The unfortunate reality of many YC companies is that talking to them doesn't solve the issue until it becomes a PR crisis. At that point, the company usually falls all over itself to handle the customer's needs and loudly proclaims that it really wasn't their fault that a customer's complaints somehow went un-addressed for months despite multiple appeals by the customer to multiple employees and executives.

That's something that could be reasonably expected from a mega-corporation which has to deal with multiple layers of bureaucracy, but even in those situations a direct appeal to an executive officer usually gets the issue resolved. Getting the runaround is not something anyone should have to deal with when the company has a handful of employees and minimal, if any, layers of middle management. After all, isn't one of the primary benefits of being a startup supposed to be that the company is more responsive to customer needs?

I don't think size matters so much as company priorities. Amazon has bent over backwards for me many times. Whether at scale or not, good support takes very specific focus.

For some reason my experience with Amazon customer service has been subpar at best. On the other hand Zappos (which Amazon.com ) has had exemplary service every time I have had to deal with it.

A lack of customer support is typical these days. The problem is that outsourcing to India doesn't work out and US work is too expensive.

To slightly nuance that, given the fact that he had already tried "talking to them" (to death actually, he's bent over graciously--first via support, escalating to discussions with the CEO and ultimately an unanswered demand letter)... in this case continuing to "talk to them" means "sue them", right?

I mean, that was his question. All he seems to have left is suing. He was asking if he had another option. And, of course the other option is "raise a stink on HN/interwebs". But that's a luxury reserved for "hackers"/VIPs, not lowly customers.

PG told him to sue DrChrono.

>so PG gave the definitive answer: Talk to them.

Which the poster has been doing, and it hasn't worked?

I believe the implied advice behind that was "and if need be, have a judge and a bunch of lawyers present when you talk to them".

I agree. And if the OP really just wanted honest advice on whether to sue a start up or not the OP should have omitted the name of the start up. However, the name was provided because HN was not being used to get advice but was used as a side channel to provoke action from a Y Combinator funded company.

That was not my reading. To me the post seemed to be well intended: a way to get the message through to the investors so that the problem could be resolved without legal unpleasantness. EDIT: That is still well within request for "honest advice" in my books, or at least I dont see whats dishonest about the advice sought.

"a way to get the message through to the investors so that the problem could be resolved without legal unpleasantness."

So, not looking for honest advice but using HN as a side channel.

UPDATE: I never said it wasn't well intended. I said it wasn't for honest advice, OP was using HN as a communication forum side channel.

UPDATE 2: If he wanted honest advice he'd have been wise to omit the start up name.

UPDATE 3: The primary purpose of OPs post was to use HN as a communication vehicle with the start up involved, not to seek advice.

UPDATE 4: If the OP was seeking honest advice then he wouldn't have posted the name of the start up. Posting the name of the start up which happens to be funded by the provider of the discussion medium you are using is going to result in BIASED advice.

Unfortunately, the poster already talked to them. This wasn't a question of how to proceed legally, nor was it a complaint about the company. It was an appeal to the startup community about the morals of suing, potentially successfully, a young startup.