Business
Help! I Couldn’t Take My Tall-Ship Voyage, and I Want My Money Back.
Dear Tripped Up,
Last summer, I booked a five-day sailing trip with Tall Ship Experience, a company based in Spain. For 1,350 euros, or $1,450, I would be a volunteer on the crew of the Atlantis, sailing between two ports in Italy. But eight days before, I had a bad fall that resulted in multiple injuries, including eight stitches to my face that doctors said I could not expose to sun or water. The Tall Ship Experience website clearly states that I could cancel for a full refund up to seven days before the trip. But the company revealed it was just an intermediary and the Dutch organization actually running the trip, Tallship Company, had different rules, under which I was refunded 10 percent. I offered to take credit for a future trip, to no avail. Finally, I disputed the charges with my credit card issuer, American Express. But Tall Ship Experience provided a completely different set of terms to Amex, saying I canceled one day in advance. The charges were reinstated. Can you help? Martha, Los Angeles
Dear Martha,
This story reads like a greatest-hits playlist of travel industry traps: a middleman shirking responsibility, terms and conditions run amok, a credit card chargeback gone wrong, and the maddening barriers to pursuing justice against a foreign company. However, the documentation you sent was so complete and the company’s website so confusing that I was sure Tall Ship Experience would quickly refund you.
Tallship Company did not respond to requests for comments, but did nothing wrong. It simply followed its own terms and conditions that Tall Ship Experience, as a middleman, should have made clear to you. When you canceled, Tallship Company sent back a 10 percent refund to Tall Ship Experience to then send to you.
That’s why I was surprised that the stubborn (though exceedingly polite) Tall Ship Experience spokeswoman who responded to me on behalf of the Seville-based organization argued repeatedly that although she regretted your disappointment, Tall Ship Experience was not at fault. At one point she suggested you should have purchased travel insurance, even as the company scrambled to adjust and update its website as we emailed.
Before the changes, the site contained two distinct and contradictory sets of terms and conditions: one for customers who purchased via the website’s English and French versions, and another on the Spanish version. (Confusingly, both documents were in Spanish.)
The English/French version — the one you had seen — promised customers a full refund for trips canceled more than seven days in advance. The Spanish one is vastly more complex, offering distinct cancellation terms for each ship. The Atlantis offered customers in your situation only 10 percent back.
Enter the stubborn spokeswoman: “The terms and conditions in Spanish correctly reflected the cancellation policy of the ship in the moment the client made the reservation,” she wrote via email. “We are conscious that at the time, the English version of the terms was not updated, which may have generated confusion. However, the official terms of the reservation were applied correctly.”
In other words, customers should somehow know to ignore one contract and seek out another on a different part of the site, both in a language they may not read.
But I am no expert in Spanish consumer law, so I got in touch with two people who are: Marta Valls Sierra, head of the consumer rights practice at Marimón Abogados, a law firm based in Barcelona; and Fernando Peña López, a professor at the Universidade da Coruña in A Coruña.
They examined the documentation and each concluded independently that Tall Ship Experience had violated basic Spanish consumer statutes. When I passed along their convincing points to the spokeswoman and alerted her that you were considering taking the company to Spanish small-claims court, she finally said it would refund you the remaining €1,215.
I felt a bit sheepish about exerting so much pressure on this small company — actually, an arm of the nonprofit Nao Victoria Foundation, which operates several replicas of historic ships — but the company should have taken much more care when it set up its website, Ms. Valls Sierra told me.
“If in your terms and conditions you say that up until seven days before departure you have the right to cancel,” she said in an interview, “and a consumer comes and says, ‘I want to cancel,’ you have to cancel their trip and return their money. They can’t use ‘Sorry, we forgot to put it on one web page, but we put it on another web page’ as an excuse.”
It is a principle of consumer law, she added, that confusing or contradictory contracts are interpreted in favor of the consumer.
The other troubling issue with the website is that you had no way of knowing that your trip was not operated by Tall Ship Experience. There was no such mention I could find on the website, which relies on marketing copy like this: “On board you will learn everything you need to know that will allow you to become one of our crew.”
Dr. Peña López, the law professor, wrote me in an email that “Tall Ship Experience is obligated to inform the consumer about the service it provides in an accessible and understandable manner, clearly indicating whether it is an intermediary.” He added that Tall Ship Experience “clearly” presented itself as the ship’s operator in this case.
As I mentioned, Tall Ship Experience did begin updating its site almost as soon as I got in touch, calling itself a “marketplace” for experiences and posting the correct terms and conditions (in the correct languages) on its English and French pages.
But Tall Ship Experience agreed to a refund only after I sent the company a compilation of the two experts’ legal analyses. “We are dedicated to creating experiences aboard unique boats, and not to legal matters,” came the spokeswoman’s response. “Regardless of which party is correct in this case, we would like to refund the full amount. We look forward to putting this to rest and to focus on continuing to improve customer experiences.”
You also said that American Express had let you down, by taking the company’s word over yours when you contested the charge. It is true that the document Tall Ship Experience sent to Amex (which forwarded it to you, who forwarded it to me), is wildly inaccurate, including only the terms favorable to the company and saying you canceled only one day in advance.
A spokeswoman for American Express emailed me a statement saying that the company “takes into account both the card member and the merchant perspectives.” But travelers should not mistake credit card issuers for crack investigators who will leave no stone unturned in pursuit of travel justice. A chargeback request works best when the problem is straightforward — you were charged more than you agreed to pay, or you never agreed to pay at all. Asking your card issuer to do a deep dive into terms and conditions is a much longer shot.
And as we’ve seen before (and might be seeing in this case) such chargeback requests often anger the companies involved to the point that they refuse to deal with you further.
If all else had failed, as I told you before the company gave in, you could have requested a “juicio verbal,” Spain’s version of a small-claims-court proceeding, via videoconference. It would not have been easy, said Dr. Peña López. Cases under €2,000 do not require a lawyer, but they do require you to have a Foreigner Identification Number, to fill out forms in legal Spanish (A.I. might help) and to find an interpreter to be by your side.
When I finally told you — in our 39th email! — you’d get a refund, you told me you had been “almost looking forward to a Spanish small-claims experience.” I admire your spirit, although I suspect it would have been quickly broken by bureaucratic and linguistic barriers.
If you need advice about a best-laid travel plan that went awry, send an email to TrippedUp@nytimes.com.
Follow New York Times Travel on Instagram and sign up for our Travel Dispatch newsletter to get expert tips on traveling smarter and inspiration for your next vacation. Dreaming up a future getaway or just armchair traveling? Check out our 52 Places to Go in 2025.
Business
Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown
The state’s trial attorneys and Uber say they have reached a last-minute deal to scrap their dueling ballot measures and avert what was gearing up to be one of most expensive battles of the November election.
The deal, which comes a day after both measures qualified for the November ballot, has Uber agreeing to bulk up safety measures, while the trial attorneys will limit how much they can claim for lien-based medical treatment of victims who get in Uber or Lyft accidents, according to spokespeople for both sides of the campaign.
“Both sides agree: Californians deserve a system that’s safe, fair, and accountable,” read a joint statement from Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful attorney trade group. “This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”
The agreement, finalized Thursday, means the ride-share giant will kill its ballot measure to cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases and limit medical damages to rates based on insurance. Uber has argued that the costs for medical treatment done on a lien, which allows doctors to get paid from a cut of the plaintiff’s payout, far exceed what it would cost if the victim had used their own insurance.
In return, the Consumer Attorneys of California will cancel its competing ballot measure that sought to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver. The measure followed an investigation by the New York Times into sexual assault by drivers.
Both sides had poured tens of millions into the campaigns, plastering billboards across Los Angeles.
Lawyers claimed the fight had turned existential with the measure threatening to decimate the profit margin of many personal injury cases and leave drivers with small or thorny cases unable to find an attorney willing to take their case.
Spokespeople say the deal is predicated on their agreement being codified into a bill within the next week. Otherwise, they said, each side will move forward with its ballot measure.
Business
Commentary: A porn firm that a judge called a ‘copyright troll’ now has Meta in its sights — and it could win
This porn company made millions by shaming the little guys who downloaded its films. But now it’s going after Meta for copyright infringement.
It isn’t often that a lawsuit can make me smile, much less laugh out loud. The latest exception is Strike 3 Holdings vs. Meta Platforms, which is currently unfolding in San Jose federal court.
Two things are amusing about the case. One is that Meta, the giant social media company, is accused of copyright infringement for allegedly downloading 2,400 of the plaintiff’s movies to train its AI bots. If Meta loses, that would be a serious (and in my opinion, deserved) blow against AI companies that have used copyrighted materials without permission.
The second part of the joke is the identity of the plaintiff. Strike 3 Holdings, you see, makes porn. Moreover, for years it has pursued a plainly unscrupulous business model in which it sues individuals for allegedly downloading its movies without permission, and shames them into settling for a few thousand dollars at a pop.
While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible…that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person—or any combination of such persons—was responsible for that activity.
— Meta points the finger at others for a porn scandal
Whether or not Strike 3 has a legitimate claim for copyright infringement, it doesn’t deserve your sympathy. The firm was flayed in 2018 by federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Washington, D.C., for engaging in what he labeled a “high-tech shakedown … smacking of extortion.” Lamberth called Strike 3 a “copyright troll” and threw out its lawsuit against an unidentified internet user for having treated his court “not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM.”
When I wrote about this scheme in 2023, I counted more than 12,440 lawsuits that the Los Angeles-based firm had filed in federal courts coast-to-coast. The latest count, according to a Lexis search a defense lawyer ran for me, is more than 21,000. The vast majority were settled and closed within a few months of their filing, an indication that they were never meant to go to trial.
Now Strike 3 appears to have hooked a big fish. In the first significant ruling in its lawsuit against Meta, the firm scored a surprise win: On June 11, federal Judge Eumi K. Lee of San Jose denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the case. Meta’s defense, she wrote, “strains credulity.”
More about that in a moment. First, a few words about the litigants. Meta needs no introduction: Formerly known as Facebook and based in Menlo Park, Calif., Meta recorded a profit of $60.5 billion last year on $201 billion in revenue.
Strike 3 portrays itself as an avatar of “Hollywood style and quality” in its adult films, which it distributes through its streaming websites such as Blacked, Tushy, Vixen and Wifey. It has described Greg Landry, its former owner and house auteur, as the porn industry’s “answer to Steven Spielberg.”
Neither Meta nor Strike 3 responded to my request for comment beyond the claims and defenses in court filings.
As I reported in 2023, Strike 3 has flooded federal courts with cookie-cutter lawsuits alleging that defendants infringed its copyrights by downloading its movies via BitTorrent, an online service on which unauthorized content can be accessed by almost anyone with an internet connection. Its targets generally have been individuals with plenty to lose from being publicly outed as porn viewers.
“Given the nature of the films at issue,” a federal judge in Connecticut observed last year, “defendants may feel coerced to settle these suits merely to prevent public disclosure of their identifying information, even if they believe they have been misidentified.”
Strike 3’s letters to its target defendants have warned that the statutory penalty for willful copyright infringement is $150,000, but offer to make the case go quietly away for a few thousand bucks, which would be a fraction of the cost of hiring a defense lawyer, not to mention the downside of exposing oneself as a porn fiend.
J. Curtis Edmondson, a Portland, Ore., lawyer who won a case against Strike 3, estimated in 2023 that Strike 3 “pulls in about $15 million to $20 million a year from its lawsuits.” But financial data that could validate his estimate hasn’t surfaced in court records.
There’s nothing new about content owners’ aggressive pursuit of copyright infringers. The practice was pioneered by the Recording Industry Assn. of America, when the industry feared that unauthorized downloading of music through programs such as Napster threatened its very existence. From 2003 through 2008, the association sued some 35,000 alleged song pirates.
But it abandoned the strategy because its legal dragnet swept up sympathetic targets such as single mothers and teenage girls, creating a public relations disaster.
There followed the appearance of outright trolls such as Prenda Law Group, which posted porn films online as bait to attract downloaders, whom it then sued in what judges ultimately found to be sham lawsuits. Prenda principal John L. Steele even bragged publicly that Prenda had made nearly $15 million with its lawsuits. U.S. Judge Otis Wright II of Los Angeles put the kibosh to its practice by slapping the Prenda lawyers with stiff sanctions for contempt.
That brings us to Strike 3’s case against Meta, which it filed in July. Strike 3 hasn’t been accused of a Prenda-style fraud, since it does own the films at issue and its right to sue copyright infringers isn’t disputed. But its allegation that Meta downloaded its films to train its AI bots, rather than just for personal enjoyment, is a new wrinkle for an old issue.
Strike 3 says its lawsuit grew out of a separate case in which a witness testified that Meta had downloaded thousands of pirated books to train its LLaMA AI bots — that is, feeding the content into LLaMA for it to use to generate answers to user questions. (Numerous lawsuits have been filed against AI firms alleging similar infringement.)
Strike 3 says that case prompted it to look into whether Meta had downloaded any of its content. It says it discovered that 47 IP addresses owned by Meta — that is, digital identifiers of internet accounts — had downloaded its movies without permission.
In all, Strike 3 alleges, those Meta addresses downloaded at least 2,396 of its movies — almost its entire catalog — more than 6,000 times via BitTorrent. What’s more, Strike 3 says Meta then posted some of that content back onto BitTorrent to take advantage of BitTorrent’s “tit-for-tat” mechanism through which users can obtain faster download speeds by uploading content to the platform.
If Strike 3 were to prevail on all its claims for illicit downloading, it would be entitled to about $360 million in damages, observes Eric Fruits, an Oregon economist who has testified for the defense in some Strike 3 lawsuits.
One might ask why Meta might be downloading porn for any reason, bot-training or otherwise. Meta, in its defense filings, says Strike 3 has offered no proof that Meta, as a corporation, was responsible for the downloading. If it happened, Meta says, it would have been inadvertent.
“Tens of thousands of employees and innumerable contractors, visitors, and third parties access the internet at Meta every day,” it wrote in its motion to dismiss the case. “While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible … that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person — or any combination of such persons — was responsible for that activity.” The “sporadic downloads,” Meta says, “exhibit the hallmarks of personal use,” not corporate strategy.
This defense has borne fruit in other Strike 3 cases, in which defendants successfully argued simply having an IP address that was used to infringe wasn’t enough to prove they committed the infringements.
Strike 3 says it can show that the downloads weren’t the work of random users. Some downloads, it says, were coordinated among several Meta IP addresses, all based on the same algorithmic keywords and occurring simultaneously, suggesting that the infringements “took place within Meta’s walls.”
On Dec. 15, 2022, for instance, downloads apparently based on the keyword “teen” involved not only the movies “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Teen Titans Go to the Movies,” but also “Teen Sex Sessions 2” and “Teens love Tats XXX,” according to Lee’s ruling. Other simultaneous downloads swept up episodes of “The Big Bang Theory” and “Ted Lasso” out of order, though a putative human user would probably have downloaded them sequentially.
“It strains credulity,” Lee ruled, “to suggest that these correlations are mere coincidence and the product of individual human selections.” Rather, the use of an algorithm would account for “why pornography was downloaded alongside children’s cartoons and sitcoms. … The odds that multiple people using the Corporate IP addresses … coincidentally torrented the same show, rather than simply streaming it, on the exact same day strains belief.”
The case is still at an early stage. For Strike 3, the lawsuit offers the potential of a big score. But Meta has signaled that it’s not inclined to roll over like a family man caught downloading skin flicks and worrying about his reputation at home and around town.
This time, Strike 3 may have a fight on its hands with a defendant that has money to burn.
Business
Rivian lays off hundreds of workers days after new vehicle deliveries begin
Rivian said it’s laying off hundreds of employees, or less than 2% of its workforce, as part of restructuring efforts aimed at making the company profitable for the first time.
The layoffs come one week after the Irvine-based electric vehicle maker began deliveries of its highly anticipated R2 SUV.
The company is hoping that the R2, which is currently only available as a performance version for $57,990, could attract more customers with its lower price tag.
But industry analysts said the performance R2 is still not affordable for many Americans, and investors reacted with disappointment to the first deliveries June 9, with shares falling 7% that day. On Wednesday, Rivian shares gained .33 points, or 2%, to close at $16.26.
The company said a standard version of the R2 starting at $44,990 will become available next year.
The layoffs took effect on Monday and affected Rivian’s service and customer organization employees, including sales and marketing teams. Rivian employed 15,232 people as of December.
“We recently restructured a handful of teams within Rivian as we work to profitably scale our business,” a company spokesperson said.
The laid off employees have been provided with severance packages and are encouraged to apply for other open roles with Rivian, the company said.
Rivian may be trying to reach profitability by saving money on labor, said Ivan Drury, director of insights at Edmunds.
“You have to wonder to what degree they do plan on replacing those people with some level of AI and automation,” he said.
Rivian, which is pouring money into autonomous vehicle efforts including a robotaxi partnership with Uber, has struggled to turn a profit with its luxury EVs.
The layoffs are likely not directly tied to recent reception of the R2, auto analyst Brian Moody said.
“I think that it’s declining interest in new electric cars, and maybe declining interest in expensive things,” he said. “We can surmise that [layoff] process began long before the R2 launch.”
The company lost $3.6 billion last year and recently said it is no longer expecting to meet its 2027 adjusted core profit target.
There has been a broad cooling of the EV market. Major automakers including Honda and Ford have cut back their EV options as excitement for the vehicles has fallen under the Trump administration. A $7,500 EV tax credit for new vehicles expired in September.
Rivian cut 4.5% of its workforce in October, or more than 600 jobs, following the expiration of the credit. The company also laid off about 200 employees in September.
In a recent turnaround, Rivian surprised the market with strong earnings results in February, reporting gross profits for 2025 of $144 million compared with a net loss in 2024 of $1.2 billion. Gross profit is revenue without subtracting the cost of production expenses.
In its earnings release, Rivian credited the swing to “strong software and services performance, higher average selling prices, and reductions in cost per vehicle.”
“The company has never posted a full year’s worth of profit, and this is the one lever they can pull to rightsize things,” Drury said.
-
News3 minutes agoLuigi Mangione’s lawyers withdraw plans for psychiatric defense
-
New York1 hour agoVideo: Knicks Fans Celebrate With Ticker-Tape Parade
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour agoArmed, dangerous CHP pursuit suspect tied to double homicide in Pomona
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoFirst responders honored after rescuing 12 people from capsized sailboats near Belle Isle
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoOakland man faces hate crime charges for Castro District attack
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoAt least 4 injured after vehicle drives into Dallas crowd, driver arrested
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoMiami Central students prepare for life changing trip to Zimbabwe amid funding challenges
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoGiannis to Boston is a possibility. Should the Knicks be worried?