Extortion? Two Lawyers Debate If PSA Upcharges Are Legal

Added: 2026-05-28

[00:00:00]PSA upcharges. We all hate them, but are they legal? I've brought two very experienced attorneys on to discuss that very issue. I often wonder when we hit I agree almost blindly without reading all the terms and conditions. We all do that. If that is a legal contract or if we have any recourse when we are upcharged, well, I've actually brought two attorneys that sort of oppose each other. take. One thinks that they're not so challengeable and they are legal. The other one says they're legal, but they are challengeable. They're going to give you some advice on how you could potentially challenge them. So, enjoy.

[00:00:40]What's up? This is Boston Card Hunter.

[00:00:41]I'm scared. I'm here with two attorneys, but I'm not in trouble. Thankfully, they are my friends at least for the next half hour or so. We are going to talk about PSA upcharges. Nobody's done this.

[00:00:51]I don't think anybody has broken down a contract, a public contract that so many people have engaged in legally in our space. And so I've brought on Ariel and Dan. And what's cool about these guys is they actually disagree. And I think that's really important. So we're going to set the stage. I'm going to introduce them and um I'm going to have them state their cases on why or why not upcharges may I I would say like not calling them legal or illegal, but like able to be challenged legally. I think is a better way to state it. So, uh, let's start with ER. Ariel, what's up? Welcome.

[00:01:25]>> How you doing?

[00:01:26]>> Hello. Uh, I'm excited. I'm nervous, sweating, all of the things. I want to make it clear because I know that I'm going to get attacked for probably my stance. I do not like upcharges. I have said this to you privately. I've said it to Dan privately. I'll say it here. I have plenty of cards that I want to submit that I just don't feel like paying for the upcharges for because maybe that's overconfident of me and thinking they will even get upcharged, but I just I don't like it.

[00:01:51]>> Okay.

[00:01:52]>> So, I need to get that out there.

[00:01:53]>> Before you get destroyed in the comments, >> by the internet militia, >> what's your uh what's your background?

[00:02:00]Um what do you practice and how long?

[00:02:03]>> Um I'm from Philly. I went to F&M undergrad, Villanova Law. I started my own practice about like I think it's like four or five years ago. I was right place, right time. Kind of got sucked into crypto and NFTTS.

[00:02:15]>> Cool.

[00:02:15]>> Um yeah, I focused on intellectual property in law school and just kind of, you know, brought that to what I think was missing in NFTTS and now it's just kind of missing all over the space. And now I do fractional general counsel work for small businesses, founders, some bigger companies in crypto. Um, and I assist with IP contracts, pretty much like a little tiny Swiss Army knife for startups.

[00:02:36]>> Fantastic. Dan, welcome. Tell me a bit about your background and uh and what you practice.

[00:02:42]>> Yeah, I I'm a graduate of USC Law School. I worked at a uh global multinational firm for 16 years uh doing business trial work. Uh two and a half years ago I started my own firm Ree and Weiss where I'm a founding partner where we are a boutique uh trial business litigation firm representing uh large and large businesses and high net worth individuals.

[00:03:08]>> Fantastic. All right. I promise to the audience I'm going to do only about 5% of the talking in this because I've got two attorneys to do the talking. So um we'll call this the opening act here before I let you guys state your cases kind of without interruption. We'll do that. This I just want to bring us together and kind of define this. So, um, we all know what up charges are. All three of us hate them. It's when you submit a card, the card gets a really nice grade and that grade exceeds the point of value you declared on that card. You maybe submitted at 10 grand, it gets 100, and now you are magically upcharged to that tier even though you didn't get the speed of the tier and yada yada yada. Um, my question to you guys, you so collectors are divided on this obviously, but what exactly is, and you guys, whoever's more comfortable can pick this off, what exactly is a PSA upcharge legally?

[00:03:58]>> An upcharge under PSA's terms of use is a, as you just said, Nick, is when the value that they have determined after grading the card exceeds the declared value or what they call a maximum insured value. and they say that they are going to charge you at the service level that corresponds or exceeds the uh fair market value that they have determined for that car for that card and that they will not return the card to you unless you pay that fee in its graded form. They will return the card to you in an unprocessed form if you pay the original grading service level you selected but not in a grading form unless you pay the additional fee known as an upcharge.

[00:04:49]>> All right. Excellent. Ariel, is this a negotiated contract, adhesion contract?

[00:04:53]Like what is the state of this contract that we we enter in when we hit yes on the terms of service? I'm thinking of the South Park episode in my head where they agreed to some really bad stuff. It reminds me of that.

[00:05:05]>> Yeah. Um I mean I'm gonna be honest with you. I I would say it's absolutely an adhesion contract. Um and you know almost every consumer contract that we enter into is an adhesion contract. Uh I think you know your TV provider things like that. You don't have negotiation like it's just your phone plan, your software license, things like that. And um you know I think that it's it's it's not great but it is what it is.

[00:05:31]There's no negotiables. So, what does adhesion mean?

[00:05:34]>> An adhesion means that if you want the service, you see, and I'm going to I'm I'm used to speaking in very layman terms. I I try not to throw big legal words out there. So, I'm going to >> break it down probably a little bit more basic than I normally would, but I'm trying to, you know, make let everybody understand.

[00:05:52]>> In simple terms, an adhesion contract is something that you're presented with that you're able to read through that you have to accept if you want a certain service. You could also choose to say, "I don't like these terms. I'm going to say no." Then you don't get the service.

[00:06:04]It's it's a one-way agreement essentially.

[00:06:06]>> And just just to add, Nick, an adhesion contract is permitted under the law.

[00:06:11]>> Okay?

[00:06:12]>> There's nothing illegal or improper about an adhesion contract. As Gary said, we sign them probably every day when you take your kids to the jumping place or you, you know, you sign a waiver at the gym to play basketball. It happens every day. It's perfectly legal.

[00:06:27]>> All right. So, when somebody submits a card, what are they actually agreeing to? And does clicking I agree fully protect PSA?

[00:06:39]>> I So, I'm going to I'll start this because I think this is probably where Dan and I disagree off the bat is how that contract is structured. I I think that each tier has two independent purposes in terms of, you know, this service tiers. You have the speed and then you have also the insurance risk and the allocation. So the speed which you bought when you submitted that never changes. What does change with the upcharge is that insurance and risk allocation which scales with the card's actual graded value.

[00:07:11]>> Um in my opinion it's it's it's more it's not a bundle theory or it's I'm getting my words confused. It is a bundle theory. So you're you're essentially agreeing to that bundle of services. And when it does get upcharged, that first tier, that speed never changes. What does change is how much you pay for that insurance and risk allocation.

[00:07:33]>> So that upcharge reprices the second purpose. You're not being upgraded into the faster service. You're being, in my opinion, repriced into the correct insurance bracket because your card essentially outperformed what your original declared value was. I think the contract treats those as completely separate and the industry treats them as separate and I I you know I'm not California law is not where I'm pra where I don't practice California law so maybe I'm missing something here but from what I've seen I can't find any sort of legal rule that requires them to be bundled you know inseparably >> Dan do you have any thoughts >> I do first just taking a step back I believe the contract when you click I agree to submit your cards is the terms of service. We agree to terms of service all the time when we do a click through.

[00:08:27]When you sign up for Microsoft, when you sign up for any other service, you agree to the terms of service. So yes, when you click I agree when you submit your cards, you are agreeing to those terms of service. It's what we lawyers would call contract formation. So that becomes the underlying agreement that would govern your relationship with PSN. The question that we have here is whether the terms of that agreement that is formed are enforcable. And to do that, you have to rely specifically on the words of the terms of service and what they say. And that's where Ariel and I disagree. We don't disagree about whether or not there's a contract.

[00:09:15]There's clearly a contract. I believe that the words in the terms of service, which we could get into in a bit, we will do not support an upcharge in the way that PSA has described it, are actually at times inconsistent with the way PSA has described its upcharges and creates a number of grounds both under California law and just general common law, many jurisdictions to challenge the enforcability of the upcharges.

[00:09:43]>> Great. So, I want to stop there for the audience. This obviously this is heavy stuff. These are two very well seasoned attorneys using big words, but essenti you probably most of you hate up charges that are watching this listening to this. Um, but I want you to be informed about things maybe you could potentially do. And even if Ariel doesn't think you can do something, it her perspective will be very helpful. and Dan may actually have some practical tips on ways to challenge things. So, we'll get there. And I think we should just probably get into it then. This is nice little uh like opening. Um, who wants to go first? I'm going to give you each like five minutes uninterrupted to kind of state your case. Who wants to go first?

[00:10:29]>> I don't think I'll take five minutes.

[00:10:30]So, Dan, if you want the full five minutes because I know he's time crunched.

[00:10:33]>> No, go ahead, Ariel. Start it off.

[00:10:35]>> All right, ladies first.

[00:10:36]>> All right, ladies first. So, we already covered adhesion contract. I'm going through my notes that I prepared. Um, let's see.

[00:10:44]Legal standards. So, I I think, you know, I'll I'll say for this exercise that I guess I'm the proupcharge case.

[00:10:54]Again, I don't like it, but I'm pro up charge.

[00:10:56]>> But you're an attorney representing, you know, proup charge.

[00:10:59]>> I am not hired by PSA.

[00:11:00]>> Yes. Yes. Also, >> we're joking. We're joking. Yes.

[00:11:04]Um, so I mean I think that the clause that we're kind of discussing with this upcharge clause, I think that that's something you call a bargain for risk allocation. And I say that because PSA I mean we've seen these posts all over the timeline. People ship things to PSA, they claim they lose them. I've seen this my feed has been I'm now in the card algo which is why your post came up and you know so the liability that PSA assumes liability for that liability scales with the card's actual market value. So their exper their insurance exposure on a $50 card is going to be fundamentally different than their exposure on a $50,000 card.

[00:11:47]In my opinion, the upcharge clause matches the fee structure to the actual actual risk that they now have because that card is more expensive.

[00:11:56]>> I think personally it's basic risk pricing. Again, doesn't mean I like it.

[00:11:59]It's in my opinion the same logic that kind of underlies every sort of variable premium insurance product that we face every day. And that's that's pretty much where I think my argument lands in terms of they're paying for that added insurance. It's baked into that bundle that you're agreeing to. And I think Dan actually might have looked at it a little bit more specific than I did. I looked at it as a whole. Um, I'm excited to see which parts of the agreement you think based on how they're worded might, you know, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe misinform or or, you know, not set out clearly what they're actually doing. I did not look at it that clearly. I'm just going to be completely honest with you. I looked at it more from the bigger picture in that is this upcharge and what they're doing even legal?

[00:12:50]>> Um, so I think we actually might have covered two completely different lenses here, which is actually >> that's great though. I like the macro level and um might as well Dan, do you want to drill down into your side?

[00:13:00]Ariel, do you have any more to add?

[00:13:01]>> I just I I I I don't know. Again, California law. I'm I'm eager to see if this could be challenged in California specifically. I think if you're going to form shop, I think California is the best way to do it for this case.

[00:13:11]>> Yeah.

[00:13:11]>> Um I I I do think that a court from this agreement on its whole, I think there are three reasons why it would be upheld. The clause, I think, is conspicuous and predisclosed. It's right in front of you. you agree to it before submitting anything. They don't hide it.

[00:13:27]I think that second one, second one, putting my hands below my camera. Um, there's a legitimate commercial purpose tied to actual risk. They're not just throwing a number out there and giving you no reason why they've increased that upcharge. They have real insurance liability that they need to worry about.

[00:13:45]Again, that is different from a $50 card to a $50,000 card. And then three, you need to have what's called a meaningful exit. The submitter has that meaningful exit at the time of the upcharge.

[00:13:59]They are allowed to refuse the upcharge and then PSA theoretically sends their card back. They don't keep it hostage.

[00:14:05]If they kept it hostage, that would be completely different. But I think the fact they give you that exit that they give the consumer a choice and I don't want to pay this, send me my card back.

[00:14:15]They do. I've heard in the old days that they did keep it hostage, but we'll we won't go there.

[00:14:21]>> Conspiracy theories of PSA. Um, so I think that courts really look at those three features, and I think that all of those three are very present in these terms and conditions.

[00:14:33]>> Great. Thank you. All right, Dan, let's cook. Let's >> Yeah. I mean, I think this really shows some of the misinformation in the market because I heard Ariel mention a few times insurance risk allocation and I would just first we need to level step before we get into the actual legal challenges. There is a material difference between a declared value, which is really what we're talking here, and insurance. And I know PSA uses the term maximum insurance amount, but it is not an insurance policy. It is a declared value. And fundamentally, a declared value is a risk limitation or limitation on liability for the company. So the way the terms of service work are that if once you declare the value, the maximum exposure that PSA faces if they damage your card is what you declared the value to be. So I would disagree with the way Ariel has described that the risk the PSA scales with the value of the car because in fact the way the terms of service are read or written the way I read it is that if you take a $500 card that you declared and it becomes a $50,000 card and it gets damaged, you the consumer are only going to get $500.

[00:15:58]So that then leads to what I think are the three primary challenges that someone can raise two upcharges. The first challenge is a California specific law. The terms of service are governed by California law and it's a recent change to a statute, a consumer protection statute called the CLA, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. And what that says is that you are not allowed to advertise or display a price that does not include all mandatory fees. So this basically when you know when you went to uh get a hotel on your app and then it didn't disclose the taxes and search charges. This law has directed us saying, "Well, now you have to be upfront about it." Or when you wanted to get a concert ticket from Ticket Master or Live Nation and all of a sudden your $20 ticket turned into a hundred with fees at checkout. This law prevents that. It's called price stripping. And so I would argue here that this is price stripping. By not including all mandatory fees at the time of purchase by say that there's an upcharge, they violated the CLA. The second two challenges are related.

[00:17:09]Let's Yeah, let's let like a quick interjection here.

[00:17:12]>> It's just a quick question. It's just a quick question. Are we sure that the CLA governs this type of work?

[00:17:18]>> And and I say that because I was kind of anticipating you bring up the CLA and it's and please tell me if I'm wrong.

[00:17:23]It's my understanding that it applies to services defined as work. And to me, this kind of sits in a hybrid area.

[00:17:30]>> Well, I think they're selling services.

[00:17:32]I I think we're here what they are selling you is they're going to do a service of grading your card and giving it back to you. While the CLA does have exceptions, I don't think this would fall under any of those exceptions to the CLA. Um, >> not even commercial.

[00:17:49]>> So, you always have this in the hobby, right? We're seeing this with PayPal and their goods and services. So you are correct Ariel that there is an exception for commercial or business use under the CLA. So if you are grading to resell you could have an issue under the CLA just like we did with PayPal on the goods and services. But I think there are you would have to have a litigant who is going to say that they graded for purposes of their PC not for their purpose of resale in order to become a consumer under the law. So I agree with you on that.

[00:18:24]>> It would have to be kind of that plaintiff specific. Okay. Thank you.

[00:18:28]>> Yeah. Just for the audience, basically that's cloudy. Did you submit that, you know, bulk order for yourself or were you reselling? And I mean, I guess yeah, you can get the answer if you were going to litigate. Um, but ultimately, you know, who knows? Half the hobby may be reselling and half the hobby may be PCing. So it' be it'd be very interesting. Go ahead.

[00:18:48]>> This is great. So the second and third challenges I believe a person can raise and I said they're interrelated. One is a doctrine we call unconscionability.

[00:18:56]It's really a fancy word to just say so outrageous we don't believe as a society we should enforce an agreement. It shocks the conscious the terms. And the second is unfair competition. Uh it's a section in California called 17200.

[00:19:13]uh and for unconscionability and for deception.

[00:19:18]I think one of the issues that I saw when I read the terms of service are what exactly are you getting for the upcharge. So when they say that you need to pay the service level for the appropriate value, nowhere in the terms of service do they say that for purposes of a claim, they are going to use the increased service level. So, if you go in at the $500 service level and they say you need to go in at the $2,500 service level price, nothing in the terms of service says that if there's a damage to the card, you actually going to get the benefit of the $2,500 service level. And in fact, they actually linked to a frequently asked questions guide in the terms of service.

[00:20:11]And that guide says that you won't get that benefit. It says that it will the max insured value will affect only the service level charge not change the max insured value for purposes of establishing the max item value for claims or shipping.

[00:20:32]So what that means is while they're going to charge you more money under the terms they aren't necessarily going to give you the benefit of the maxins insured value. Also, I think you have an argument that it's unconscionable, which is just that it's so unfair because why as the consumer do if I don't want to pay more money to protect myself? Why should PSA tell me I have to pay them more money? Because it's only to protect me. PSA doesn't face any more risk. As I said earlier with the declared value, what PSA is actually doing is saying you consumer who submitted your card got let's say a 10 and that card went from the $500 level to $1,500. So you now need to pay more money. If I, the consumer, want to take that risk and say, "Well, if it gets damaged, I'll only take $500."

[00:21:29]Why should PSA force me to pay them more money so that I can get protected? It should be a consumer choice in my opinion. I think that makes it unconscionable among other reasons. And I think because there's so much confusion in the market about whether it's insurance or not insurance or what level you get, I think you have a lot of deception issues that could be raised in terms of unfair competition. Yeah, people are, you know, you see on X and everywhere else, they state their opinions on why the upcharges are there, why they could exist. It's because of the grading guarantee, but the grading guarantee doesn't apply to autographs.

[00:22:08]You have a $200,000 autograph card, the grading guarantee does not apply. And I've had people send the card in and three weeks later after them approving the card, they've kept the card hostage, which was a very ugly situation. So, they they disagree like you say. Um, I have a couple questions for both of you.

[00:22:25]>> Exactly. So, that's what I was going to do. Ariel, I was going to let you follow up and then I have a couple questions for both of you and then I'm going to circle back and have you guys give some advice to people about what to do with the upcharges. So, go ahead, Ariel.

[00:22:36]>> Okay. Again, arguing for PSA doesn't mean I enjoy the upcharges going everywhere because I'm scared. Um, so to talk about the unconscionability, has that ever have we ever seen that in sort of a I would consider this kind of a discretionary luxury service? It's something you choose to do. You don't have to do it.

[00:22:58]I'm more familiar with unconscionability most aggressively being tied to essential services where consumers have no alternative. You know, utilities, uh, banking, medical care. It's my understanding that they apply at least aggressively to again this discretionary luxury service that has other competitors. So if you don't like PSA, go to Beckett, go to TAG, go somewhere else.

[00:23:25]I I I personally think it's it's in that second category. So while I would like to say I think it's unconscionable, I'm scared that the court would really look at it and say this is a completely optional thing that you're doing because you want to. No one is forcing you to do it. And I think that's that's where my pause came in when considering whether or not it might be considered unconscionable.

[00:23:44]>> Yeah. I mean, that's an interesting point. So unconscionability, not to get too into the weeds, has two segments.

[00:23:49]procedural just the process of entering into the contract substantive which are the terms of the contract. Uh that may get included in the analysis of both procedural and subsidive accountability but it very much does apply in the private context when you do have other options and in the luxury good space. So it's the process of what how you got the contract here. It's a contract of adhesion where you have to do basically a click to get the service >> which is allowed >> right. likely going to be procedurally unconscionable and then it just turns into the substance of it. And again, I think we just disagree. I do think there's a lot of substantive unconscionability, especially if what they say in their terms is correct that you're not even getting the benefit of the increased maximum uh declared value once you pay for the higher service.

[00:24:41]>> That was going to be my next point. Um, so I I think that just from a a risk analysis point, if they lose or damage a card that, you know, is insured at $500, it's actually worth that 50k. What happens to that 49,500 difference? That's that I think their toos, like we said, caps liability at the declared insured value. And I think that that's more of a risk analysis move, which is what I'm assuming they would use as their defense. Because if you think about it, a submitter could, I'm not saying anybody would do this, but people are crazy. A submitter could intentionally underdeclare to access the cheaper tiers, and then that creates kind of a a massive underfunded risk for PSA, which is just not a sustainable business model. And so that to me is kind of in that risk protection category.

[00:25:30]And >> but who's the risk from Ariel? If I am the if I'm the owner of the card, I submit the card at a declared value of $500.

[00:25:39]>> If then grades a 10 and now, like I said, let's say $1,500 card and they damage it while encapsulating it.

[00:25:47]>> I'm the only one who's going to be as a submitter who's going to be able to bring a claim against PSA for damage to my property. So, I hear what you're saying from a theoretical perspective that you have this thousand delta that isn't counted for, but what I would say is there is no actual exposure there because no one's going to bring a claim for that $1,000 other than me and I'm limited multiple times in the terms of service to just my declared value of $500. So the reality is it's just thatable cost that PSA has to endure. And I think that's actually part of the problem I have with the deception. I think PSA has uh communicated to people that there is that thousand loss that they have to account for. And I think that's a problem because I don't think that's true. And I don't have any evidence that they're out buying insurance so that they're having an increased premium cost either. Does that matter? The even if they went bought third party coverage, that risk exposure is still very real.

[00:26:54]And and I think that for every for every truthful individual we has we have that you know thinks their card is worth 500 or more does that and then gets it back in sort of like 2,000 bucks. I think then we also if this there weren't cap limitations, you'd have to also account for the people that would totally try to take advantage of that. And I think that I I agree with you to a point. I agree with me to a point and I think that they need to redo this and find some sort of hybrid model that in that decreases their risk exposure, keeps it as low as possible but also provides a benefit to the consumer.

[00:27:29]>> Right. You don't want >> I don't just No, I I and that's that's what I'm trying to get across. I I legally think it's I don't think it would be successfully challenged, but I wish it would because I think there needs to be that hybrid model to better protect the consumer.

[00:27:43]>> Yeah, we as collectors need to demand this. So, I have done this. I do this with autographs all the time. I will go one one tier lower cuz I'm like, you know what? Screw you pass this thing.

[00:27:54]Earn your money. I I I like go through that mental exercise. But if my card's damaged, I'm screwed because I'm not necessarily going to get the value of the card. That happens all the time.

[00:28:06]Machines chew things up, whatever. Um, so I would love for PSA, maybe this video forces them to do so, come out and tell us specifically what the upcharges are covering. Is it the risk metrics that you alluded to, you know, or is it protecting the business from these lower submissions? And if so, they could rework this model, you know, >> you could put it on a bell curve.

[00:28:32]>> You charge people for the middle of that bell curve.

[00:28:35]>> And if it goes that way, you adjust the charge. If it goes that way, you adjust the charge. It's not difficult. So, you pick whatever. It's a PSA 8 and that's that's your curve. It'll be interesting.

[00:28:44]Um, I have a couple questions just for both of you, but do you want to talk to each other first about anything before I ask? The biggest question I have is PSA is about 80% of grading now. I mean, that's a fact. Um, so yes, there are alternatives. I can go to TAG, I can go to CGC. You said SGC and Becket. They own SGC and Becket, but okay. All right.

[00:29:06]trying to be I'm trying to be uh you know all inclusive here.

[00:29:09]>> But you're right. There are options. You could also not grade. You could also put them in a one-touch, right? Um this isn't healthcare like you said uh or electricity.

[00:29:17]>> But like does the market dominance matter legally at all? Does that affect anything?

[00:29:23]>> Not for purposes of any of the challenges I'm mentioning.

[00:29:26]>> Um you know that would be a separate antitrust which I know has been a popular subject. I have thoughts on that. That's a different podcast or or video for purposes of unconscionability, unfair competition, deception, price strip, market dominance has no impact and is an irrelevant factor for those challenges?

[00:29:46]>> Makes sense. You agree, Ariel?

[00:29:49]Does a dominance impact anything?

[00:29:51]>> I'm thinking about it. I think it does a little bit. Um I think because a dominant player has less room to negotiate and kind of you know impose different adhesive terms but could they even be considered legally dominant? I mean other ones are growing rapidly. The market is competitive that there are more than just one service out there that it's not just PSA. So, I think it might I think it might matter a little bit, but um I'm actually going to have to agree with Dan that I don't think it's going to I I I don't I don't think it it matters enough to invalidate what I think is the enforceable contract, but I think for some of the challenges he's bringing, I do think that it might help.

[00:30:32]>> All right, so we we are coming up on time and I really this is like something I really want to get into and it's it's I actually want you both to answer this and you can decide which maybe ladies first again. Um, I'm a I'm a collector and I feel like, you know, I just had this. Somebody had a red PMG Jordan. It was their father's cards. He thought it was worth like two grand. He doesn't He doesn't know, you know.

[00:30:54]>> Pokemon terms.

[00:30:56]>> Oh, sorry. All right. So, he was sitting on a thin stamp >> thin stamp first edition Charizard in, you know, like a PSA 9 condition, something like that. Okay. But he thought that card's worth like five grand, you know, and and they submit that cuz they don't know what they're doing. and they just found this binder of Pokemon. All right, so that's it was the PMG Jordan and the and the Charizard's the other example. They sent it in and they got, you know, a a $23,000 upch charge and they they DM me. They don't know about upcharges. Like, what is this? What is this fee? And I had to explain that to them. And even worse, they're like they go on the the app and the estimate of that value is like 370 or or like 374 or something and then it's different than the price they upcharged. And the guy's like, "Oh, it's just an AI estimate." My question is, let's say this person, they don't. Let's say this person wants to get latigious.

[00:31:46]Let's say they live in California. Or maybe we can do an example of California and non-C California.

[00:31:52]What would you recommend they do or the steps they take? Or are there no steps to take? And whoever wants to go first.

[00:31:58]>> If we're going ladies first, I am 100% referring them to Dan.

[00:32:02]>> Okay. All right. Dan, do you want to give the advice?

[00:32:06]>> Yeah. I mean, I think so. First off, there is a process that's set out in the user agreement for how you need to initiate claims. There is an arbitration provision. There's also an informal dialogue process where you have to send them notice and have an informal discussion about your claim to see if you can resolve it. That has a procedure. If that doesn't happen, you need to go file an arbitration. It doesn't really matter where you live.

[00:32:33]The uh the agreement is governed by California law. So even if you're in Minnesota or Massachusetts like yourself, it should fall under California law in the arbitration. Uh arbitrations are expensive. Although this provision is pretty consumerfriendly, uh and allows for the payment of the arbitration fees and uh you know by PSA if there is a dispute.

[00:33:00]Uh, but yeah, I think you would need to contact a lawyer or go through the claims process in the user agreement which is spelled out pretty clearly.

[00:33:10]>> Okay, Dan, are you taking cases like this? Just curious.

[00:33:13]>> You know, we we'll evaluate any case that comes in. Our bread and butter is not normally contingency work, which this is would be. Um, and really here I think it would be so difficult outside of the large cases like you just mentioned to really bring change. And I think for so many people online, they'll say, well, this has been going on for decades, so it must be lawful. Yeah.

[00:33:37]>> But that just because something goes on for a long time, doesn't necessarily means it's lawful. What really happens is through an arbitration agreement, you limit the ability to challenge those laws because it's just not worth it.

[00:33:49]concentration, >> your time and effort. And so, you know, just because there's inertia doesn't mean that it's lawful.

[00:33:56]>> All right, we got to jump. This sucks.

[00:33:59]But, um, this was awesome. In the comments, let me know if you want them back. Maybe we could talk about >> other hobby legal issues. You You might be my You might be my group here.

[00:34:10]>> What's that?

[00:34:11]>> I'll read the contract more word for word rather than big picture. Dan has a good opponent. Uh Ariel, Dan, I want to thank you both so much for this. I think this will help a lot of people. I appreciate you guys. Thank you.

[00:34:22]>> Thank you so much.

[00:34:23]>> Thank you for having us. Great to be here.

[00:34:25]>> Well, that was awesome for me. Um I actually don't know how I feel after it.

[00:34:30]seems like they they're legal, of course, and everything's fine with the contract, but I thought maybe there was a chance to challenge this only if you were in California, but it appears that you could potentially challenge this on a few different grounds, no matter what state you live in. So, um you know, I encourage you to take this information that these two attorneys have provided us and make a decision for yourself. um decide whether you feel like the upcharge is substantial enough to challenge in court. And for some people, the cost may be uh I just saw one for $23,000. I know some other cards get upcharged for several hundred,000.

[00:35:17]And I wonder at what point some whale with an expensive card just says, "You know what? I don't feel like just arbitrarily paying this number anymore for an upcharge. I'm gonna actually challenge this legally and I expect that will come soon. Um, but we shall see.

[00:35:34]Let me know if you guys want me to bring them on again. Maybe we could discuss something else in the hobby. Let me know what else you would want two lawyers to even look at in the hobby and maybe I'll bring them back because they were awesome. Thanks everyone.