IGG certainly has put itself between a rock and a hard place. My concern at this point would be a rogue arbitrator; why I lean towards a panel if an option.

Blogger Cecil Henry January 05, 2019 4:38 PM  

@7:

You might enjoy this SJW show then:

At least she's clearly made a FULL commitment to the 'identity':



Report: Rachel Dolezal, aka Nkechi Diallo, faces trial for allegedly stealing thousands in welfare

https://www.theblaze.com/rachel-dolezal-faces-march-trial-for-welfare-fraud

Blogger VD January 05, 2019 5:08 PM  

It doesn't matter.

It does matter. Not everyone is a quitter and defeatist like you.

Blogger Avalanche January 05, 2019 5:09 PM  

Vox: "C-can you feel that? Can you hear that? That sounds like... rubble. And it's... it's bouncing!"

LOVE IT! Brilliant!

It turns out I did opt-out to Indigogo: twice, for contributions numbered 99 and 935.

I sent "litle32000@yahoo.com" the 935 opt-out in Dec, and just found the 99 one today and sent it to them. Have I missed the boat entirely? I have not heard back from them.

Thanks!

Blogger Dr Caveman January 05, 2019 5:24 PM  

This is the most fun I've ever had backing a campaign. The possibility of nuking a converged organization from orbit is a lovely bonus perk

Blogger James Dixon January 05, 2019 5:48 PM  

> We get crazy judicial rulings when a case has political social/political import.

SJW's being able to deplatform wrong thing whenever and where ever they find it is very much of social and political import to the leftists.

> Indiegogo may have breached another agreement as between Indiegogo and the donor, but the refund policy isn't one of them, in my opinion. A breach of the refund policy would occur if they were required to issue a refund, but didn't.

Of course they can refund money when not required to do so. But they can't do so after not giving a refund to others in the same circumstances. The refund policy is either binding or it isn't. If it's not binding, then that needs to be made clear in the terms. There is no boilerplate "at InideGoGo's discretion" in there, which if their lawyers were any good there would have been.

> It is always possible to lose in court, but it seems to me that the major issue here will be damages. Do you merit a money payout. And if so, how much.

In the donors' case at most interest on the contribution. In Vox's case substantial, as he made business plans in expectation of receiving the money.

> A breach of a fiduciary duty can give rise to an award of punitive damages.

Thank you, Ogre. That's the phrase I was trying to remember. Also thanks to Sir Hamster for providing the phrase.

> "In it's sole discretion" is lawyer speak for they can do it just because they want to.

Exactly, but that wasn't in the refund agreement. Everyone who has ever been denied a refund by IndieGoGo now has a claim against them.

> It doesn't matter. Many judges just ignore law...

That may very well be the case. But let's force them to do so, shall we?

Blogger Rex Leroy King January 05, 2019 5:48 PM  

VD wrote:It doesn't matter.

It does matter. Not everyone is a quitter and defeatist like you.


He's also a Boomer.

Blogger Dirk Manly January 05, 2019 6:15 PM  

@3

"Meaning, if they refunded the money, that money no longer belongs to them. What they did was fraud with respect to their own stated policies, as well as theft, since the money is no longer theirs to do with what they will?

Is that the basic gist of the legal battles going on?"

That one is hard to make stick, because they didn't come out of it with any money.

The EASY legal theory to make stick is Tortious Interference -- IGG took actions to directly interfere with the Arkhaven by posing as a neutral administrator of escrow accounts, and then, per NO violation of IGG's own rules by Arkhaven or its customers, cancelled all of the transactions, by IGG violating their own stated rules and stated cut-off dates which they advertise to get Arkhaven and other entities to use IGG as an escrow manager.

Also, there is breach of contract: Since both Arkhaven and Arkhaven's backer's didn't violate any of the stated rules, then the only violation(s) of the stated rules were committed by IGG.

Discovery with regard to the emails is going to be fun.... and most likely funny, even while, at the same time, infuriating that Barker and the other accomplices in IGG were brazen enough to think they could get away with it.

I hope Vox reveals as much of that as possible (either before or after the court case).

Since IGG is a financial services company, I hope this ends up with IGG being forced to hire one or more compliance officers to monitor IGG's internal and business practices. That would be a REAL win over the SJWs.

"We're sorry, miss/ter/it Purple Hair, but Compliance and Legal tell us that YOU have to be deplatformed, de-employed, and demonetized."

Blogger camcleat January 05, 2019 6:48 PM  

@52

"IndieGogo sent me an email on 11 oct. 2018 at 23:36 saying "Your transaction to ALT-HERO:Q has been refunded". I'm sure if other backers look at the email timestamps it will be clear that the entire refund took maybe a few minutes, clearly not doable by humans but only by software. "

Interestingly, I never got a "you are getting a refund" email from IGG, even though they did, in fact, refund my contribution.

To me that's an indicator that they didn't know what they are doing at the time - no plan for this sort of thing in place, not following established policy, etc - just were "responding" to something.

Blogger Solon January 05, 2019 6:56 PM  

Verbal contracts are also legally binding, they're just much harder to prove: would need a phone call or VOIP clip with an IndieGoGo rep.

Writing would be easiest.

Blogger pdwalker January 06, 2019 3:47 AM  

This has been money well spent. What an entertaining shit show

Blogger By My Greybeard! January 06, 2019 11:40 AM  

@James Dixon
"...
> It doesn't matter. Many judges just ignore law...

That may very well be the case. But let's force them to do so, shall we?*


*Every one of us needs to ingrain that attitude within ourselves as S.O.P!

Blogger Silly but True January 07, 2019 7:45 AM  

Make it bounce!

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts