I visited Kitsplit, holy misleading advertising batman.
> Your gear is always covered. KitSplit renters must show proof of insurance coverage, which we vet, or they must buy it through us or leave a deposit for the full value of the gear.
Always covered unless they just outright steal it, then not at all covered. There's numerous examples of similar text throughout their site. In fact I spent a good 15 minutes and finally found this mid way through the final paragraph of their insurance page:
> Please note, however, that the insurance accepted on KitSplit is industry standard equipment rental insurance and does not cover some rare instances, such as if a renter commits fraud.
They also say things like this:
> We strongly encourage all owners to have their own annual insurance policy for their gear, in addition to the coverage provided by KitSplit. [..] We strongly encourage all owners to review and understand the terms of their insurance policy and what it covers and does not cover.
What they mean is that neither your insurance or theirs will cover fraud. So using the service, even double insured, is high risk.
> We are a small team of filmmakers and photographers
Kind of odd in contrast to what you said about yourselves about your most recent round of funding:
Even when they say it it’s still misleading. Fraud is not a layman’s term. Theft or stealing is. The obvious takeaway for a normal person when seeing the words “rare” and “fraud” together like that is to assume that it means something other than stealing. Because people stealing nice cameras isn’t even slightly rare.
This misleading is intentional. They vet, but do not stand behind it.
> "I love that KitSplit is building community and providing a safe & secure rental market for gear."
We see that KitSplit is neither safe nor secure for your gear.
My favorite statement from their website:
> 'One of the benefits of renting through KitSplit is that we ensure that your gear is covered for peace of mind.'
There is no real peace of mind, because your stuff may be stolen anyways in spite of their "vetting" process.
And you'll be rebuffed unless you make a large enough stink.
There’s exactly one thing a middleman company like this is supposed to be useful for, which is facilitating the transaction and standing behind it.
I have no idea why anyone is defending this company, their policy is obviously unethical unless they have very visible clear disclaimers equal in weight to their other communications saying they aren’t responsible for the renter stealing from you. In which case it’s just a dumb business model.
This. The best interpretation of this situation where KitSplit hasn't done anything dishonest still looks really bad for them.
At the point where you're already worrying about all of these details, why would you use KitSplit instead of just opening your own business and posting classifieds?
I ran into this with a photo company my parents used to use (Snapfish, no reason not to name them). My Mom called me up one night and said that some of her older photos wouldn't load any more. Did some debugging, contacted support, apparently the photos had just vanished during a database migration one day.
They gave me the same excuse -- "our service isn't meant to be used for backups and we don't guarantee any reliability." This is not something that they ever make clear in any advertising, but whatever. Thankfully I had my own backups of her computer, and afterwards I told her to stop using the service. My reasoning was, "even assuming that they weren't dishonest, you're left with a pretty crappy service that doesn't do anything." It's like buying a battery that doesn't guarantee that it will transmit power.
So the best case scenario for KitSplit that they want us to take away from this is... they're just a slightly fancier Ebay? Not a good advertisement.
If KitSplit wanted to pursue this, they could just sue for the unpaid rental at the daily rate. E.g: at $95/day after two months, KitSplit can sue the customer in civil court for $5700 in unpaid rental fees. Likely they're just overwhelmed with all kinds of crazy things going on and are short on cash to follow up.
I don't believe them when they say this is not illegal.
> NEW YORK CONSOLIDATED LAW SERVICE
PENAL LAW PART THREE. SPECIFIC OFFENSES
TITLE J. OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT
ARTICLE 165. OTHER OFFENSES RELATING TO THEFT
> § 165.00. Misapplication of property
> 1. A person is guilty of misapplication of property when, knowingly possessing personal property of another pursuant to an agreement that the same will be returned to the owner at a future time ... (b) he intentionally refuses to return personal property valued in excess of one hundred dollars to the owner pursuant to the terms of the rental agreement provided ...
While the victim is in NY, dev is in LA. So if NYPD were to call LAPD, he can be charged there as well with Larceny:
> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
> Part 1. Crimes and Punishments Title 13. Crimes Against Property Chapter 5. Larceny § 484.
> ... a person has leased or rented the personal property of another person pursuant to a written contract, and that property has a value greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000) and is not a commonly used household item, intent to commit theft by fraud shall be rebuttably presumed if the person fails to return the personal property to its owner within 10 days after the owner has made written demand by certified or registered mail following the expiration of the lease or rental agreement for return of the property so leased or rented ...
So all the victim has to do is send certified mail requesting the property to be returned. Otherwise the renter gets charged.
Absolutely. KitSplit is being foolish. KitSplit is by far best placed to manage the risk here, given that they have the data, the time, and the incentive. They saved themselves $2500 by not paying out on a theft, but bought themselves a lot more bad publicity.
I'm so tired of startups with a "heads we win, tails you lose" set of policies. If they can't make the economics work while being honest, the solution is not to bury, "sorry, you're fucked" down in some obscure policy file.
Theft of property is criminal. Not sure how you reasoned yourself sideways on that with red tape bullshit. Sue the company and the renter in small claims court and have some fun with it. Company will be forced to deal with it and that might get them to eventually change their bullshit policy. Credit card of renter should be pre-auth’d for full replacement of new item. How they aren’t doing that is negligent and asking for trouble. So is having an overly restrictive insurance policy. Makes me think the company has terrible legal counsel.
Seems like a straightforward case for small claims court against KitSplit. You just have to sell the judge on a very straightforward case. The thing about not getting fucked over in situations like this is having the intestinal fortitude to bully companies like KitSplit into making it right for you. You'll probably get compensated by them by blogging about it but you probably could have just muscled them to give you your $4.5k in small claims court.
This isn't theft it's misappropriation. Subtle distinction, but basically: theft covers illegal takings, misappropriation covers illegal "keepings." Sadly New York doesn't have the misappropriation framework other states have.
NY has something called "false promise" larceny, which is similar, but it requires showing intent to defraud even before the rental agreement. The mere keeping of rented property isn't sufficient to prove intent, explicitly in the statute.
Worked for a prosecutor in another city. Withheld rental cars were incredibly annoying, even without the weird NY penal code.
Naturally this is not legal advice and don't steal or misappropriate stuff it's dumb and cruel and probably illegal for you for some reason I'm not realizing.
And if you don't recover anything, you can also write this off on taxes for the business you hopefully incorporated for the purpose of renting your equipment through.
I don't see why KitSplit wouldn't just cover this out-of-pocket. If it really only happens 0.02% of the time, the cost of reimbursing the lender can't possibly be higher than amount of good-will lost by not doing so.
That may be the problem right there. It most likely happens far more frequently so they can't insure and they can't self-insure. So the loss of good-will is small in comparison to the loss of funds. A broken model with sufficient marketing money behind it is indistinguishable from a working company right up until the moment the whole thing comes crashing down.
I just did the math on this and 0.02% of $4,000 is around $1, while KitSplit apparently charges 20% fees, or $20 on a $100 rental. It sure seems like they could afford to self-insure.
Or are you saying that they're lying about the 0.02%?
Likely. And even if they weren’t lying, admitting full liability would be an incentive to fraud (arrange for your kit to be “stolen” by a co-conspirator, then collect the reimbursement) so you would probably see that percentage soar.
If you wanted to commit insurance fraud, you wouldn't get a third party involved (with some vetting process and photos), too much effort, leaves too much of a paper trail, etc.
You'd just smash a window or kick in a door then file a police report then an insurance claim.
They say theft only happens 0.02% of the time. But according to the article, they consider it "voluntary parting" instead of theft when someone doesn't give back a rental camera. It's a sneaky move on their part.
Alternatively, make it optional coverage that the equipment owner can purchase or waive when setting up a rental.
That way they break out the costs separately (not having to show higher prices), and they could make extra revenue because they are in an additional business.
This kind of thing is already common with other transactions. The cell phone company offers protection plans in case someone steals my phone. Shippers (USPS, UPS, FedEx) offer insurance.
As long as you don't price gouge on it, it also eliminates hard feelings when something does happen because you can say, "Well, it was your decision not to pay the $10 to cover this."
Peter H here, the original author of this piece, with an update. I want everyone to know that while this has been a really trying situation, KitSplit has gone to great lengths to help. KitSplit has now fully compensated me for the full value of the gear that was lost, even though this is beyond their legal requirements. They’ve also assured me they are making improvements to their policies and will have additional updates soon. Even before this happened, I continued to use KitSplit —in part because I have been impressed with their customer service throughout this experience. Now, I am pleased that they went above and beyond to help, and are taking this as an opportunity to reflect and improve their system.
There's legal requirements, and then there's ethical requirements, which are not necessarily the same.
If they are supposedly vetting renters, then it should be incumbent upon them to stand behind their vetting. They should also very unequivocally state that if the renter just walks off with your gear you will not be compensated.
So sure, maybe you're getting repaid by KitSplit because you wrote a blog post about it, but what about everybody else who this has happened to. I doubt you're the only one. If they improve their practices because of this that's great, but the fact that it took months for them to come around, and only after they got some bad publicity, is not a good sign.
It's hard to see how this situation can't lead to charges. Not returning a rental car is grand theft[1], at least in CA; this situation isn't dissimilar. Specifically, see [2]: "voluntary parting" is just insurance lingo, from the legal standpoint, it's simply theft.
Have you sought legal advice on the matter? The police is not an impartial source here, nor the most qualified.
You do realise the only way they compensated you wasn't to "help" you, but to try and shut you up when you started speaking out loud and the story got popular.
If they wanted to help you they'd compensate you immediately, instead of hiding behind their "insurance" that so conveniently for them does not cover theft.
Ugh, that really sucks. I worked on the same idea back in 2013 before Kitsplit came around [0]. Funnily enough, theft didn't keep me up at night, damage did. Especially hard to detect internal damage.
I've met Lizbeth and Kristina and they are solid, thoughtful people committed to helping creators. I think they played this hand incorrectly, however. I can't figure out why they wouldn't eat the cost here and work with their insurance provider to get a 'voluntary separation' clause as part of their coverage so this doesn't happen in the future.
This appeal by insurance companies to Voluntary Parting may be legal but it's wrong.
Suppose you are in Disneyland with your $4,500 camera. Someone comes up to you, pulls out a gun, and says, "Give me your camera." So you do. Is that not theft? Now suppose instead someone comes up to you and offers to take a picture of you and your family but then runs off with your camera. Somehow this falls outside of normal insurance and is called Voluntary Parting. This is ironic because the first instance is actually more voluntary, because at least you knew what was happening.
I suppose this began in the insurance industry to stop the bleeding by naive owners, who entrusted their stuff to someone that the average person would not. But it seems to me that this could have been dealt with in a clause about negligence, which is an established legal topic. There is no need to lie by calling it Voluntary.
Either way, I believe the writer's parting was neither voluntary nor negligent. KitSplit should cover it if the renter runs off with the gear --- or else make it abundantly clear that you need insurance and that you need to explicitly ask your insurance company for the extra coverage for "Voluntary Parting."
"Voluntary Parting" is just insurance contract lingo to absolve them of paying out in this particular scenario.
It's called so on purpose, to divert attention, in the spirit of the "PATRIOT" Act: the meaning is the opposite of what the name implies.
Any sane naming would call this "Not getting your shit back" exemption, but hey, that actually calls into question getting this insurance in the first place.
So, yes, no matter what KitSplit and their insurance say, the coverage is simply not there.
Also, the author's choice of title is deceptive. He did not have it 'legally' lost in any way. Crime -- fraud or theft -- most certainly happened, which is why the police became involved. (Note - the author twice mentions the involvement of the NYPD and once claims that the police refused to participate because it wasn't a criminal matter. Perhaps he meant to say 'formerly of the NYPD' and 'from the PI', but it's at best unclear. I suspect the police refused to get involved with his civil dispute with the insurance company; the author is certainly not careful to distinguish between the various legal elements.)
His insurance through KitSplit has a legally-sound clause allowing them to deny coverage for 'voluntary parting' (a term which explicitly includes criminal fraud). But that doesn't make the thief's actions legal.
Again IL-specific, but almost certainly generalizes: "theft" as far as the criminal code is concerned --- which is different than what an insurance contract means by the term --- happens whenever a person "knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over property and intends" (through several possible mechanisms) "to deprive the owner permanently of the use of that property." [0] Definitely includes what happened here, definitely illegal on the thief's part.
The NYPD is useless on stuff like this. I had a camera stolen too, different circumstances but I knew exactly who did it and when and it would have been on a security camera but the cops just refused to take a report.
I learned later from blog posts and news reports that this is a common problem. A higher value theft is a comstat reported crime and their entire life depends on making those numbers go down for their precinct.
They have a long history of coming up with reasons why they can’t take a report on stuff like this but it’s bullshit. In the unlikely event that this ever happens to you and you remember this post you insist on not leaving without a 61 (the name of the form) and ask for supervisors until you get one.
Then it’s in the system as an unsolved crime and they have an incentive to solve it, per the same stats system.
And certainly, as many people have pointed out, "neglect" to return your rental car to Hertz and watch how quickly a warrant is issued for your arrest for GTA - it's certainly not considered "not a criminal matter".
Once I was a bit late and got back to the drop-off location after close. They tried their very best to make it impossible to drop-off after-hours (can't even slip keys under door).
When I called the rental co. to see what I could do (e.g. extend a day), their centralized call centre script went something like this:
"blah blah blah you had a contract with us, you have to immediately go drop the car off at one of these other locations, blah blah blah".
Why make me sound like a criminal when I called YOU to figure out a plan?
Anywho, came back the next day and paid for an extra day with no added penalties/handcuffs. Much more convenient than bee-lining it to their downtown location.
Read the statute and it's obvious why the police had no interest in pursuing this, the burden for intent is basically impossible to meet in that jurisdiction.
It seems pretty obvious that the author was wronged by the renter. Also, it looks like this is not the first time that the robber stole something (illegally, even though the insurance is exempt from paying). So then why is the author hiding the robbers identity? In this case I would hope that the author would display all known pictures and information about the robber, in hopes that he will be found out at least shamed.
Why are the photos of the thief blurred out? Convenience stores often have a "wall of shame" of shoplifters, is this any different?
Also,
>KitSplit has now fully compensated me for the full value of the gear that was lost
smells a lot like trying to fix the bad publicity around what's, frankly, a bullshit situation. If I rent a car from a rental company and just don't return it, is that """voluntary parting""" therefore not theft? I don't understand how the author got talked into thinking that this is somehow legally okay. If I were him I'd definitely be taking this to small claims court.
Is this “Voluntary Parting” nonsense specific to KitSplit or is this more widespead in the industry. Anyone know? For example when I rent my car thru Turo they say the same thing.
From what I can tell, "voluntary parting" appears to be an insurance term not a legal one. Basically, it's just an exclusion on insurance coverage - you experience a loss under these circumstances, we won't cover it. The author is confusing insurance coverage with the law and claiming it was "legally stolen," which is nonsense.
Saw an article about a jewelry company gave a million and a half dollars worth of inventory to a fake armored car company and their insurance company denied the claim due to this exclusion and it was upheld on appeal, ouch.
They say it's a standard exclusion
>There are no gear rental insurance providers that cover voluntary parting when the renter purchases the policy. This treatment of voluntary parting is standard in the insurance industry and is not unique to KitSplit.
(I'm guessing a policy that covers "voluntary parting" is cost prohibitive. I guess it sorta makes sense - otherwise you wouldn't have an incentive to vet anyone.)
As an aside, I encourage everyone to always read their full insurance polic(ies), misunderstanding about insurance coverage is common.
I just watched an episode of Seinfeld where Jerry's car was stolen by his mechanic, but insurance wouldn't cover it because he gave the mechanic his keys (voluntary parting)
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a coworker six or seven years ago. Dude comes to me to get me to help him spec out a web-based "tool sharing" service. I told him that what he was proposing, first and foremost, automated discovery for would-be tool thieves and politely declined to involve myself in his project.
Sure it is, a cursory search of a person before going into business with him is wise to do and places like forums often dox serial scammers. This guy is going to continue to scam and it will take a long time before law enforcement actually does something. Having that information out there might save some people from getting screwed over in the future.
>You could get sued or even (rarely) trigger some kind of vigilante justice overreaction.
To be fair you could be sued for just about anything. By the sound of it, I don't think this guy is going to be able to fund a legal team. Also, unless you enticed a vigilante to 'go get him', I don't think you're liable posting details and an account of your experience. Blur out nonpublic information like his drivers license #, passport #, or SSN.
EDIT: I should add, I was a very early OTC bitcoin trader. We had these assholes that could come in and scam $10 paypal trades all day everyday. Part of having the details out for members like 'bitscotty' was so law enforcement could see it was a long and documented pattern. People who didn't research still got scammed, but their accounts afterward would get added to the pile and eventually the police actually took action.
From Kitsplit's statement at the bottom of the article:
> Our vetting system has successfully blocked millions of dollars worth of theft, and our incidence rate is .02% in 2018.
How did they derive the "millions of dollars" figure? It feels like they're including everyone who fails their vetting process in their count — that's not a nice way to treat potential customers.
If you're coming to the comments without reading the article, the company eventually fully oaid his camera despite how most commentors are acting. The situation was resolved - I don't know why people are suggesting legal action.
>I want everyone to know that while this has been a really trying situation, KitSplit has gone to great lengths to help. KitSplit has now fully compensated me for the full value of the gear that was lost, even though this is beyond their legal requirements.
I take some issue with the $4,500 figure. Searching eBay for recently sold listings of used gear, a used Canon 5DS R is worth ~$1800, and the lens ~$600.
$2,500 is a long way off from $4,500. Even longer when you consider they short-changed him about $500, not $2,500.
I'm not defending the service; they should have just offered to replace the gear or offered a fair amount, but it's worth pointing out what the situation really is.
I guarantee, as someone who just bought a used 24-70, that anything you get for 600 is going to be in a pretty mediocre condition. You're looking more like 1300. Glass doesn't lose its value. Similar with the body, there's more to it than "used" vs "new", quite a bit more.
Basically this entire article comes down to the fact that agents of KitSplit lied to his face in an online chat, and he wasn't savvy enough to keep a transcript of that chat.
I honestly don't feel any sympathy for the guy. Any time you're concerned about something and an agent of a company assures you of a particular outcome, e.g. "the insurance will cover it", you'd be completely foolish to a) use that assurance to make your decision while also b) not keeping a record of that assurance. I try to do all my support by chat or email just for the papertrail.
It's worth noting that, at least in my state (IL), the criminal statute for consumer fraud explicitly does not require mens rea (criminal intent) - merely a deceptive statement that leads the company toward financial gain. What's more, the statement doesn't actually have to be false (just deceptive), and the employee making it doesn't have to be aware if it's false.
That criterion would obviously be met here, and I would not hesitate to write the attorney general's consumer fraud department in this situation -- with the transcript I would have kept, of course. I've done so before for a health insurance dispute that basically mirrored the events in this story (being correctly wary, being assured by a corporate drone that things would be covered, then finding they are not covered).
Obviously criminal prosecutions under that statue are quite rare, but even so it's amazing how a company's "last offer" quickly becomes "here, let us give you literally everything you initially asked for" when it's a (free!) moderator from the AG's office writing on your behalf.
You should have sympathy for the guy. Maybe he didn't do everything right to protect himself but he entered that transaction in good faith and was screwed over by the company and by the renter.
I think it's a bad tendency to blame victims because they weren't savvy enough. KitSplit seem to be just a bunch of a..holes who don't take responsibility for their business.
>and doesn't seem to have bothered to get the insurance
It might not be possible to get insurance that covers "voluntary parting" if all the companies are doing that (or asking for crazy premiums without this clause).
It's not irrational to take on the risk vs. buying insurance. His equipment is not that expensive (say, people renting out their cars on Turo are in a different league); it still might make enough sense to vet renters more and cover the risk out-of-pocket.
I have to agree with totof. I think the author is a fool, and doubly so for taking the time and effort to carefully document his own foolishness.
He spent $4500 to learn that you shouldn't lend $4500 to random strangers with "no feedback", no collateral, no credit card, no way to collect... on the say-so of some random startup. That's pretty foolish.
It sucks that he got ripped off, and it sucks that the company rep lied to him in the chat. From what he says though it seems to me like they're trying to do right by him after the fact. Maybe they are a bunch of amoral jerks, or maybe they're just "a small team of filmmakers and photographers who ... work hard to make KitSplit as safe as possible" and who just messed up, eh?
I also think it's a bit lame for him to take the $2000 they offered him and keep using the service but write a blog post complaining that that's not good enough.
At least he learns from his folly! That's encouraging.
> I feel like everyone is to blame, including (and especially) myself. I should have read the fine print better and protected myself.
$4500 is a lot to pay for such a basic life lesson, but at least he wasn't physically hurt, and if he sticks with it and is careful he may yet break even on KitSplit, eh?
I would say that the person to blame is the dude who ran off with the camera.
I don't blame Peter H. for getting ripped off, but I do think it's his responsibility to look out for his own camera, and that he made a foolish mistake.
> He spent $4500 to learn that you shouldn't lend $4500 to random strangers with "no feedback", no collateral, no credit card, no way to collect... on the say-so of some random startup. That's pretty foolish.
It's not inherently foolish. The startup is perfectly capable of insuring the loss, and if was insured then there would be no problem at all.
It's foolish to expect that no theft will ever happen. It's not foolish to evaluate the risk level, compensate for it, and then do the lending. Insurance is a valid form of responsibility for a fungible product. You only do it with something replaceable, but a camera is extremely replaceable.
Guy generously loans out his expensive gear and gets it stolen, but you don't feel even a little sorry that was the outcome? Rather, you think it was his fault because he somehow should have known better?
As a sibling mentions, there was nothing generous about this. You loan things to friends, but don't charge. That's generous. Renting is just a business transaction.
If you rent your apartment on AirBnB, congrats, you're in the landlord business. If you rent your equipment on whatever-the-site-is, congrats, you're in the equipment rental business. Both of those businesses have jerks in them, who are negligent and/or malicious. If you don't want to deal with the negligent and/or malicious, you shouldn't be in the rental business.
So -- unlike sibling -- I'm sympathetic, but really, dude wants to make money from the rental business without the downsides and he really ought to have known that's not how the world works.
This is why you go through an intermediary.... becuase you don't want to be in the camera renting business because of all the risks etc -- which is why the intermediary should have covered this.
I -- just spitballing numbers -- can't see how the intermediary can cover $4.5k in equipment while being paid $14.25/day. And, tbh, that should be pretty obvious.
Well, they claim that this happens less than one in a thousand rentals[0], so statistically speaking, a one time fee of $4.50 for the entire rental period should be about enough to cover their expected risk, right?
I don't buy the combination of, "this is rare so you shouldn't worry about it", and "it's too risky for us to cover you ourselves."
No. Even assuming that the $4.50 covers renter peacing out with the equipment, you still have to cover damage, which is probably far more common. And make a profit.
Okay. Add an optional $4.50 fee in addition to the current price and make it clear to lenders that it's not covered in the default situation while explaining the risk to them.
> Even assuming
Is my math wrong? I think that's how expected value works -- risk * cost. And the figures I'm referencing are directly from the company, so I assume they're accurate.
This all basically works out to the same point. If the expected cost over the lifetime of someone's rentals is so large that the company can't cover it, then it's crazy irresponsible for them to tell consumers not to worry about it. They can't have their cake and eat it too; either it's a trivial concern and they should cover it, or it's not a trivial concern and they should take steps to warn users.
The point of an intermediary is to not get bitten by things unexpectedly; to introduce confidence to consumers who don't have experience with the subject they're entering. Part of that is either prominently warning them about substantial risks that they might not otherwise know about, or pricing your product so that you can remove those risks for them.
Your math assumes that instances of theft are evenly distributed across the price of the gear. I'd bet they're not. ie if you're going to commit felony theft (about $5k in most places), you may as well steal $50k. Thus my guess is it biases high.
As for the company, my guess is they only have a profitable business if they don't actually fully insure and they dump a bunch of risk onto the people supplying the gear to rent. I doubt Adorama or BH are making so much money that there's a huge business opp if you actually pay for all the risk (as Adorama and BH do because they rent their own stock.)
Yeah, I think of it as one of the dumb ways to be smart.
Anybody can always find some way a victim could have averted the bad thing. Dramatically and jerkily pointing that out lets them perform smartness and superiority.
I get that. I too have been that asshole. A lot of us here grew up being praised for being smart. We can't control IQ, of course, so it's easy learn to do things that accentuate our appearance of smartness. I've spent decades trying to unlearn those habits, but things we learn as kids run deep.
1) Not 'generously'. He was entirely profit-driven. In the article he describes his motivation as "I could possibly corner the film camera rental market" and his initial experience as "the side business was going great — I made over $1,200".
2) Not nebulously 'somehow'. He did know better, which is why he explicitly sought further information from the company. Then, he voluntarily threw away that information after it was in his posession, and only afterward chose to risk $4500 to gain $95.
> Basically this entire article comes down to the fact that agents of KitSplit lied to his face in a direct chat, and he wasn't savvy enough to keep a transcript of that chat.
This is a very easy mistake to make, especially since many companies try to do the majority of their negotiation over the phone or in person. I 100% agree with you that you should demand paper evidence of all of this stuff, but I don't see how that precludes feeling bad for people who haven't learned not to get burned yet.
People aren't wired by default to think this way, and our society by and large makes no effort to train them to think this way. Quite the opposite, companies put a lot of effort into teaching people to trust them implicitly instead of reading fine print and seeking clarification. I think it's reasonable for people to mess up on that. Author probably thought, "A ton of people use this service. If my scenario wasn't covered, somebody would have noticed and complained already."
Which I sympathize with. I read TOS agreements, I make 'unreasonable' requests about not agreeing to things over the phone, I reply back to leasing agreements and ask questions about terms. People think I'm weird for stuff like that, it's not at all common for normal people to approach contracts that way. There are times I wonder if I'm just a weird paranoid person, and then stories like this come out.
> I had this guy’s info and pictures, so I tried filing a police report for the stolen equipment, but they told me the same thing: it’s not a criminal matter, it’s a civil matter, and my property was technically not stolen.
Absent KitSplit's reaction, this alone would be worth sharing, since this wasn't immediately obvious to me. It's not just a dispute at this point, the thief is outright gone. How can you file a civil suite if you can't find the person to serve it to them?
Does it really still count as fraud after the person skips town and starts hiding from you?
Absolutely, the company acted entirely disingenuously too, "you should have coverage for this kind of thing", and then "no insurance will cover gear rental".
And then he still uses the service. As too does the thief, apparently (who still has an active profile with them).
So KitSplit is actively enabling a thief that has warrants out for their arrest? Sounds like a wretched company, I can't believe this isn't front and center in the article.
And then if you look at Reddit[1], or PetaPixel's comments, you'll see people finding his profile well after that point.
He's also active on multiple social media sites - his parents are even commenting on some of his Facebook photos about how proud they are of his talents...
It's too much to expect users to read all the agreements they sign with a fine tooth comb. If we were to do that then we would also expect business transactions to slow down considerably. That is why there are laws against egregious hidden clauses in contracts. There are also cases you can make when it's clear both sides had differing understandings of the terms of a contract regardless of what they actually signed on paper. In other words, there are legal grounds for this guy to sue based on misrepresentation of contract terms.
I fully agree with your assessment. Note that I characterized KitSplit's actions as a clear violation of criminal law, if they had ocurred in my state. Certainly if KitSplit is criminally liable, there's also a sound civil case against them.
But without the record that he had but didn't keep of the assurance he was given that illustrates what the "understandings of the terms" were, he won't get past first base.
Thankfully, this isn't true. Employees cannot engage in deceit, intend that you rely on the deception (i.e. 'making the sale' once you believe them), and have their business profit from the action. This is the cornerstone of consumer fraud protection. A transcript demonstrating false statements made by an employee helps tremendously when forming a cause of action against that company, as it establishes all of the required elements (other than the actual damage you suffered) by itself.
Critically, consumer fraud protections do not typically even require the employee to have made a materially false statement (only a deceptive one). Nor do they even require that the employee is aware of the falsehood! In common law fraud, both of these are required, making it a far more burdensome charge to plead.
> Your gear is always covered. KitSplit renters must show proof of insurance coverage, which we vet, or they must buy it through us or leave a deposit for the full value of the gear.
Always covered unless they just outright steal it, then not at all covered. There's numerous examples of similar text throughout their site. In fact I spent a good 15 minutes and finally found this mid way through the final paragraph of their insurance page:
> Please note, however, that the insurance accepted on KitSplit is industry standard equipment rental insurance and does not cover some rare instances, such as if a renter commits fraud.
They also say things like this:
> We strongly encourage all owners to have their own annual insurance policy for their gear, in addition to the coverage provided by KitSplit. [..] We strongly encourage all owners to review and understand the terms of their insurance policy and what it covers and does not cover.
What they mean is that neither your insurance or theirs will cover fraud. So using the service, even double insured, is high risk.
> We are a small team of filmmakers and photographers
Kind of odd in contrast to what you said about yourselves about your most recent round of funding:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/kitsplit-the-camera...