Have there been any court cases that have investigated "successfully funded" to determine the exact meaning in the law [in whatever jurisdiction]. Successfully funded projects could readily be considered to be ones where the funding has enabled project success.
In their terms Kickstarter make statements suggesting it is a funding program but they also say in their "Acceptance of Terms" part that any policy expounded on the site is incorporated by reference. Kickstarter state on their /learn page for example "Kickstarter is a vibrant community of people working together to bring new things to life." making it clear that success on Kickstarter is bringing a making project to fruition. It _doesn't_ say "Kickstarter is a way to acquire funding", so that's not the goal of a Kickstarter project and thus not the measure of success.
To reiterate this point, in the FAQ accountability section it says:
> "On Kickstarter, backers (you!) ultimately decide the validity and worthiness of a project by whether they decide to fund it." //
Again highlighting that projects are not funding, projects are encouraged with funding.
There's little about unsuccessful projects, some details about how they're swept under the rug, but there is this in the FAQs:
> "If the problems are severe enough that the creator can't fulfill their project, creators need to find a resolution. Steps could include offering refunds, detailing exactly how funds were used, and other actions to satisfy backers." //
See that "could", why not "must"? Why not "creators are required by their assent to our contract to find a resolution"? It seems Kickstarter consider a report of how funds used to satisfy their requirements.
[PS I'm not sure I've convinced myself but I do think someone could make this case, possibly make it stick. Kickstarter could tighten up their language in a few places but ultimately they are financially primarily motivated to get as many projects funded as possible whether they are successful or not, funded projects earn them money whilst shipped rewards don't. Kickstarters other motivations aside of course.]
I'm not a lawyer, but I think specific language in the TOS would be given more weight than any incorporated policy from the website. And (of course) ultimately, some actual court cases will be more valuable than any speculation.
I also wouldn't give money to a Kickstarter project if I thought I cared enough about the money that I would end up chasing it in court (that is, none of this is a practical concern for me personally).
In their terms Kickstarter make statements suggesting it is a funding program but they also say in their "Acceptance of Terms" part that any policy expounded on the site is incorporated by reference. Kickstarter state on their /learn page for example "Kickstarter is a vibrant community of people working together to bring new things to life." making it clear that success on Kickstarter is bringing a making project to fruition. It _doesn't_ say "Kickstarter is a way to acquire funding", so that's not the goal of a Kickstarter project and thus not the measure of success.
To reiterate this point, in the FAQ accountability section it says:
> "On Kickstarter, backers (you!) ultimately decide the validity and worthiness of a project by whether they decide to fund it." //
Again highlighting that projects are not funding, projects are encouraged with funding.
There's little about unsuccessful projects, some details about how they're swept under the rug, but there is this in the FAQs:
> "If the problems are severe enough that the creator can't fulfill their project, creators need to find a resolution. Steps could include offering refunds, detailing exactly how funds were used, and other actions to satisfy backers." //
See that "could", why not "must"? Why not "creators are required by their assent to our contract to find a resolution"? It seems Kickstarter consider a report of how funds used to satisfy their requirements.
There is this, https://ksr-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/creator-responsibility.p..., which appears to contradict that FAQ.
[PS I'm not sure I've convinced myself but I do think someone could make this case, possibly make it stick. Kickstarter could tighten up their language in a few places but ultimately they are financially primarily motivated to get as many projects funded as possible whether they are successful or not, funded projects earn them money whilst shipped rewards don't. Kickstarters other motivations aside of course.]