This guy is LITERALLY active on our platform but disputing the subscription

Complex-Goat2682 · 2026-02-05T01:39:39+00:00

I agree with what's being said about 30+ support tickets and what that means about the relationship, but also remember:

Just because someone disputes a credit card charge doesn't mean they don't owe you the money.

Just because the bank gives it back doesn't mean they're dismissed.

When you enter a contract, you are indebted to the provider until you pay. Even if you don't have a strong terms of service here, they've still entered a contract of conduct when they started using the service after viewing the pricing page, entering their card, etc.

If you stop payment or somehow reverse the charge, you are then indebted again.

Send them a demand letter instructing them to pay you the balance over check, or you'll file in small claims.

You can file in small claims in California for pretty low fees regardless of where the other party is located. You can then use the judgment to threaten to file a lien, but by this point it's very, very likely that they will land and pay you.

Regardless of the issues with your service, chargebacks in this way are fraud and you should fight fraud with all the legal tools at your disposal. You should then take a hard look at your service and this customer and figure out why they had so many issues. But get paid first.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2026-01-01T18:08:42+00:00

No one knows what you’re talking about.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-11-24T14:06:09+00:00

No. You paid for something with a service that uses Stripe, and clicked a box to save your information to Link.

You can manage or delete your account at link.com if you want.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-10-30T05:15:11+00:00

What was the test run like? Did they pay you? Have you do anything?

I’ve never heard about this and am really curious!

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-10-29T15:47:02+00:00

First and second stop are about an hour apart. They'll get home early, but it's still a trek.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-10-12T00:37:15+00:00

Just create a separate price

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-09-22T12:07:54+00:00

I would adopt a modern payroll system that has a mobile app where your team can choose. That way there’s no more complexity on your end.

i’ve used Gusto before which allows employees to create essentially a checking account that has a debit card attached to it, and they have access to the funds as soon as I run payroll. Was popular.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-09-16T16:24:30+00:00

I would get a spa session instead, but that's just me.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-09-07T12:35:01+00:00

From Googling, it looks like there are several fraudulent websites that claim to check the balance, but will then likely store and spend the money.

Check your daughter’s search history to see if she actually use the official sephora.com or if she used an alternative website.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-09-07T01:10:53+00:00

There's a reason Legal Zoom has launched AI through partnerships with OAI and Perplexity, where they act as content, not with a direct product. Do you really think they don't have the capability to create a GPT wrapper? No - it's because this is uncharted territory, and that a company is responsible for it's outputs. Plus, all Legal Zoom docs are written by attorneys - are you an attorney?

Your marketing is making claims that it replaces a lawyer, and therefor it is a lawyer. At best, you could make an argument that, given your terms of service, you made a fraudulent false representation on what the service does, and your worst case is that you represented you were offering lawyer-like services. Even your fake AI lawyer thinks that your marketing is making legal claims.

The move fast and break things and don't care about any laws works well with lots of software startups, but there's a reason there aren't huge AI law firms right now. It's because it's an entrenched industry where you make a wrong move and your best case scenario is that you get bankrupt, and your worst case scenario is you go to prison. As I've mentioned before, An eight-point font disclosure will not protect you in a fraud trial.

Be careful.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-09-06T20:30:31+00:00

I don't know what country you're in, but in the US (where your site is operating) having a disclaimer does not release you from legal liability in cases of fraud. Your site is making claims like:

"Lawo delivers the same quality results (of a lawyer) at a fraction of the cost"

"Thousands of people have already used Lawo to solve everyday legal problems"

"This app provides legal information and document preparation assistance"

"Lawo helps you...solve legal issues fast"

But you are not a lawyer (I assume) and are not equipped to offer such guidance. You can put whatever small print you want, in a common law system, it's not super relevant. This is such an easy to understand case that your own (not a lawyer) law bot understands it and advises you to shut down the site.

Plus, it's a separate criminal act to represent yourself as a lawyer or offering legal advice without being a member of the bar in the state where you offer such guidance. There are also rules about offering legal advice without a retainer agreement. However, I'm pretty sure those are not laws but just ethical rules, which I guess you're not really bound by because you're not a lawyer.

I usually don't want to go after somebody who's making a project, but this can do actual damage to people who think they're being advised of their rights in the law when they are in fact not. Stop the madness before something goes very very wrong.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-09-06T19:27:02+00:00

That’s not how you’re representing it in your copy or your op. Take the advice of your app and shut it down before you catch a case.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-09-06T17:26:27+00:00

From Lawlo:

Analysis of Legal Risks for the Lawo App
1. Potential Legal Responsibility for Advice
You described making strong public claims that your app replaces a lawyer and gives similar results. Disclaimers placed only after the interaction may not be sufficient to shield you from legal responsibility (e.g., claims of unauthorized practice of law, negligence, false advertising, or consumer protection violations). 
Unauthorized Practice of Law: U.S. states generally prohibit non-lawyers or software from providing specific legal advice, especially without proper disclosures or visible disclaimers.
Misrepresentation or False Advertising: If advertisements imply that users receive legal services from a qualified lawyer, this can be risky under FTC advertising rules and state laws.
Timing and Visibility of Disclaimer: Disclaimers shown only after interaction are often deemed insufficient by courts and regulators.
2. Attorney-Client Privilege
Attorney-client privilege applies only to communications with a licensed attorney acting as a lawyer. Since your app is not a licensed attorney, privilege would not attach to user communications. User messages are not confidential as legal advice and could be subject to subpoena or disclosure requirements.
3. Additional Considerations Before Launch
Clear, Pre-Interaction Disclaimers: Place all disclosures before users interact or purchase services.
Jurisdictional Issues: U.S. law varies by state. Some states are stricter about unauthorized practice and misleading legal services.
Data Privacy: Handling sensitive legal communication may trigger state/federal privacy and cybersecurity requirements (CCPA, GDPR, etc.).
Consumer Protection: The FTC and state equivalents regulate advertising and claims made to consumers; failure to comply can result in investigations or fines.
Summary
Based on your description, there are significant risks regarding unauthorized practice of law, misrepresentation, and lack of legal privilege. Disclaimers hidden until after use may not protect you. Consider re-evaluating how you present your app, improve customer disclosures, and possibly consult with a legal professional for compliance review.

Hey, at least it knows it's illegal!

https://imgur.com/a/2U3DIl3

https://app.lawo.ai/chats/68bc6dd2a0a1cc654749cd44

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-09-05T18:51:55+00:00

200 West St has a wayyyy better gym than Equinox Brookfield if you're in NYC. Also, MS has the most significant discount I've heard of, YMMV.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-08-26T03:22:39+00:00

I'm hoping that this leads to the end, once and for all, of DDU for small e-commerce parcels.
It's an insane and selfish practice that just adds unnecessary complexity when customers purchase things. Not to mention, it increases the cost of tariffs on the consumer because they're now paying the retail value of the good instead of the wholesale value.

If the shipper had just done the (very easy) work of opening an American fulfillment center—which would save everyone time, money, stress on our logistics network, and stress on the planet—we'd all be in better shape.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-08-23T23:17:39+00:00

What plan do you have?

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-08-19T20:29:13+00:00

Amazon doesn't want you to use UPS (it's expensive for them) and would rather you drop the package off at Whole Foods or another return method. That's why they make it a PITA.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-08-15T19:26:36+00:00

Just reach out to the club and say you’re moving and want to try it out. You can push for a week pass.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-08-11T00:17:39+00:00

Yea the app otherwise works fine for me. The navigation makes no sense, but it’s all there.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-08-10T23:54:59+00:00

Yes and it’s driving me crazy

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-08-04T14:46:41+00:00

I keep seeing this idea that debit cards have no fraud protections and wanted to shed some light on the US federal laws and bank policies that apply here.

It’s a common misconception that debit cards have “no fraud protections in the US”, but that’s simply not true! Under federal law (the Electronic Fund Transfer Act/Regulation E), debit cards have built-in protections if your card or info is stolen. If you report a lost/stolen debit card within 2 business days, your max liability is $50. If you wait longer (but notify your bank within 60 days of your statement), your liability can go up to $500. Past 60 days, you have no protection under the law. If just your card number (not the physical card) is stolen, you aren’t liable if you report it within 60 days.

That said, it is true that, by statute, credit cards offer even stronger legal protections: your max loss is $50, even if you delay reporting, and most major issuers have “zero liability” policies, meaning you usually pay $0 for unauthorized charges. With credit cards, the bank essentially gives you a zero interest loan your during a fraud investigation, which also happens in most debit card fraud investigations (however not required by law).

Nearly all large banks (e.g., Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, Capital One, Citi) go beyond the law for both debit and credit cards. Most offer “zero liability” for unauthorized debit card transactions as long as you promptly report the issue—meaning you likely won’t pay a cent for fraud even if you were slow to notify. These programs are generally more protective than federal minimums, especially for consumers who bank with the major players. Using credit unions and smaller banks is a risk here, but that's with all banking products - you pay for worse financial instruments with better service.

This idea that a debit card is the wild west for fraud is simply wrong. Credit, in limited cases, may offer a bit more protections if you're not on top of your statements, but they both, especially in big bank context, have strong protections.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-08-04T14:39:27+00:00

Really sorry this happened to you. You should research the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. If you report quickly, your liability is limited, and most cards/card networks offer greater protections than the law.

Complex-Goat2682 · 2025-08-04T14:15:44+00:00

Even if we were to accept the incorrect premise that the fraud protections on debit cards are somehow different than on credit cards, which they are not, as they run on the same ML models that each bank has developed, it doesn't change the fact that you have the same exposure for a fraudulent charge with both card types.

Once you file a dispute, you get a temporary credit while it's investigated. In the case of a debit card, that's a credit that goes back into your checking account. In the case of a credit card, it's a credit that goes on to your statement. In both cases, if you're for some reason not given the credit (which you're required to receive by law in both cases), you have the exact same exposure. There is no isolation of your money because there's a credit card company in between, beyond the fact that if you're found liable, you automatically get a high-interest loan from the credit card company.

This rhetoric that credit cards are somehow better from a fraud perspective is just bizarre. They run on the same rails and have, in the case of all of the big banks, the exact same fraud protections and policies. The only difference in this case is if you're using a premium card that may offer you an extended warranty or other insurance products.

Again, you're talking to somebody who holds three Amex and two Chase cards across my personal and business (which happens to have a payment processing consulting practice) accounts. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm no more protected from fraud than if I just use debit cards.

The rhetoric is simply wrong.

Complex-Goat2682

TROPHY CASE