Print

[NewHorizon]

The terms of the Lender Registration Agreement that [   ] signed gave Prosper the right to amend it at any time in Prosper's sole discretion.

OK, I get that unilateral contract modifications are pretty common for consumer contracts like cell phones or credit cards.  But SEC-goverened investments?  I don't suppose there's a way to get feedback from the SEC?  Once this piece of the contract is discredited in some way, the path toward claiming fiduciary irresponsibility would seem to be easier.

Anywho and fwiw, I came across:
Ninth Circuit Says Company Can't Change Contract Terms Without Notice

In Douglas, Talk America had posted revised contract terms on its website, which included a mandatory arbitration clause for its customers. When Douglas, a Talk America customer, filed a class action lawsuit against the company, the company moved to compel arbitration based on the revised contract, and the district court granted the motion. Douglas petitioned the Ninth Circuit for mandamus. In granting the petition, the Ninth Circuit held that "[p]arties to a contract have no obligation to check the terms on a periodic basis to learn whether they have been changed by the other side." The district court's decision, according to the Ninth Circuit, "reflect[ed] fundamental misapplications of contract law."

and:

Another Ruling Challenging "Check the Website for Amendments" Contract Provisions

Judge Patel continues: "plaintiffs allege that E*Trade’s unilateral ability to change contract terms, without notice, and the requirement that they periodically check the terms of the contract is problematic. Although magic words are not used, the allegations are sufficient to allege a claim for unenforceability."

[rogerwaite]

Credit Card Cos. have to provide notice and allow you to opt out. I believe you get to continue the previous payment terms, you just can't use the card anymore. The way I would translate that for Prosper is you wouldn't be able to lend anymore, but you should still get all other provisions regarding existing loans. Unfortunately, as far as translation goes, Prosper speaks every language except Greek. Not matter what you ask them about its Greek to them.

[NewHorizon]

Yeah, I think the key point in the cases referred to in my previous post is that making unilateral changes without notification is what puts you on shaky legal ground. (*)

The "Some of our legal agreements have changed since you signed up." message one sees upon logging in to Prosper could be considered "notification", I s'pose.  (But surely there are those who've not logged in since P1?)  But in Prosper land, according to their reply to the above complaint, you can't opt out of the new agreements (vis-a-vis older Notes)!

(*) ETA: In general, that is.  But who knows, for SEC-governed securities, unilateral modifications to the agreements might not be permitted in the first place.  I wouldn't know how to research that.

[ira01]

Yeah, I think the key point in the cases referred to in my previous post is that making unilateral changes without notification is what puts you on shaky legal ground. (*)

The "Some of our legal agreements have changed since you signed up." message one sees upon logging in to Prosper could be considered "notification", I s'pose.  (But surely there are those who've not logged in since P1?)  

Actually, when you log onto Prosper, you get the following message:

Some of our legal agreements have changed since you signed up. Before you can start investing on Prosper, you will need to review and sign the agreements:

That is an express acknowledgment by Prosper that changes to its legal agreements are only binding on lenders who "sign" the revised agreements.  Which I (and many others) have expressly refused to do.  Prosper's assertions that its changes are effective without the agreement of lenders is complete bullshit, as its own statement clearly demonstrates it full well knows.  Otherwise, there would be no need for Prosper to solicit lender agreement to the new agreements, as it does. 

[msava]

So let's say best case: BBB renders a decision against Prosper.  Then what?

Let's say worse case: BBB renders a decision in favor of Prosper. Then what?

ETA: I only signed the first agreement back in March of 2007. Refuse to sign any changes even though every time I sign on, I'm request to sign  anew. If it's not needed for them to cheat me, why do they continue to ask?

[James01]

It's neither best case nor worst case.  It's like I never contacted the BBB at all.  Through the BBB, Prosper sent their final response:
"We regret that [ ] is dissatisfied with our response; however, because we believe that we acted properly with regard to [ ]'s investment, we are unable to offer him his desired resolution. "

I argued that Prosper did not address the points I'd raised in my rebuttal to their original response, and that I did NOT accept this final response.  Now the case is closed.

The BBB never commented on the merits of my argument or of Prosper's.  They were merely a communication channel (which is now closed). 

[ira01]

BBB sucks.

[mothandrust]

ETA: I only signed the first agreement back in March of 2007. Refuse to sign any changes even though every time I sign on, I'm request to sign  anew. If it's not needed for them to cheat me, why do they continue to ask?

I didn't sign any updated agreements either; their first line of defense is to quote from the most recent LRA and point to text in it "that you agreed to".

Then if you say "Oh, but I only signed an earlier agreement that didn't have that text in it" then they have to fall back on the argument that "Well, that old LRA that you did sign said we can make changes unilaterally and posted them on the website and you're bound by them."

By the time I got this far, we were on the second rebuttal and then BBB closed it; I was hoping maybe James01 might get further down the road.

At least we've learned that Prosper is consistent in its arguments and that their official corporate position is that whatever contract you sign, they believe they can amend it unilaterally in the future to whatever they later want it to say.

[NewHorizon]

Yeah, I think the key point in the cases referred to in my previous post is that making unilateral changes without notification is what puts you on shaky legal ground. (*)

Aaaand now (well, Friday) I get an Email from Prosper entitled "ACTION REQUIRED: Updated Lender Registration Agreement now available" - thus notifying any Lenders who haven't logged in to Prosper for a long time.

It wasn't because of something I said, was it?   

[James01]

Just an update -- I haven't taken any action related to my "Adjusted" principal balance since getting Prosper's final reply through the BBB.  I'm re-considering whether to even pursue this in small claims court.  The outcome is not guaranteed, and even if I do win, $1600 is not really worth the time and effort, frankly (plus, I'm busy with my family, real job, life, etc.).
I may just sit back and watch how the fifth (and sixth, and seventh?) year of the class action suit unfolds. 

I'll check in here every few days to see how everyone else in my "boat" is doing.

Take care,

James

[tmullin1217]

One of my defaults has been making collection payments for the past two years. Yesterday, I noticed that the status has been changed to Paid In Full. The last payment was posted on March 7, 2013. The Principal balance was $7.27 at the time.

$86.19 / $15,000 @ 12.00%    3 years    Apr-21-2008 $86.19 @ 12.00%    $92.43    Charge-off
+                                                                                                                       Paid in full