“SXSW has a firm no-refund policy” | Hacker News Reader

“SXSW has a firm no-refund policy”

twitter.com

48 pointsawwstn33 comments

It does sadden me that folks will not be able to engage with the 2020 immersive brand experience that is better known as SXSW ( curated by KiaPepKraftFargoCo Inc LLC Esquire )

I mean, this year's experience included activities like $20 taco, guess the gluten allergy, and name-that-e-scooter-startup.

Not to worry!! 95% of all SXSW badges where purchased by VC backed social media managers where no one will actually give 2 shakes of a lambs tail when SXSW doesn't issue a refund. Their experience will be turned into a long format medium article outlining the companies personal struggle of grieving and loss caused by #COVID19.

Why not just charge back and move on with your life? If SXSW wants to have a dumb policy, they can deal with convincing the bank.

These things are not consumer purchase. These sort of event are paid well in advance and blind by legal contracts and documented terms. From initial down payment to finalising should normally be out of the charge back period. This is to protect both parties, such as companies pulling out from last min with no final payment and event organisers have to tried and sell vendor in the last min.

You can only charge back within a period of time. Here in New Zealand I think it is usually quite short, I think mine is 60 days. Visitors from overseas may have booked outside of that period.

I'm with you... ruin SWSW's credit score.

This is a good way to kill your credit score...

In the United States, the primary consumer credit score model (FICO) does not take chargebacks into account, regardless of whether they are legitimate or illegitimate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_score_in_the_United_Sta...

Legitimate disputes won’t kill your score.

If their policy indicates no refunds, how is that a legitimate dispute?

It's not losses regarding damage, or the client cancelling. The host cancelled, services not rendered and the transaction is therefor incomplete.

If I buy a sandwich from you and you take my money, the transaction isn't complete until you give me the sandwich ordered, regardless of your refund policy.

It is the host being forced to cancel. If you attempt to buy a sandwich and the sandwich shop burns down before you get your sandwich you don’t get a refund.

That is only because the sandwich shop has more important things to deal with, like the safety of their employees and customers. If you call up your credit card company and complain that you ordered a product that was never provided, you will absolutely get a refund.

Why do you think they canceled it..........

So, SXSW was forced to shutdown? By whom? Did they lose the money that was paid them? How?

Even if they said, hey, we're trying to get X refund for Y site and facilities... we're expecting to be able to give refunds of Z% of your deposit amounts (expect at least 50-80%. I would think most reasonable businesses would accept that. A total forfeiture, someone is making money off of this and definitely not doing anything to earn it.

The city forced them.

A couple of reasons: 1) Their "policy" does not override consumer protection laws. 2) Even if it was enforceable, when enough people call their credit card companies and request refunds it will cause so many problems for them that their "policy" will change.

If you pay for services or goods you should expect to be rendered those services or gifts in a reasonable time and manner. There are consumer protection laws that state exactly this.

The seller purported to be selling a service/product that was not provided.

In the US, the terms of service, policy, EULA, whatever, carries very, very little weight compared to the fraud committed by the seller. If you sell someone a thing, you provide them the thing, or the buyer chargebacks.

The clauses are to protect from damages resulting from those claims... not a cancellation from the hosting party. The transaction is incomplete, the funds should be returned.

No annual Fyre Festival for the rich folks. This is outrageous. Where are they going to feel special instead? Friends? Family? The horror!

I am going to argue that this is a good thing. If they legally had to refund in this case it would create an incentive to not cancel.

SWSX was already refusing to cancel despite everyone pressuring them to. It was irresponsible of them to try and keep the event. It was only a city mandate that finally forced their hand.

They’re already clearly profit driven. This type of behavior is just the cherry on top.

They didn't cancel it. The city did according to this report.

Their insurance won't cover them.

And I don't think you can blame SXSW for not having Pandemic or War etc etc insurance, that seems pretty normal.

"South by Southwest's cancellation this year will not be covered by insurance, founders Nick Barbaro and co-founder and managing director Roland Swenson confirmed to the Austin Chronicle Friday. (Barbaro is publisher the paper's publisher.)

On Friday, Austin Mayor Steve Adler announced the March 13-22 interactive, film and music festival that takes place throughout Austin was being canceled by city and county officials over concerns about the spread of the coronavirus. After the announcement, Barbaro told the paper that the SXSW organization does not have event cancellation insurance that covers disease outbreaks or city-wide emergency declarations."

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/touring/9330212/...

It sucks for the people who are losing money over this, but the policy is pretty clear, so it's harsh but fair. I think before we are done with the coronavirus, there will be a lot more economic losses spread around.

Just because the fine-print of a TOS or agreement says one thing about liability does not always make the terms enforceable. Many consumer protection laws are written to address the one-sided nature of agreements like this as the consumer typically cannot negotiate like they can with a normal contract.

A big case in point.

> The winner sued the New Hampshire Lottery last month under the name of Jane Doe, in a bid to collect the winnings through a trust to protect her anonymity.

Just because it's in writing -- it doesn't mean it's always enforceable.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/12/news/powerball-winner-anony...

It looks like he bought boothspace. I doubt that whatever laws exist about contracts of adhesion apply to that kind of business agreement.

force majeure clauses have been long held to be enforceable.

No losses for SXSW.

patio11 has a relevant Twitter thread [1] on 'force majeure' y'all might find interesting.

[1] - https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1237201843131797505

>What in the actual fuck

This person needs to spend less time using childish turns of phrase on the internet and more time understanding the contracts he enters his business into.

If the screenshot of SXSW's force majeure language is real, his attitude has evaporated any sympathy I otherwise had.

> This person needs to spend less time using childish turns of phrase

It is just one guy's Twitter feed.

> more time understanding the contracts he enters his business into

Sure, he is in no way going to get his money, but I would have expected a refund without reading the fine print. Some Fyre Festival goers got money back, and that event did actually happen (in some sense of the word).

It is surprising that SXSW did not have insurance to cover refunds, but if you never give refunds you probably don't need insurance and get to walk away with some profit.

Most insurance companies have force Force majeure/act of god clauses that would exclude them from this as well. Also it is highly likely that they are going to leave this with a loss. The convention space that they rented will not be able to be refunded as well, as well as advertising expenses etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com