Living Social fails to disclose terms of limitation and thus, defrauds customers of refunds or credits or fails to disclose which is misrepresentation, fraud or deceit within the meaning of the law. While the purchase gives you a voucher for a merchant, the "paid value" = the money you spent, has no definition. Living Social fails to define "paid values" or that they are limited to redemption, solely and exclusively at & with the merchant. Even tho the money is paid to Living Social, the limitation excludes the buyerconsumer from a refund or credit by "terms" - problem is there is no term that says that. Plus, the "terms & conditions" is 18 pages long - at count 22, Living Social can make changes without notice. A Federal Court case which states where internet terms of use or purchase can be unilaterally altered by the seller [Zappos case] the contract is non-existent, unenforceable and "illusory" - in legal language translated, the contract is not a contract at all - only looks like one. So the term "paid value" is not defined; failure to disclose is false, deceptive & misleading and even if something in the terms said that "paid value" was solely and exclusively valid only at the merchant, the terms are invalid and the "agreement" is invalid - void from its inception. Living Social doesn't care and believes there are no remedies available to the Consumer other than arbitration - well, that clause is invalid, too. So if you've got a complaint, sue them in small claims court in your state - the arbitration clause is invalid per: In re Zappos.com Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation WL 4466660 (D. Nev. Sept. 27)
0 comments