Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcosdumay | Hacker News Reader

As a rule, there's nothing wrong about a default to accepting making deals with strangers.

And that's the only thing similar in here. The payment processors are not selling anything by fraudulent claiming they evaluated their quality.

What they do have is a very bad customers service that is prone to a different kind of crime (withholding people's money) and create a very unique kind of risk they don't communicate to their customers.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure this would be considered a deceptive business practice by most courts of law. You can't just straight up lie about the terms of a business agreement - i.e. if you say you've evaluated a customer's creditworthiness but you really haven't I think there is a very good argument that any agreement was not made in good faith, however, Stripe's ToS probably requires mandatory arbitration, etc, so I'm not sure what recourse you have as a customer.

Arbitration doesn't mean no-recourse or bias toward to the provider.

Arbitration does absolutely means a bias to the party that requires it. You can't have a long-term relationship with a company and not acquire some bias.

Even if the arbiter is pure and just the company will learn how to represent its side in the best light before the arbiter; it has many chances to learn.

The other side has one chance to learn.

Right, think about it as a consumer. I don't want a gas station to run a credit check, or ask for proof of employment before I fill my tank. They just accept the card. But that does mean they bear risk for chargebacks if the card was stolen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com