Wag! is an app for dog sitting services.According to their terms, once you get acquainted with a pet care provider through Wag! platform, you cannot obtain for life pet care services from the dog sitter, off their platform. If you do, Wag! can charge your card a $1,000 referral fee and the same applies to the dog sitter.
EDIT
Note that the mentioned contract provision has no expiration. You are subject to $1,000 payment whenever during your lifetime you should happen to ask for a pet care service to someone met through Wag!. Is this legal?
The provision is akin to a non-compete clause where the dog sitter agrees not to start a separate business in competition against their employer. In that case $1,000 qualifies as a compensation for breaching the agreement. However dog sitters (like Uber drivers) are not Wag! employees, and by the way these clauses are not permissible in all jurisdictions.This is might be the reason they use the term 'referral fee', anyway, the fee is many times more the value of the referred pet-care services: imagine to pay $10,000 for a second hand car and $50,000 for someone helping finding the seller. It is reasonable to assume nobody would willingly accept to pay such a huge fee and the only reason to enter the contract is the misrepresentation of the associated costs.
All that given:
How such a clause is to be construed (in a court)?
If they charge customers credit cards with a $1,000 referral fee, what type of legal protection will they have?
