Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by phil21 1540 days ago
This has been the advice for quite some time. Just having court cases on your record can be seen as a black mark for both housing and some employers regardless of you winning them or their merit.

It's not a majority yet, but it's been slowly eating it's way into these sectors for the past couple decades.

Similar "scores" are being silently enacted for such trivial things like returning merchandise to retail stores. Stores now share information and will outright reject returns if you are deemed to have done too many returns in the past at a totally unrelated business.

Leave town with a $2 bank balance and forget to close the account out? Good luck getting a new bank account for the next 7 years with the "minimum account balance" fees drawing it into the negative regardless of fixing the oversight when notified.

Same for chargebacks on your credit card - chargeback more than then the calculated long-term EV of your account and you will find the process all of a sudden becomes very difficult and your account is likely closed shortly thereafter.

Same goes with Amazon - have a high value account that does $50k/yr in purchases? Returns are always granted no questions asked. Low value? You will start seeing pushback from customer service very quickly and account closure regardless of the validity or reasons for return.

The above are all examples I've personally experienced or witnessed.

Airline mileage programs that turned into revenue programs are likely where most of this ends up. Companies simply will stop servicing low EV customers altogether on an individual vs. the group basis as it's done now.

1 comments

Honest question: what's wrong with any of these examples?
Just to take the bank example: the bank should block any attempts to remove money from the account once it goes negative and then put a hold on it until the owner contacts them. Charging negative and continuously charging fees should just be illegal.
But all the money they lose on administration expenses! /s
It's probably wrong for landlords to be able to hold suing a previous landlord and winning against a prospective tenant. The winning part implies the tenant was correct and asserted their rights.

Of course, tenants being afraid to assert their rights is in the unethical self-interest of a landlord. A society that's attempting to be just should not want that.

Winning or losing in court has very little to do with being right or wrong.
That goes both ways. Tenant could lose and be in the right. At the very least if tenant won it shouldn’t be held against them as this discourages utilization of tenant protection laws.
Yes, it goes both ways; the tenant could have won by cheating and lying. There is no way to conclude anything without examining all of the facts and coming to your own conclusions.