Welcome to the low point of summer 2015!
They say there is no such thing as bad publicity. But what happens when leading media starts to spread only half of a court ruling in their headlines? The idea is to get clicks, suspense and all that. But this isn’t ok, especially when the attribute “unconscionable” is used and the idea snowballs into the rest of the internet press.
This is currently what is happening with the message “Court Ruling Dubs SOFORT Transfers Unconscionable”, in numerous variations. Background: travel portal start.de offered credit card with a 12.90 Euro charge as the only payment method apart from SOFORT transfers. The district court Frankfurt am Main deemed this to be unconscionable.
What is happening in blogs and newsportals is unfair because the ruling was not about SOFORT transfers as such, but the fact that is was offered as the only alternative to an expensive credit card payment. Many headlines, let alone the articles don’t reflect this. But does the internet care? In the worst case, “unconscionable” will soon be permanently associated with the brand.
You can also see that the topic is becoming increasingly lurid. On the 10th of July, when the media first wrote about it, all was well:
» Ruling for #freedomOfChoice #DataProtection: #SofortTranser unconscionable as only free payment method «
But that was too boring. Better…
» New in law blog: “SofortTransfers” is unconscionable «
» Is the payment method SOFORT transfers unconscionable? «
The story now has a life of its own:
» I don’t get all the fuss! Wasn’t it originally about payment surcharges? Where is the danger with PIN/TAN disclosure? Just 1x use «
What is “unconscionable” here is the way it was reported.
What do you think?