Read what I highlighted:
Is there not some sort of limitation on how much a company can screw you over no matter what you sign?
For example, my daughter sued and won a case against a theme park because she was injured on a ride. It did not seem to matter how many times she agreed to ride the rides at her own risk. (the caveat here was the fact that the theme park was negligent. Is Spectora negligent in failing to protect its users?)
1 Like
I don’t know about failing to protect it’s users, but I think an inspector who has lost access to their reports could make a case for not receiving paid-for services. I wonder if Spectora has made any settlements with inspectors who threatened legal action? 
2 Likes
These types of agreements are not unusual at all. It certainly does not make them right or proper but once the user signs the agreement they have not read, considered, and understood then they are bound to it. Unfortunately many people sign these type agreements because they “want” what the provider has without thinking about the potential end results.
There is nothing illegal about signing an agreement like this when the originator is providing a good or service. The only way to shut down these type agreements is not to buy the good or service from that type. Money talks and is the only way to stop this by placing an extreme cost/loss on those types of companies.
Protect - preserve or guarantee by means of formal or legal measures.
They did not “protect” their users from harm. Damages will likely be hard to define, so violation of services is a pretty good angle.
Also, some states will not recognize a contract if the contract is basically meaningless. Such as the case with the Spectora user agreement in my opinion. (it also seems spectora has plenty of advertising that may contradict their agreement)
Further complicating things, every day a user continues with the service weakens their case.
If clients couldn’t get their reports, the harm would be easier to see/define. But clients still have full access. Inspectors also have access, but the narratives are supposedly missing. I’m not sure a judge/jury would consider that enough harm. But I’m not a lawyer and have never even played one on TV, lol.
1 Like
I agree. Users will have to quantify the harm. Did it cost them money, reputation, or ability to adhere to state laws, websites down, etc.?
1 Like
They will also have to describe what they did to protect themselves and limit damages. Did they immediately begin backing up reports locally when the announcement was made?
1 Like
You should have applied for a legal position on a certain politician’s team. Could have gotten stiffed for millions, not knowing how to practice law… 
1 Like
We live in a very litigious society. Every company, if it wants to survive, needs to do everything it can to make sure it is difficult to sue them, including mine (small as it is) and yours. Putting aside the recent mis-step with ReportHost (they should have handled that much better), as a user, I feel that Spectora’s commercial interests align with my interests to a large extent. In this case, they are protecting the company (themselves) in which I have invested heavily with both my time and money.
As an aside… everyone brings up the fact that Spectora is pricey. It is. But, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather put $2 into a company that is profitable, growing, keeping their software current and, as a result, will be around for awhile, than put $1 into a company that is not growing, not keeping up with technology, that may or not be around in the future and cost me $3 when I have to switch platforms.
1 Like
It’s a reputation that has been hard to shake. When comparing equal offerings from other providers, Spectora is actually priced the same, and even cheaper in a few cases.
1 Like
Who is more expensive?
I see Spectora and a few others right in that $80-$100 month range. It seems to be the sweet spot for inspection software.
With Spectora, the fee is $999 annually (if paid annually).
Similar offering from HIP is $89/mo (no annual pay discount) = $1068 annually.
Similar offering from HG is $89/mo (no annual pay discount) = $1068 annually.
Similar offering from Tap Inspect is $90/mo (no annual pay discount) = $1080 annually, but I don’t even know if that includes Autopilot, their back office offering. That might be extra yet.
And if you are using a basic software and paying ISN a fee per inspection for back office, you are likely paying way more than the bundled softwares, assuming you are a full time inspector.
1 Like
The bigger and better question is “Who can you trust?” 
4 Likes
3 Likes
Yourself?
Merry Christmas! 
3 Likes
For sure!
Merry Christmas! 
2 Likes
happy bew year
They have a software purchase option for $799, and then they add a perpetual monthly fee for the back-office stuff. So, if you finance yourself, in a year or less the software is paid for, but there is no way to avoid the subscription. ($29 or $50) depending on your back-office needs. Long term this will be an approximate $450 - $700 annual savings.
I like those numbers. But, how good is the product?
(someone should check my math, lol)
