Kraken issue a privacy invading subpoena against Glassdoor

[o_e_l_e_o]

Take a look at this: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/12/kracken_cryptocurrency_eff_glassdoor/

Basically Kraken fired a bunch of their employees around a year ago. Some of those employees used well known site Glassdoor to leave anonymous reviews of what it was like working at Kraken. Kraken are now subpoenaing Glassdoor for the details of their ex-employees in question, presumably so they can raise some kind of legal action them.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation have stepped in to defend Glassdoor and the ex-employees in question: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-fights-protect-anonymity-glassdoor-commenter

You can read the reviews which were left in Kraken's court filings here (Exhibit B): https://www.eff.org/document/payward-inc-kraken-v-does-1-10-complaint. They are all very similarly disparaging of the leadership.

We all know centralized exchanges are terrible for invading privacy, but this is a whole different level. Using legal action to discover the names of ex-employees who have essentially revealed how poor your leadership is just adds weight to all the accusations of bullying and intimidation which have been raised.

[figmentofmyass]

kraken claims they are suffering "irreparable harm" from a handful of anonymous reviews on glassdoor, which doesn't verify the identities or employment status of reviewers. this is basically like a badly reviewed business on yelp trying to subpoena yelp for reviewers personal information!

the "irreparable harm" and "ongoing monetary damages" are not self-evident, especially since the claims are based on the unproven supposition that the reviews were left by former kraken employees. kraken doesn't actually know that, and neither does glassdoor. i don't think their position is legal or ethical and i certainly hope they aren't able to persuade the courts otherwise.

either way, this is yet another strike against kraken in the court of public opinion.

[LeGaulois]

The article doesn't explain everything and I may defend Kraken in this case. When you work for this kind of company, you have several non-disclosure agreements in your contract that you have to respect. Once you left the company too.

You can't go and repeat what happens, how the company works and so on. It's called a confidentiality agreement. Yes, companies also have a right to confidentiality and I agree with Kraken that this can cause irreparable damage, not just tarnish the image of the company for 1 week and then we completely forget it

Apparently the person tried to break the agreement, as a company Kraken has also its right to defend its interest
Imagine, you own Nutella, It's a bit like if an ex-employee released to the public the Nutella recipe, I'm sure you'll try to assert your right for the sake of your company

[o_e_l_e_o]

either way, this is yet another strike against kraken in the court of public opinion.

It's certainly concerning. If they are willing to expend the time, money, and resources to subpoena Glassdoor and then presumably raise legal action against the employees themselves, all because the employees said some things that Kraken didn't like, imagine what lengths they might go to against any customer whom they deem to be misusing their service.

-snip-

EFF address your concerns pretty thoroughly in their Motion to Quash. It is viewable here: https://www.eff.org/document/motion-quash-2. The relevant section is "III. Argument" at the bottom of page 10. I'll paste a few relevant quotes below.

Even if this Court were to overlook Payward’s failure the specify the exact statements claimed to be actionable and consider the review in its entirety, the review discloses no confidential information about Payward. The confidentiality clause of the Severance Agreement prohibits separated employees from sharing confidential information not already in the public domain. Compl. ¶ 10. It defines confidential information as including “the Company’s policies and procedures, consultant or employee headcount, hires, termination, layoffs, salaries, bonuses, or separation compensation.

None of this information is included in Doe’s review. Instead, Doe’s review consists overwhelmingly of statements of opinion.

In this state, a breach of contract claim for disparagement requires a plaintiff to show (1) a false or misleading statement that (2) specifically refers to the plaintiff’s product or business and (3) clearly derogates that product or business, thereby (4) causing the plaintiff special damages.

[figmentofmyass]

The article doesn't explain everything and I may defend Kraken in this case. When you work for this kind of company, you have several non-disclosure agreements in your contract that you have to respect. Once you left the company too.

You can't go and repeat what happens, how the company works and so on.

that doesn't address one of the primary issues: the subpoena itself is based on vague claims and conjecture. kraken has no proof that former employees even posted on glassdoor, nor have they articulated which statements are actionable. this argument from the EFF's motion to quash is spot on:

Payward fails to specify which particular statements within the review are allegedly actionable, much less specifying what actionable meanings the statements convey or providing evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the statements were capable of any actionable meanings. The vagueness of Payward’s claims “is redolent with the possibility that greater specificity might not disclose” confidential information or disparaging/defamatory remarks, “but a lack of merit in the claims themselves.”

kraken is essentially throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks without meeting any of the legal requirements before them.

they also haven't proven that defendants shared "confidential information". did you read the reviews? they are really quite generic and opinion-based.

then there's the disparagement claim. kraken fails on virtually every front there, but this one is the most obvious: a breach of contract claim for disparagement requires the plaintiff to show evidence of false or misleading statements. kraken hasn't even attempted to prove that, and i strongly doubt they could. http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S207172.PDF

Apparently the person tried to break the agreement, as a company Kraken has also its right to defend its interest

that is 100% not apparent. kraken has not proven in any way that the confidentiality agreement was broken, nor that the defendants engaged in disparagement. you're just taking their word for it IMO.

read the EFF's response. it's quite illuminating. there are multiple important issues at hand---not only free speech but rights to privacy. kraken shouldn't be given the authority to violate privacy rights simply on the basis of meritless allegations.

[PrimeNumber7]

I read the reviews on Glassdoor, and I found a couple of things interesting:

*there is a litigation warning at the top of Kraken's page. IMO this warning is far more harmful than any of the reviews
*I read the negative reviews on Glassdoor, I would say they sound a lot like opinion to me, and as such are protected speech, and are not actionable
*In order to read the negative reviews in question, I had to scroll (sorting by date, descending) past several pages of positive (and few neutral) reviews, that appear to have been given in 'bursts', all given last year. This is after only having a small handful of reviews prior to the negative reviews in question being given. I found this to be very suspicious.

Business is slow for most (all) exchanges, and has been for close to two years now. It is understandable that Kraken had to downsize, and it is understandable they had to cut off access immediately. It doesn't sound like their severance plan (if they even offer severance) is particularly good. It doesn't sound like the terminated employees were treated particularly good after they were let go. If Kraken wants to remain competitive, and retain competent employees, they should treat their employees better when they lay them off, otherwise the ones that remain will look elsewhere for employment. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

I found this to be very suspicious.

I had only read the negative reviews on the legal motions I linked above, but after your comment I also went to Glassdoor to have a look at the positive ones. As you say, they all look very suspicious. The "Cons" section of many of these reviews is nonsense, and contains more "Pros" in disguise. Things like:
"Sometimes want to keep working and need to remind myself to take a break!"
"You can get addicted working with this company - with high energy, lovable team members."
"Pretty much the dream job for me"
"The company is growing too fast."

It does seem like Kraken leadership are either posting reviews themselves, or maybe incentivizing employees to leave positive reviews?

It is understandable that Kraken had to downsize, and it is understandable they had to cut off access immediately.

From reading the reviews, it doesn't sound like this was an isolated incident though. If they don't like you or you don't "fit with their culture", they just cut your access and email you to say you are fired. They give no reasoning and no explanation, and they use this process as a threat to existing employees. Hugely unprofessional.