''in connection with fraudulent, abusive or unlawful activities as determined by us''.......interesting...I wasn't aware that a private business was allowed to determine what's legal and what's not. Funny I had this idea that a determination of legality required cops, lawyers and courts, if not Congress. This kind of fake legalese is what's gonna get the internet strictly regulated one day soon.
Jonathan Dunn (jondunn@amazon.com) who introduces himself as "the Amazon attorney responsible for supporting Amazon Mechanical Turk." would be the best way of approaching the situation. Either email him directly or add him to the email sent to jeff@amazon.com.
Would this be relevant to JAWN? Spoiler Adhesion Contract (Contract of Adhesion) Definition A standard form contract drafted by one party (usually a business with stronger bargaining power) and signed by the weaker party (usually a consumer in need of goods or services), who must adhere to the contract and therefore does not have the power to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract. Adhesion contracts are commonly used for matters involving insurance, leases, deeds, mortgages, automobile purchases, and other forms of consumer credit. Also known as adhesive contract; adhesory contract; adhesionary contract; take-it-or-leave-it contract; leonine contract. Courts carefully scrutinize adhesion contracts and sometimes void certain provisions because of the possibility of unequal bargaining power, unfairness, and unconscionability. Factoring into such decisions include the nature of the assent, the possibility of unfair surprise, lack of notice, unequal bargaining power, and substantive unfairness. Courts often use the “doctrine of reasonable expectations” as a justification for invalidating parts or all of an adhesion contract: the weaker party will not be held to adhere to contract terms that are beyond what the weaker party would have reasonably expected from the contract, even if what he or she reasonably expected was outside the strict letter of agreement.
Of course, the cost of obtaining an attorney to run it through the court system far outweighs the money lost. That's what companies bank on, pretty much. Until the day that someone with a ton of cash decides to yolo it for fun to see what happens (unless this has already happened and I just don't know about it).
$400 is small claims, no attorney required. Amazon might not even contest such a small amount. Has anyone tried that before?
I wonder if any super tech-savvy and pissed off NEET ever tried to launch a DDOS attack at Turk for something like this LOL. I could totally see some of the guys who troll servers and hack corporate websites trying to do that. It would be Gawd-awful for the workers who are trying to get paid at that time (i.e. us) and I'm sure it would never work or even last long, but it would be funny af to witness.
I know literally nothing about small claims - can you go that route when you're, in essence, contesting a TOS agreement? I wonder if that's been done.
Wouldn't TOS be something that would involve the federal level? Not because of its dollar value, but because it involves a contractual dispute involving numerous workers? I have never been to small claims court but I always thought it was really petty stuff like a landlord tenant dispute or a fight between roommates or when someone scratches your car.
AWS powers some of the biggest sites on the internet. It's unfathomable that one person would be able to do anything.
God damn, you did the whole batch? I thought it was only up briefly before getting pulled. I probably missed it, then.
JAWN, so sorry about your account. The statement about not being able to provide insight is what I find most disturbing. Refusing to even tell you why is a problem.
Not sure about that, but yeah it seems too complex for small claims. If Amazon was just a regular ole client who refused to pay up, yeah. But this kind of thing involves contracts and third-parties and bullshit. Just doesn't seem worth the headache. It's way easier dealing with clients one on one for this reason (where you *can* drag em to piddly court if need be).
Recovering the funds and having his account reinstated might best be handled as separate issues to avoid muddying the waters. The small claims would be to obtain money he is owed. The TOS would be considered, but the judge has a lot of latitude to interpret it. EDIT: I'm not suggesting that JAWN start with court, I'm thinking into the future if Amazon won't resolve it.
That's typical of big companies like that. Paypal does the very same thing. They suspended my account and refused to tell me why. Had to grasp straws as to what it was and found it: Identity theft. Someone created an account using my info. Once I provided proof that I filed a police report of identity theft on other accounts like bank and unauthorized purchases prior to this suspension did they restore my account back. That was pure luck that I guessed the reason.
In cases like that it sucks even more that they won't tell you. If you hadn't guessed the reason, they would have just kept quiet while someone was using your information. You would think possible identity theft would be a compelling reason to tell you.
In more depressing news, my damn Mac has 4 GB of memory ALL OF WHICH IS USED UP. So I cannot add anything to it! So frustrating.
This is probably the wrong time for a teachable moment, but here goes anyway... For the love of FSM, everyone, don't leave money in your mturk or (probably) Amazon payments account. Make regular withdrawals - you can do it as often as once a day. Until you do, a multi-billion dollar corporation can take it from you on a whim.