Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> The suit states that Kickstarter rules state that the creator is legally bound to fulfill, but may delay as much as need, but also must communicate regularly.

The suit does not state anything about creators being allowed to "delay as much as need".

> so the accusation is demonstrated intent to not deliver

No, the accusations are, in the first cause of action, representing that rewards would be delivered in approximately December of 2012 and not delivering them and, in the second cause of action, failure to provide refunds to those who requested them, and failure to offer refunds to those who had not requested them, given the failure to deliver.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/221464947/State-of-Washington-vs-A...

View on HN

Note specifically the middle part of 4.9. It does not say word-for-word the same thing i said, but it very strongly implies that delays are fine (and in fact they normally are accepted on kickstarter) as long as communication is kept up.

Also note the kickstarter FAQ itself:

https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter+basics#faq_...

    It's not uncommon for things to take longer than 
    expected. Sometimes the execution of the project proves
    more difficult than the creator had anticipated. If a
    creator is making a good faith effort to complete their
    project and is transparent about it, backers should do
    their best to be patient and understanding while
    demanding continued accountability from the creator.

> Note specifically the middle part of 4.9. It does not say word-for-word the same thing i said, but it very strongly implies that delays are fine (and in fact they normally are accepted on kickstarter) as long as communication is kept up.

The suit says that the Kickstarter FAQ strongly suggests keeping up communication in the event that delays are unavoidable, that does not say that the creators are allowed to delay as much as they need. Particularly, there is nothing inconsistent about it being a recommended course of action in the event that a binding obligation is not able to be met -- the fact that something is required doesn't always mean it is possible.

I feel obligated to point out that you guys are discussing the exact issue that the case will hopefully set some precedent for: that is, what constitutes an acceptable delay.

My guess is that it will shake out that any delay is actionable for a suit, but communications are a mitigating factor. It depends a lot on what kind of defense Altius goes for.

> I feel obligated to point out that you guys are discussing the exact issue that the case will hopefully set some precedent for: that is, what constitutes an acceptable delay.

We're really not, we're discussing what the suit actually says. What is actually an acceptable delay is a separate question.

I would be SHOCKED to see this go to trial. Not over $25k. The money is long ago spent (I'd bet) so the whole thing is a real waste of time.

I'm inclined to agree on the specifics of this case, but not in the abstract. Kickstarter and other crowd funding entities represent an interesting dearth of case law. Here, consumers aren't necessarily protected by either consumer laws or by investment laws.

Considering large corporations have purchased Kickstarted projects and major films have been produced with crowd funding, these are very important issues to begin sorting out.

The amount at issue in the suit isn't just the dollar value to make restitution to the victims (which itself might be more than just a straight refund), but also the $2k per offense civil penalty under the applicable consumer protection law. Depending on how offenses are counted under that law, the penalties may be more significant on their own than restitution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com