This site was archived on 24 April 2012. No new content can be posted. The mailing list remains online and the site will stay in this archived state for the forseeable future. If you find any technical errors on the site, please contact Callum.

CS organisational policies vs the risk of litigation

As posted in the politics and policy group

As Norbert points out here, the LT’s apparent unwillingness to make haste with the 501c3 application for tax exempt status, as well as their unwillingness to publish corporate bylaws or make drafts of these available for discussion, may well be construed as an (attempt at) fraud, because donations and services are and have been obtained under the (currently false) pretense that CS is a charity.

Needless to say, this renders CS extremely vulnerable to all sorts of liability suits, interestingly of the kind that is likely not to be covered by the ToA. Basically, any user who has donated volunteer work or money (besides the verification fee) to CS can claim that he has been the victim of this fraud; add to this the easy access to legal representation in the US (due to no cure, no pay) and Norbert’s prediction that liability is likely to extend to all natural persons working in, and owning CS, and you can easily grasp the size of the time bomb Casey’s currently sitting on.

And how do you reckon that Casey, Jim and Mattthew were to produce the funds needed for compensation if this happens? Precisely, from the sale of CS to a commercial third party, which is entirely within Casey’s right…

2 Responses to “CS organisational policies vs the risk of litigation”

  • Hmm, I don’t agree with this line of reasoning. Anyway CS promotes itself as a non-profit org, not a charity. Therefore, CS should be safe unless it one day decides to become a for-profit business. In that scenario (1), people who have contributed intellectual property, ie. Kasper, Anu, John, etc etc may have a good cause to suing CS.

    Scenario (2) couchsurfing sells to eBay. People who have contributed intellectual property, ie. Kasper, Anu, John, etc etc may have a good cause to suing CS.

    Either way, I see it as all the more reason why CS will NOT go for-profit or be sold. Secondly, have you thought about how CS would change if was sold? If anything, it would have the resources to improve its services/features/functionality. EG. eBay owns 25% of Craigslist – users were upset at first but they have more users today than ever before. The only people who will lose out are the “counter-culture” owns. But it looks like they already have.

  • Thank Goodness we have this huge Bullseye called Facebook (among others) to defray the battles CS might otherwise face.

    Now CS can worry about paying their good workers and Admins and ever changing needs of a growing robust travel community

Comments are currently closed.