are you going to sign the neteller release?

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I can not see a reason why neteller would ever sue a legitmate u.s. poker player who never committed fraud etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
And if the masterminds at Neteller did have a cunning plan that involved suing us, they wouldn't offer us a release to opt out of being sued.

[Quanah Parker]

I must assume the waiver benefits Neteller and not me.
I'm guessing they would have made us sign the waiver for release of cash if they could have. Requiring us to sign must have put them on shaky ground legally or conflicted with their old terms of service.

I did not sign the waiver.

I could see no benefit to myself in doing so. I only had $500 in Netfink, so I didn't stand to lose as much as others who may have signed because they have more money at stake.

Of course, the more money one had in Neteller, the more money lost to interest alone.

[Beachman42]

lol NeTellerAments

I've signed worse for less. Just gimme my $$$ and no one gets hurt.

[Josem]

this comes down to a fairly simple consideration:

if EV(possibly suing Neteller) - EV(possibly getting sued by Neteller) > 0, then you should not sign.


In other words, consider the possible hypothetical "value" of reserving your rights to sue Neteller down the track.

Then, subtract the possible hypothetical "cost" of possibly being sued by Neteller.

If that result is more than 0, you should not sign. If that result is less than 0, you should sign.



While I am not a lawyer (get legal advice, and don't trust random schmucks on an anonymous internet message board) it would surprise me if there were many people (if any!) who have any chance of being sued by Neteller.

Under my very limited knowledge of Australian law, I've never hear of any concept of "reverse class action" where one litigant can easily sue a large number of people. It would surprise me if it were cost effective for Neteller to employ literally hundreds of lawyers to litigate a series of (relatively) small-time individuals - and even then, I cannot imagine what grounds they could possibly litigate on.

[PoorLawyer]

[ QUOTE ]
this comes down to a fairly simple consideration:

if EV(possibly suing Neteller) - EV(possibly getting sued by Neteller) > 0, then you should not sign.


In other words, consider the possible hypothetical "value" of reserving your rights to sue Neteller down the track.

Then, subtract the possible hypothetical "cost" of possibly being sued by Neteller.

If that result is more than 0, you should not sign. If that result is less than 0, you should sign.



While I am not a lawyer (get legal advice, and don't trust random schmucks on an anonymous internet message board) it would surprise me if there were many people (if any!) who have any chance of being sued by Neteller.

Under my very limited knowledge of Australian law, I've never hear of any concept of "reverse class action" where one litigant can easily sue a large number of people. It would surprise me if it were cost effective for Neteller to employ literally hundreds of lawyers to litigate a series of (relatively) small-time individuals - and even then, I cannot imagine what grounds they could possibly litigate on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your equation.

The possibility of getting anything from a court of law that is worth the trouble and expense to you is about zero. Plug it into the equation and you should sign the release IMO.

FYI, I would probably talk someone out of suing Neteller (and the DOJ, who would be a necessary party I think) and wouldn't take their retainer money. Plenty of lawyers would love to though and will be happy to fight Neteller and the DOJ for a couple years on your dime. Oh, btw, the general rule in the US is that you pay your own legal fees.

[DWarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can not see a reason why neteller would ever sue a legitmate u.s. poker player who never committed fraud etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
And if the masterminds at Neteller did have a cunning plan that involved suing us, they wouldn't offer us a release to opt out of being sued.

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely wouldn't be selected yes by default.