• Go to page :
  • 1 2
  • Text Only
fyi, for those who decide to do this, there is a referral fee if you join and then refer a person who also registers for a challenge; you only collect the fee if you successfully complete your own challenge. Now, to find the address of my nearest Weight Watchers and make myself some new referral "friends."

" Referrals. You are eligible for a referral bonus of $20 for each person who registers for HealthyWage and pays for a HealthyWage challenge (or signs up for the free BMI Challenge if he/she gets a timely verified weigh-in) based on (and after) your referral and who properly enters your registration number during his/her registration. The bonus will be added to your total prize. You will not receive the bonus if you do not win the prize (i.e., you will not receive the bonus if you do not win the Ten Percent Challenge). You will not receive a referral bonus if the person you referred does not enter your registration number during his/her registration."

pthor1231 said:   ragedogg69 said:   brettdoyle said:   I bet they have to change their terms and conditions because FWF cheapskate members will have some creative initial weigh ins.

Imagine someone coming in after a month of binge eating, stuffing their pockets full of heavy crap, and then drinking so much water that they're about to explode.


Yep, I would absolutely consider the 10% challenge. Bulk up like Mac, then cut with an ECA stack and collect my money.


And in the process probably spend a good portion, if not most, of the prize money on the crap to bulk up.

Really if you drink a gallon of water before the worst weigh-in and don't drink anything the day of the final weigh-in you could probably halve the amount you need to lose depending on your weight.

maxfleischer said:   fyi, for those who decide to do this, there is a referral fee if you join and then refer a person who also registers for a challenge; you only collect the fee if you successfully complete your own challenge. Now, to find the address of my nearest Weight Watchers and make myself some new referral "friends."

" Referrals. You are eligible for a referral bonus of $20 for each person who registers for HealthyWage and pays for a HealthyWage challenge (or signs up for the free BMI Challenge if he/she gets a timely verified weigh-in) based on (and after) your referral and who properly enters your registration number during his/her registration. The bonus will be added to your total prize. You will not receive the bonus if you do not win the prize (i.e., you will not receive the bonus if you do not win the Ten Percent Challenge). You will not receive a referral bonus if the person you referred does not enter your registration number during his/her registration."


I can confirm that the referral bonus shows up in your total "reward level" once another person you referred successfully signs up.

For example, if doing the 10% Challenge and one other person signs up using your registration number, it would increase your "reward level" immediately from $300 to $320. Additional referrals would increment accordingly. You do not need your referrals to be successful to collect, only yourself as you note. Certainly it would be nice to see others win other people's money for a good cause too.

Interestingly, they have a clause in their terms and conditions that if you are unhappy with this program after you participated in it, or if you were disqualified, etc., you can't say ANYthing for 2 years.

It's only been going for 2 years or less, I think, so only folks who were happy with their experience will be posting on FW and elsewhere about this program.... any who were unhappy will have to keep quiet.


"Participant covenants and agrees that he/she will not say anything disparaging about HealthyWage via any means, including electronic media (including but not limited to email, Twitter and Facebook), written media (including but not limited to letters, press and advertisements), and spoken word, for two years following the end of the challenge. This includes all disparaging remarks whether true or false. Participant understands that sour grapes can cause serious damage to HealthyWage and Participant hereby agrees to be financially responsible for such damages and to pay any and all legal costs and fees, including attorneys fees, that HealthyWage incurs in any successful action against the Participant for violating this clause, even if HealthyWage's damages are small. Participant agrees that the word “disparagement,” as used in this section, shall be construed very broadly."

source: http://www.healthywage.com/ten-percent-rules

1)It sounds as if this only pertains to people who have been disqualified.
2)If the disparaging remarks are true, is it possible for HealthyWage to have a successful action against the participant?

It sure sounds like they're trying to violate the first amendment...

imbatman said:   It sure sounds like they're trying to violate the first amendment...
I'm no lawyer, but is it a violation of the first amendment if you voluntarily agree to the conditions? People sign non-disclosure & non-disparagement agreements all the time and those are legal.

BrodyInsurance said:   1)It sounds as if this only pertains to people who have been disqualified.
2)If the disparaging remarks are true, is it possible for HealthyWage to have a successful action against the participant?



1. The way that I read it, this covers all participants. Where do you see that it only pertains to disqualified participants?

2. I should certainly think so (though I'm no lawyer), if you have signed up and confirmed that you agree to these terms and conditions. They say that they have previously sued people for this behavior.

V. Sour Grapes Clause
Note to participants: We wanted to explain the Sour Grapes Clause. We rarely disqualify participants, and it has happened for only two reasons: (1) fraud/cheating/unfair conduct and (2) very rarely, for not submitting weigh-ins. We sometimes find ourselves threatened by folks who have cheated. They sometimes say things like, "pay me or I will cause a social media raucous." The Sour Grapes Clause is designed to prevent that. We do not and will not use the Sour Grapes Clause for any other purpose.


source: http://www.healthywage.com/ten-percent-rules

imbatman said:   It sure sounds like they're trying to violate the first amendment...It would be if this nation was ruled by Heathywage.

BrodyInsurance,

People can read the entire Terms and Conditions and decide for themselves what it says.

My feeling is that the most restrictive sentences about what participants can or cannot do are the sentences that their lawyers will fall back on.

I don't think that the wording of this clause V, taken in its entirety, says that ONLY participants who were disqualified are not legally allowed to criticize the program. There are just too many sentences that say "participant agrees not to do x,y,z" and this means ALL participants, as far as I can see;
however, I understand that you are interpreting it differently and that you think the entire clause is only regarding disqualified participants.

===
Key parts of Clause V:

"Participant hereby covenants and agrees to keep sour grapes to himself/herself, and to be financially responsible for any damages caused to HealthyWage by the airing of participant’s sour grapes or any of the conduct described in this Sour Grapes Clause. This Sour Grapes Clause applies regardless of the reason for the sour grapes, and applies even when the Participant was disqualified by HealthyWage for a rules violation, whether the violation was caused by the Participant or by someone else, and whether the Participant agrees with HealthyWage's ruling or not. Participant covenants and agrees that he/she will not say anything disparaging about HealthyWage via any means, including electronic media (including but not limited to email, Twitter and Facebook), written media (including but not limited to letters, press and advertisements), and spoken word, for two years following the end of the challenge. This includes all disparaging remarks whether true or false. Participant understands that sour grapes can cause serious damage to HealthyWage and Participant hereby agrees to be financially responsible for such damages and to pay any and all legal costs and fees, including attorneys fees, that HealthyWage incurs in any successful action against the Participant for violating this clause, even if HealthyWage's damages are small. Participant agrees that the word “disparagement,” as used in this section, shall be construed very broadly."

---
Even if your interpretation were correct, I still see a lot of problems with that sort of heavy-handed clampdown.

If all customers who are unhappy with any other service would not be allowed to say anything to anyone for 2 years about their bad experience, even if their complaint is TRUE (which is what this clause V says - it covers real grievances that are legitimate and true), then how would consumers ever be able to decide wisely on how they spend their time and money?

For example, Comcast cable company this week is attracting a lot of angry customer discussion, even on their own forum on their own website, over their deceptive practices about billing -- and many customers are dropping them as their tv broadcast provider. If all customers who were upset with Comcast were prevented from saying ANYTHING for 2 years about Comcast's behavior and the broken promises etc. that they experienced, then it would be a very unfair marketplace.

It would be a dictatorship of the monopolies. And that's not a good system, not good for anyone. Fair, open competition is the name of the game, it's the real American way.

suezyque said:    It sounds like a twist on a Ponzi scheme. I can see this being fraught with disaster.

Healthy Wage


Ponzi? No way. This is a brilliant money-making idea.
First, we know that only a fraction of the people succeed in losing the weight.
Some fraction of those won't follow the rules or will not check back in....
The advertising dollars (captive audience interested in weight loss) plus when you sign up, you grant this company:
....you grant HealthyWage and its successors and assigns a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right (including any moral rights) and license (as well as consent) to use, license, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, derive revenue or other remuneration from, communicate to the public, perform and display any Submissions (in whole or in part and with or without the use of your name) worldwide and/or to incorporate the Submissions in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, for the full term of any copyrights, trademarks and other intellectual and proprietary rights

Free publicity.. Sorry, this guy isn't ponzi.. he's brilliant.

NantucketSunrise said:   BrodyInsurance,

People can read the entire Terms and Conditions and decide for themselves what it says.

My feeling is that the most restrictive sentences about what participants can or cannot do are the sentences that their lawyers will fall back on.

I don't think that the wording of this clause V, taken in its entirety, says that ONLY participants who were disqualified are not legally allowed to criticize the program. There are just too many sentences that say "participant agrees not to do x,y,z" and this means ALL participants, as far as I can see;
however, I understand that you are interpreting it differently and that you think the entire clause is only regarding disqualified participants.

===
Key parts of Clause V:

"Participant hereby covenants and agrees to keep sour grapes to himself/herself, and to be financially responsible for any damages caused to HealthyWage by the airing of participant’s sour grapes or any of the conduct described in this Sour Grapes Clause. This Sour Grapes Clause applies regardless of the reason for the sour grapes, and applies even when the Participant was disqualified by HealthyWage for a rules violation, whether the violation was caused by the Participant or by someone else, and whether the Participant agrees with HealthyWage's ruling or not. Participant covenants and agrees that he/she will not say anything disparaging about HealthyWage via any means, including electronic media (including but not limited to email, Twitter and Facebook), written media (including but not limited to letters, press and advertisements), and spoken word, for two years following the end of the challenge. This includes all disparaging remarks whether true or false. Participant understands that sour grapes can cause serious damage to HealthyWage and Participant hereby agrees to be financially responsible for such damages and to pay any and all legal costs and fees, including attorneys fees, that HealthyWage incurs in any successful action against the Participant for violating this clause, even if HealthyWage's damages are small. Participant agrees that the word “disparagement,” as used in this section, shall be construed very broadly."

---
Even if your interpretation were correct, I still see a lot of problems with that sort of heavy-handed clampdown.

If all customers who are unhappy with any other service would not be allowed to say anything to anyone for 2 years about their bad experience, even if their complaint is TRUE (which is what this clause V says - it covers real grievances that are legitimate and true), then how would consumers ever be able to decide wisely on how they spend their time and money?

For example, Comcast cable company this week is attracting a lot of angry customer discussion, even on their own forum on their own website, over their deceptive practices about billing -- and many customers are dropping them as their tv broadcast provider. If all customers who were upset with Comcast were prevented from saying ANYTHING for 2 years about Comcast's behavior and the broken promises etc. that they experienced, then it would be a very unfair marketplace.

It would be a dictatorship of the monopolies. And that's not a good system, not good for anyone. Fair, open competition is the name of the game, it's the real American way.


It doesn't matter what their lawyers will fall back on. Their lawyers don't get to be the judge or jury.

If a non-disqualified participant goes to Facebook to complain, they are guilty of breaking the "Sour Grapes" clause. However, the "Sour Grapes" clause also states that HealthyWage won't go after them for breaking this clause. Healthywage appears to be in breach of their own contract if they go after someone for "sour grapes" who has not been disqualified.

The "note to participants" before the body of Clause V does not seem to be an official part of Clause V. It is worded as a prefacing explanation:

"Note to participants: We wanted to explain the Sour Grapes Clause."

I have no idea if the promises in the "note" would be held up to the same standards as the threats of the "clause".

I don't know who would test this to the point of a judge-and-jury trial - I expect for 99% of people, having a lawyer threatening them with a lawsuit and waving a copy of their signed T&C agreement in their faces would be enough to shut them up.

I have no idea what their intentions are, what the legality of the T&C is (I'm no lawyer), or how many people really do have negative experiences with this process, etc.

If the company isn't so great with its customers, that information will become public sometime, even if the 2-year ban successfully silences some folks for a while.

Maybe they are fantastic, have perfect customer service, pay all claims fairly, and no one would ever want to complain about them.

But officially taking away ALL participants' rights to say anything negative (even the slightest thing, and even if it is 100% factual and true) seems drastic to me.


As I wrote earlier tonight on my Hot Deals thread about this deal,

...[L]ast night I was considering signing up with this company to do the challenge to lose 10% of my weight (I could only do their 10% challenge, not their BMI one, since my current BMI is in the "normal" category).

I was at that weight 2 years ago (my current weight minus 10%) and a sub-section of my wardrobe misses it!

But as per my above posting from last night, I read the Healthywage terms and conditions closely, and I wasn't too happy with the ban on saying anything negative about the process for 2 years.

Since there is no way for a potential customer of that company to know the various problems that were encounted by previous customers who didn't have a good experience with the program, I am wary of getting myself into something when I am only allowed to know the positive side of the picture.

I don't buy a laptop without reading a heck of a lot of customer reviews, I don't book a vacation hotel without researching customer reviews extensively, frankly I don't even buy a new stapler without doing an exhaustive comparison and I will not hand $150 over to a relatively new organization and trust it to treat me well and do exactly what it promises if it has imposed a strict gagging clause on all its former customers.

and
So... then of course the little angel on my right shoulder whispered that I could do the challenge anyway, that I don't have to pay an external company money to do it (plus go through that company's rigamorole and exacting instructions about every little thing for a very long 6 months), that I can just set myself a lovely goal and work towards it on my own like a good girl and take satisfaction in the achievement without being motivated by a cool extra $150 coming around in July.

I couldn't make out exactly what the little dude on my left shoulder responded to that with, because he was grabbing his sides and guffawing, plus he was busy downing a big piece of chocolate birthday cake that I made for a relative yesterday....



[/L](no idea what this /L is, it won't go away)

PROTIP: The First Amendment does not apply to a corporation restricting your speech pursuant to contractual agreement.

Your arguments are invalid.

Whose arguments are you talking about?

Imbatman mentioned the First Amendment about 10 posts above, but no one else is bringing up the First Amendment in this thread.

Unless you mean Brodyinsurance's comment about "lawyers don't get to be the judge and jury"...


Crazytree said:   PROTIP: The First Amendment does not apply to a corporation restricting your speech pursuant to contractual agreement.

Your arguments are invalid.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014