Grounds for lawsuit?

[ardea_alba]

As a freelancer for over 8 years 5 of them spent on a very popular and growing online platform, I have noticed an increase in violations against users on their part documented and provable, which include
1. Unclear and ambiguous terms and conditions that are open to interpretation and do not specify a clear, straight-forward resolution to potential conflicts.
2. Account suspensions based on non-existent terms and rules
3. Bullying of freelancers to 'admit' non-existent violations without providing proof of the claimed breach of terms.
4. Tampering with profile visibility and rating (difficult to prove, but not impossible).

Are any of these grounds for a lawsuit against the site/platform and if so - what type of lawyer is the best to approach? The company is registered in California.

Thank you,

 

[cbg]

And this has what to do with employment law?

 

[FlyingRon]

I'm failing to see what grounds you have for a lawsuit. You'd have to show that you had some sort of contract that made the site have an obligation to you, that they breached it, and that you sustained damages as a result.

You're going to have to give us a tad bit more information as to how you were harmed.

 

[quincy]

As a freelancer for over 8 years 5 of them spent on a very popular and growing online platform, I have noticed an increase in violations against users on their part documented and provable, which include
1. Unclear and ambiguous terms and conditions that are open to interpretation and do not specify a clear, straight-forward resolution to potential conflicts.
2. Account suspensions based on non-existent terms and rules
3. Bullying of freelancers to 'admit' non-existent violations without providing proof of the claimed breach of terms.
4. Tampering with profile visibility and rating (difficult to prove, but not impossible).

Are any of these grounds for a lawsuit against the site/platform and if so - what type of lawyer is the best to approach? The company is registered in California.

Thank you,

No.

Privately owned websites operate under their own rules. No one has a legal right to contribute to a site so there is no legal recourse for someone who is later prohibited from contributing to the site - absent, as FlyingRon noted, some contract to the contrary.

 

[ardea_alba]

Does that apply even in the event when they claim the freelancer has breached non-existent rules, which result in account suspension, but when asked to provide proof of the said breached terms (a link to their Terms and Conditions), they refuse only siting 'careful review of profile' and use the police tactic of pressuring the freelancer to 'confess and admit the offense to resume their profile'?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Does that apply even in the event when they claim the freelancer has breached non-existent rules, which result in account suspension, but when asked to provide proof of the said breached terms (a link to their Terms and Conditions), they refuse only siting 'careful review of profile' and use the police tactic of pressuring the freelancer to 'confess and admit the offense to resume their profile'?

Private sites are run under whatever conditions the operator of the site wants to impose, and that can change at any time. The exception to that is where you have a contract with the site in which it guarantees you access for a certain period of time under specific rules. But few sites enter into such contracts. Rather, their terms of service typically say that they can deny any user service at any time for any reason without liability to the user. In short, most sites can suspend a user’s account at any time whether there is a violation of the stated rules or not. It might alienate users for the site to do it, but the site doesn’t violate the law in running a poorly managed site.

 

[ardea_alba]

Thank you for taking the time to clarify this. You've been very helpful.