Unfortunately, successful e-commerce stores and digital goods providers often find themselves in disputes with their payment processing companies. Whether these disputes arise over an underpayment, a chargeback, or the mishandling of sales tracking data, payment processing disputes often hinge on the interpretation of the payment processing contract, which can contain onerous and one-sided terms. These terms may include arbitration provisions, liquidated damages clauses, termination penalties, and provisions allowing for the retention of funds by the payment processor in the event of a dispute or chargeback.
Thankfully, our attorneys understand the legal and technological aspects of payment processing disputes. We have handled payment processing disputes both in and out of federal court, including in complex and high-stakes litigation. Additionally, we regularly review payment processing contracts for a wide range of clients, including Bitcoin exchanges, software as a service providers, and providers of digital downloads.
If you are faced with a payment processing dispute, or if you seek review of your payment processing contract, contact one of our payment processing dispute lawyers today.
Online affiliate marketing is big business now. Affiliate marketing, of course, has been around for a long time. Basically, a business or a person agrees to promote and recommend a product, a brand of products, or even a whole business in exchange for various things of value. Generally, the affiliate does not actually sell the […]
Yes, as long as the proposed trademark meets the other requirements for registration. U.S. trademark laws do not require that only the English language can be used for trademarks. However, whatever the language, trademarks must meet the legal requirements, including functionality, distinctiveness, uniqueness, etc. For example, every trademark must function as a trademark in that […]
In a new ruling, a California federal judge has declared the entirety of California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (“CAADCA”) to be unconstitutional. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.99.28 et seq. See media report here and the Opinion here. The case is Netchoice, LLC. v. Bonta, Case No. 22-cv-08861-BLF (US N.Dist. Cal, March 13, 2025). The CAADCA […]