Washington State Files First-Ever Lawsuit Over Failed Kickstarter

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
Washington State Files First-Ever Lawsuit Over Failed Kickstarter


The state of Washington has filed the first-ever lawsuit against a Kickstarter campaign that was successfully funded but failed to deliver the promised goods to backers.

Back in October 2012, a Kickstarter campaign for Asylum Playing Cards [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/213177064/asylum-playing-cards] wrapped up very successfully, bringing in more than $25,000 on a $15,000 goal. Things appeared to be going swimmingly, until July 2013, when the company behind the Kickstarter, Altius Management, fell off the face of the Earth. Updates stopped, and more importantly, nobody received their cards; by all appearances, Altius founder Edward J. Polchlepek, AKA Ed Nash, took the money and ran.

This isn't the first time a Kickstarter has gone south after surpassing its goal - Code Hero [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125689-Code-Hero-Website-Goes-Down-UPDATED], anyone? - but it is the first time that the failure to deliver has resulted in legal consequences: The Attorney General of Washington State announced yesterday that he has filed a consumer protection lawsuit against Atlius Management and Polchlepek, the first of its kind in the country.

"Consumers need to be aware that crowdfunding is not without risk," Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said. "This lawsuit sends a clear message to people seeking the public's money: Washington state will not tolerate crowdfunding theft. The Attorney General's Office will hold those accountable who don't play by the rules."

The lawsuit seeks restitution for backers, fines of up to $2000 per violation of the Consumer Protection act (which if we assume one violation for each backer could total more than $1.6 million) and all of the costs and attorney's fees associated with bringing the suit.

There appears to be no question that Polchlepek has put the screws to his supporters - if he'd been laid low by some misadventure they'd have surely heard about it by now - and in principle, I suppose most people would support the idea of Kickstarter creators being obligated to deliver on their promises. But that's already a requirement; the Kickstarter terms of service [https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/creator+questions?ref=faq_subcategory#GettStar] state that creators of successful projects "are required to fulfill all rewards or refund any backer whose reward you do not or cannot fulfill. A failure to do so could result in damage to your reputation or even legal action by your backers."

At the same time, those terms of service may also provide an element of defense, as they note [https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use?ref=footer] that estimated delivery dates are "not a promise to fulfill by that date" and further requiring only that people who launch Kickstarters "agree to make a good faith attempt to fulfill each reward by its Estimated Delivery Date." It's one thing if Polchlepek just made off with the money but if he can claim, and demonstrate, that he did in fact make a legitimate effort to create and distribute the cards, he may have a valid defense.

It's also valid to wonder if this lawsuit could have a chilling effect on crowdfunding in the long term, especially if it succeeds. Crowdfunding is often necessary precisely because projects are viewed by conventional sources of funding as too risky or too niche to succeed, and if creators are faced with the possibility of legal action over failed efforts, some of them may opt not to pursue interesting but challenging ideas. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's arguable that legal action will only be brought against the most egregious of offenders, but relying on discretion in the hands of authority can be a dicey proposition.

A copy of the full complaint against Polchlepek and Altius Management is available from the Washington State Attorney General website [http://atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=32072#.U2QPyFfijIh].


Permalink
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
I have a feeling that if this becomes standard practice for failed kickstarters, the number of ones people make are going to drop like a rock since just going on the site you can see that most are clearly scams or impossible to deliver promises.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Oct 5, 2011
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Well this seems pretty open and close. Guy said he would provide a product in return for money, he received the money but did not provide the product. Probably a good precedent to set.
 

Danakir

New member
Jun 21, 2008
12
0
0
Oh no. People who have no intention of being held accountable for the promises they make to their backers might no longer be inclined to so casually create obviously fraudulent or implausible kickstarters so they can scam money from the gullible.

What will become of democracy when thieves, frauds and incompetents can no longer peddle their wares with complete impunity? Truly this is a dark day in internet history.

? no but seriously there's no amount of cool concepts that can make up for the reputation damage the presence of dishonest or inept crowdfunding efforts cause by their prevalence. This is a good precedent and people who genuinely care about the future of crowdfunding should support this step forward.
 

Drizzitdude

New member
Nov 12, 2009
484
0
0
Zontar said:
I have a feeling that if this becomes standard practice for failed kickstarters
Good. If someone tells you they can deliver you a product, takes money for said product and makes no effort to actually deliver that product do you. Then that is stealing, fair and simple. They took your money and ran, and they deserve every legal problem you can throw at them and this should be completely enforced.
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
Good. Having some form of accountability behind kickstarters is a good thing.
Sure, at first it may decrease the number of kickstarters but in the long run it will prevent people losing faith in the kickstarter system, which would ultimately be much more destructive.
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
And here we have an example of the dark side of crowdsourcing. Much as I like the concept of Kickstarter and its ilk, I freely admit that there's always a risk involved of unscrupulous people reneging on their promises and scamming people out of their money. That's why I've only backed one project [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/armikrog/armikrog] thus far because I knew the people behind it could be trusted to deliver on their claims. Hopefully this litigation will set a proper precedent and make con artists think twice about such an endeavor.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Zontar said:
I have a feeling that if this becomes standard practice for failed kickstarters, the number of ones people make are going to drop like a rock since just going on the site you can see that most are clearly scams or impossible to deliver promises.
In that case, I'm inclined to say "good." Less time wasted.

People who make a legit effort and can't reach their goal is one thing. People who take the money and run and such need to be punished.
 

Prime_Hunter_H01

New member
Dec 20, 2011
513
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Zontar said:
I have a feeling that if this becomes standard practice for failed kickstarters, the number of ones people make are going to drop like a rock since just going on the site you can see that most are clearly scams or impossible to deliver promises.
In that case, I'm inclined to say "good." Less time wasted.

People who make a legit effort and can't reach their goal is one thing. People who take the money and run and such need to be punished.
When I heard about this my immediate response was, "good, we need something to deter scams", but then I thought that there will be that one time where a lawsuit is filed against a legitimate failure which was transparent on goals, progress and the troubles that ultimately sank them despite having a successful kickstarter and by the work done was a cear failure due to unforeseen troubles along the way not a scam or unreasonable claims.
 

Brennan

New member
Mar 21, 2014
74
0
0
Prime_Hunter_H01 said:
When I heard about this my immediate response was, "good, we need something to deter scams", but then I thought that there will be that one time where a lawsuit is filed against a legitimate failure which was transparent on goals, progress and the troubles that ultimately sank them despite having a successful kickstarter and by the work done was a cear failure due to unforeseen troubles along the way not a scam or unreasonable claims.
That's equally true of any type of lawsuit though. Or any type of checks and balances system in general. You don't disband the entire criminal court system just because there's a non-zero chance of someone somewhere being arrested for a crime they maybe didn't commit. That's what courts are for. Being indicted, or arrested, or even just sued is the raising of questions, not the answering of them.
 

Prime_Hunter_H01

New member
Dec 20, 2011
513
0
0
Brennan said:
Prime_Hunter_H01 said:
When I heard about this my immediate response was, "good, we need something to deter scams", but then I thought that there will be that one time where a lawsuit is filed against a legitimate failure which was transparent on goals, progress and the troubles that ultimately sank them despite having a successful kickstarter and by the work done was a cear failure due to unforeseen troubles along the way not a scam or unreasonable claims.
That's equally true of any type of lawsuit though. Or any type of checks and balances system in general. You don't disband the entire criminal court system just because there's a non-zero chance of someone somewhere being arrested for a crime they maybe didn't commit. That's what courts are for. Being indicted, or arrested, or even just sued is the raising of questions, not the answering of them.
Wasn't saying anything against it but I did want to bring that up a midst the deserved excitement that the scam kick starters are going to be fought
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Prime_Hunter_H01 said:
When I heard about this my immediate response was, "good, we need something to deter scams", but then I thought that there will be that one time where a lawsuit is filed against a legitimate failure which was transparent on goals, progress and the troubles that ultimately sank them despite having a successful kickstarter and by the work done was a cear failure due to unforeseen troubles along the way not a scam or unreasonable claims.
Which should be easy to dismiss in court, I must say.
 

Alterego-X

New member
Nov 22, 2009
611
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
At the same time, those terms of service may also provide an element of defense, as they note [https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use?ref=footer] that estimated delivery dates are "not a promise to fulfill by that date" and further requiring only that people who launch Kickstarters "agree to make a good faith attempt to fulfill each reward by its Estimated Delivery Date." It's one thing if Polchlepek just made off with the money but if he can claim, and demonstrate, that he did in fact make a legitimate effort to create and distribute the cards, he may have a valid defense.
Contract law doesn't work that way. If you sign an agreement according to which you "agree to make a good faith attempt to fulfill each reward by its Estimated Delivery Date", AND in another point of the same agreement, you agree to be "required to fulfill all rewards or refund any backer whose reward you do not or cannot fulfill.", then the stronger claim trumps the weaker.

If in a contract you agree to build a tower "at least 200m tall" and in another part of the agreement it has to be "no less than 300 meters tall", then you owe someone a 300 meter tall tover.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
erttheking said:
Well this seems pretty open and close. Guy said he would provide a product in return for money, he received the money but did not provide the product. Probably a good precedent to set.
Kickstarter is not a retail sale. The project commits to spend the money pledged on developing the product, however there is risk that, even with the money, the project could fail. The money already spent by the project is unrecoverable. The project is run by a limited liability company, only assets and holdings of the company are liable to pay the refund. The lawsuit is not on the grounds of non delivery but on the grounds of dishonest and unfair practice. In others words its a scam, at which point the personal assets of the owner are liable to the recovery of money. I have no idea if fraud or deception has taken place on this occasion but the case is not about non delivery of goods. Not all business work and you can lose your money without anything illegal happening. In short if you put your money into a kickstarter you accept the risk of failure that is not due to fraud or deception.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
Alterego-X said:
Contract law doesn't work that way. If you sign an agreement according to which you "agree to make a good faith attempt to fulfill each reward by its Estimated Delivery Date", AND in another point of the same agreement, you agree to be "required to fulfill all rewards or refund any backer whose reward you do not or cannot fulfill.", then the stronger claim trumps the weaker.

If in a contract you agree to build a tower "at least 200m tall" and in another part of the agreement it has to be "no less than 300 meters tall", then you owe someone a 300 meter tall tower.
In your case all liabilities would be limited to company and money legitimately spent by that company is not recoverable. In this case, the allegation is of false and unfair practices which brings in the personal assets of Polchlepek and not just the company. The case is alleging a scam and isn't about non delivery.
 

Caffiene

New member
Jul 21, 2010
283
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
The state of Washington has filed the first-ever lawsuit against a Kickstarter campaign that was successfully funded but failed to deliver the promised goods to backers.
They filed the first consumer protection lawsuit. Theres been at least one previous lawsuit that Im aware of over a failed KS - Neil Singh sued the creators of the HanFree KS campaign for breach of contract when they successfully funded and then failed to deliver any rewards.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
Caffiene said:
They filed the first consumer protection lawsuit. Theres been at least one previous lawsuit that Im aware of over a failed KS - Neil Singh sued the creators of the HanFree KS campaign for breach of contract when they successfully funded and then failed to deliver any rewards.
To be fair, in that case the defendant didn't form an LLC and left his own personal assets at risk. Normally suing a failed LLC is worthless because there is nothing left worth any money.
 

erbkaiser

Romanorum Imperator
Jun 20, 2009
1,137
0
0
Not all successful Kickstarters that failed to deliver are fraudulent, but this one definitely appears to be so. From the comments on the Kickstarter itself it seemed the artist who was hired never got paid, then after a year without payment the contract expired and he had to move on to other work.

Ed P/Nash seems to have taken the money and ran.
 

Alterego-X

New member
Nov 22, 2009
611
0
0
albino boo said:
In your case all liabilities would be limited to company and money legitimately spent by that company is not recoverable. In this case, the allegation is of false and unfair practices which brings in the personal assets of Polchlepek and not just the company. The case is alleging a scam and isn't about non delivery.
An LLC's corporate veil can be lifted not just for the false and unfair practices through the product's creation, but for the company's organization itself.

Even if he made an attempt to produce the cards, any court can acknowledge the reality that Polchlepek's private properties were used interchargivly with corporate property, that he was the only shareholder, and generally that there is no de facto difference between Polchlepek personally trying to make the cards, or calling himself an LLC, in which case the latter's protections can be nullified.

An LLC can only protect you if you actually go out of your way to formally organize it as a company, which a one-man project is very unlikely to properly do.