You’re basically inviting people to break non disclosure contracts that are often a part of pricing negotiations.
IANAL but I really hope you’re not storing confidential pricing information along with the email address alongside because I have a feeling you could open yourself up to legal issues in the future.
Yes, this is obviously a risk, just like lots of employees who share their comp packages on Glassdoor are taking a risk. A few things to note: 1) We're finding a ton of really interesting pricing data that is NOT under NDA (including companies that don't use NDAs, as well as companies with seemingly transparent pricing that A/B test so often that everyone is paying something different.
Glassdoor is different, disclosing your salary is often (depending on jurisdiction and details) protected by law, and many companies don't have a NDA that purports to prohibit it in the first place.
For instance, I think it's likely that glassdoor would be federally protected in the US under section 7 of the NLRA (which protects talking about pay when it's part of a concerted effort to improve pay), and even it's it isn't it's almost certainly protected in California by section 232 of the labor code, which states:
No employer may do any of the following:
a.Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages.
b.Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose the amount of his or her wages.
c.Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses the amount of his or her wages.
Correct. But employers have WAY more leverage to take "under the table" action against employees than vendors do, without filing a lawsuit or in any way tying the punitive action to a Glassdoor post.
Sure, but that just means with glass door you shouldn't post enough information publicly that your current employer can identify you.
With this website I'd be far more concerned about legal action, which could compel you to turn over the email and IP addresses associated with numbers that were posted in violation of NDAs.
When Bob tells Alice she should do it, and compensates her for doing it, there's potential liability under a principle called "tortious interference". It's not a definite thing, but I think it's fair to say it's a risky idea to build a business on.
But when Jennifer notifies Alice that Bob is giving her information he shouldn't, and to please stop sharing it with others, Alice loses plausible deniability, especially if she ends up selling that information.
I find it a bit odd that in an economic system that claims to be capitalist, which is supposed to revolve around the free market, contracts that are directly meant to make the market less transparent (and thus less free) are totally legal.
Of course I already knew that much of the US, or any other market, for that matter, isn't really free market, and I'm well aware of the limitations of the free market, but it's always good to remind ourselves of these things.
You're free to make contracts with NDA clauses. You're free to buy from companies that have licenses with NDA clauses. And, most importantly, you're free to offer your services with the most transparent license you can imagine, so that you'll gain tons of contracts from the competition.
But those NDA contracts on price information make the market non-transparent, and transparency is essential for a free market.
Just like you're not free to sell your vote, and not free to sell yourself into slavery, there should probably be other rights that you're also not free to sell.
Comments
You’re basically inviting people to break non disclosure contracts that are often a part of pricing negotiations.
IANAL but I really hope you’re not storing confidential pricing information along with the email address alongside because I have a feeling you could open yourself up to legal issues in the future.
Founder of Capiche here!
Yes, this is obviously a risk, just like lots of employees who share their comp packages on Glassdoor are taking a risk. A few things to note: 1) We're finding a ton of really interesting pricing data that is NOT under NDA (including companies that don't use NDAs, as well as companies with seemingly transparent pricing that A/B test so often that everyone is paying something different.
Glassdoor is different, disclosing your salary is often (depending on jurisdiction and details) protected by law, and many companies don't have a NDA that purports to prohibit it in the first place.
For instance, I think it's likely that glassdoor would be federally protected in the US under section 7 of the NLRA (which protects talking about pay when it's part of a concerted effort to improve pay), and even it's it isn't it's almost certainly protected in California by section 232 of the labor code, which states:
No employer may do any of the following:
a.Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages.
b.Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose the amount of his or her wages.
c.Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses the amount of his or her wages.
(IANAL)
Edit: Good resource with more information - https://www.dol.gov/wb/media/pay_secrecy.pdf
Correct. But employers have WAY more leverage to take "under the table" action against employees than vendors do, without filing a lawsuit or in any way tying the punitive action to a Glassdoor post.
Sure, but that just means with glass door you shouldn't post enough information publicly that your current employer can identify you.
With this website I'd be far more concerned about legal action, which could compel you to turn over the email and IP addresses associated with numbers that were posted in violation of NDAs.
It's not really Bob's fault/liability of Alice gives him confidential information is it? (The exception to the rule being government data)
When Bob tells Alice she should do it, and compensates her for doing it, there's potential liability under a principle called "tortious interference". It's not a definite thing, but I think it's fair to say it's a risky idea to build a business on.
But when Jennifer notifies Alice that Bob is giving her information he shouldn't, and to please stop sharing it with others, Alice loses plausible deniability, especially if she ends up selling that information.
I find it a bit odd that in an economic system that claims to be capitalist, which is supposed to revolve around the free market, contracts that are directly meant to make the market less transparent (and thus less free) are totally legal.
Of course I already knew that much of the US, or any other market, for that matter, isn't really free market, and I'm well aware of the limitations of the free market, but it's always good to remind ourselves of these things.
You're free to make contracts with NDA clauses. You're free to buy from companies that have licenses with NDA clauses. And, most importantly, you're free to offer your services with the most transparent license you can imagine, so that you'll gain tons of contracts from the competition.
But those NDA contracts on price information make the market non-transparent, and transparency is essential for a free market.
Just like you're not free to sell your vote, and not free to sell yourself into slavery, there should probably be other rights that you're also not free to sell.
Exactly, that's why all this "free market" talk from its proponents is a bunch of hypocritical BS.