Info Diving into Double Jeopardy – When PADI Turns on Its Own

[jborg]

PADI is just a company and certainly can't prevent you from earning your living however you choose. They can however choose to have you be their representative towards customers or not, and I can also sort of see why they would choose not to. That's entirely regardless of the legal outcome of the original incident.

 

[Zef]

Hey -Z,

I appreciate a rational discussion, but if you’re suggesting this is just me “whingeing on social media,” then you haven’t actually looked at the facts.

✔ A documented court ruling confirms I was the victim of a violent crime.
✔ PADI was made aware of this and initially placed me on admin hold in 2019.
✔ Years later, after I updated them on the court ruling, they revoked my membership under a vague “best interests” clause.
✔ At no point did they cite any professional misconduct, breach of standards, or other justification related to diving.

If my “tone” (as you speculate) was an issue, that’s still not a valid legal or ethical justification for revoking an instructor’s ability to work—especially one who was the victim, not the perpetrator.

PADI is a business, not a judicial body, and certainly not above real courts of law.

So yes, I am pursuing legal options, but I am also making this public because it is bigger than just me. PADI has a long history of operating without accountability. If you believe there are “two sides,” I’d invite PADI to state their side openly. Instead, they rely on secretive internal committees and vague contract clauses to justify life-altering decisions.

If highlighting documented injustices makes people uncomfortable, then maybe that says more about PADI than it does about me.

Just sayin’.

You seem to continue to conflate the legal outcome of the altercation you had with PADI's response to you. Perhaps they are not as closely tied together as you may have assumed. Perhaps they have ended their professional relationship with you because of how you have communicated with them about the situation or how you communicated with others.

You seem to be seeking validation for your position and convey a sense of being perturbed by anything/anyone not agreeing with or lending support to your position.

This is not an accusation, but If this is the tack you took with PADI, then it does not take a whole lot of mental gymnastics to understand their response.

Again, just sayin'...and there are folks here that will attest to me not being a PADI apologist.

-Z

 

[StoneFish2017]

PADI is just a company and certainly can't prevent you from earning your living however you choose. They can however choose to have you be their representative towards customers or not, and I can also sort of see why they would choose not to. That's entirely regardless of the legal outcome of the original incident.

Hey jborg,

You’re right—PADI is just a company. But when a company holds monopoly-like control over an industry and can unilaterally strip professionals of their ability to work with zero accountability, it’s no longer just a “private business decision.”

✔ PADI controls the dominant global scuba certification market.

✔ They are the gateway to employment in thousands of dive centers worldwide.

✔ Losing PADI affiliation instantly destroys career opportunities in many locations.

So, while you say they “can’t prevent me from earning a living,” the reality is that their unchecked power and opaque decision-making do exactly that.

And let’s be honest—this wasn’t about professional standards. If it were, they would have:

Provided evidence of any wrongdoing.

Followed a transparent process instead of hiding behind a clandestine committee.

Applied rules fairly, instead of selectively enforcing them.

But they didn’t. Instead, they:

Placed me on admin hold in 2019 simply for reporting an assault.

Revoked my membership in 2024 after I updated them on the court ruling.

Never cited any professional misconduct—just a vague “best interests” clause.

If you “sort of see why they would choose not to have me as a representative,” then please, enlighten me: What exactly did I do wrong as an instructor?

If you’re fine with a company wielding absolute power over livelihoods without transparency or accountability,that’s your call. But let’s not pretend this is just a routine business decision—it’s an abuse of power, and one that affects far more professionals than just me.

Your thoughts?

 

[StoneFish2017]

You seem to continue to conflate the legal outcome of the altercation you had with PADI's response to you. Perhaps they are not as closely tied together as you may have assumed. Perhaps they have ended their professional relationship with you because of how you have communicated with them about the situation or how you communicated with others.

You seem to be seeking validation for your position and convey a sense of being perturbed by anything/anyone not agreeing with or lending support to your position.

This is not an accusation, but If this is the tack you took with PADI, then it does not take a whole lot of mental gymnastics to understand their response.

Again, just sayin'...and there are folks here that will attest to me not being a PADI apologist.

-Z

Hey Z,

I get it—you want to play devil’s advocate. That’s fine. But let’s not pretend this is some vague “he said, she said” situation. PADI’s actions weren’t based on professional conduct, policy breaches, or even internal investigations. They were based on silencing a victim.

Let’s break it down.

✔ Did I violate a single PADI standard? → No.

✔ Did I fail a QA investigation? → No.

✔ Did PADI provide ANY reason beyond “best interests” for removing my livelihood? → No.

✔ Did PADI previously suspend me when I first reported the crime in 2019? → Yes.

✔ Did PADI revoke my membership the moment I shared the final court ruling in 2024? → Yes.

This is what actual double jeopardy and victim-blaming look like.

Now, you’re suggesting PADI cut ties with me because they didn’t like how I “communicated” with them? Right. Because apparently, asking for basic accountability is a crime now.

If that’s the case, why not just say:

“We’re revoking your membership because you're rude and we don’t like your emails”?

Instead, they:

Hid behind a vague “best interests” clause that gives them absolute power with zero accountability.

Refused to provide a single example of unprofessional behavior to justify the decision.

Punished me while my attacker is still listed as a PADI Pro, teaching unsuspecting students.

You see a company “ending a professional relationship.” I see a cult-like entity that removes people who ask questions and protects those who keep quiet.

PADI isn’t some dive shop deciding not to work with an instructor. They are a de facto regulator, wielding unchecked power over people’s careers. And they’ve shown time and time again that they will abuse that power to silence, retaliate, and protect their own financial interests.

So no, this isn’t me seeking validation. This is me exposing an industry giant that punishes victims and protects abusers. If you’re fine with that, just say so.

Otherwise, stop making excuses for them.

 

[jborg]

If you “sort of see why they would choose not to have me as a representative,” then please, enlighten me: What exactly did I do wrong as an instructor?

You caused a fuss of some kind, any kind, which could potentially cause negative publicity for PADI, instead of just silently bringing them money with no fuss at all.

If you’re fine with a company wielding absolute power over livelihoods without transparency or accountability,that’s your call. But let’s not pretend this is just a routine business decision—it’s an abuse of power, and one that affects far more professionals than just me.

There's the general rule of thumb that your employer is not your family nor your friend -- they're a heartless and soulless entity that will always put their business interests first. In this case, PADI is not even your employer (which would usually come with certain sets of obligations) but some sort of third party who lets them represent your or not.

I don't think PADI is the only game in town so I think it's overstating it a bit to say they have absolute power over your livelyhood but, unfortunately, even if that were the case that's sort of the bed you hopped into. They don't need a reason to not do business with you, they just need to feel it's not the easiest and most beneficial route for them at this moment.

This is not me making excuses for PADI by the way, it's possibly me explaining that they're acting exactly like you might have expected them to act. They do not have empathy because they are not a human being, they're a business.

 

[StoneFish2017]

You caused a fuss of some kind, any kind, which could potentially cause negative publicity for PADI, instead of just silently bringing them money with no fuss at all.


There's the general rule of thumb that your employer is not your family nor your friend -- they're a heartless and soulless entity that will always put their business interests first. In this case, PADI is not even your employer (which would usually come with certain sets of obligations) but some sort of third party who lets them represent your or not.

I don't think PADI is the only game in town so I think it's overstating it a bit to say they have absolute power over your livelyhood but, unfortunately, even if that were the case that's sort of the bed you hopped into. They don't need a reason to not do business with you, they just need to feel it's not the easiest and most beneficial route for them at this moment.

This is not me making excuses for PADI by the way, it's possibly me explaining that they're acting exactly like you might have expected them to act. They do not have empathy because they are not a human being, they're a business.

“PADI’s ‘Fuss-Free’ Model – Profits Over Principles?”

Jborg, I appreciate your candidness, but let’s dissect what you’re really saying.

You’re suggesting that professionals in this industry should just “silently bring them money” and never question how they’re treated—no matter how unfairly? That’s a bleak, dystopian view of professionalism, where corporations are untouchable and workers are disposable.

PADI isn’t just some “third party”—they control professional certification and access to an entire industry. If a lawyer gets disbarred unjustly, should they just move on because “there are other law firms”? If a pilot loses their license unfairly, should they just accept it because “there are other airlines”?

No, because accreditation bodies wield power, and with power comes responsibility—something PADI lacks when it operates without transparency, due process, or consistency.

Also, let’s not pretend this is just a “business decision.” PADI actively used my name, my reputation, and my work to generate revenue for years. Now, they discard me—not for a professional failing, not for misconduct in teaching, but because I had the audacity to report a violent crime where I was the victim. And when I updated them about the court’s ruling (a court that actually has legal authority), they retaliated.

If you think “not causing a fuss” is the standard we should all abide by, you’re endorsing an industry where instructors are too afraid to speak out about injustices, abuse, or unethical practices because they might lose their livelihoods. That’s a dangerous precedent.

So no, I won’t just “move on” quietly. This isn’t just about me—it’s about holding an industry giant accountable before they do the same thing to someone else.

 

[jborg]

I'm not endorsing it, I'm explaining how it works. I have no relation to PADI whatsoever, but I do have an employer, with whom I have a contract, which says that I deliver value and they deliver compensation, and some other clauses. Certainly, if I become more of a pain in the ass for them than the value I deliver, that contract will not be renewed. Likewise in the other direction, because I can get another employer. This is the very definition of a business decision. PADI will not care about whether you are right or wrong, they will care about whether having you represent them delivers more value to them than it costs. The moment it seems like it doesn't, you're out.

 

[StoneFish2017]

I'm not endorsing it, I'm explaining how it works. I have no relation to PADI whatsoever, but I do have an employer, with whom I have a contract, which says that I deliver value and they deliver compensation, and some other clauses. Certainly, if I become more of a pain in the ass for them than the value I deliver, that contract will not be renewed. Likewise in the other direction, because I can get another employer. This is the very definition of a business decision. PADI will not care about whether you are right or wrong, they will care about whether having you represent them delivers more value to them than it costs. The moment it seems like it doesn't, you're out.

Ah, the classic ‘business decision’ excuse, because nothing screams ethical integrity like wielding unchecked power with zero accountability. I appreciate your attempt to equate a freelance professional membership with a standard employment contract, but let’s not oversimplify.

Unlike what you assume, I’ve been both an employee and an employer for over 35 years. I’ve worked under contracts, hired staff, and built businesses where accountability and due process actually matter.

PADI, on the other hand, operates like a feudal overlord—demanding loyalty, dictating terms unilaterally, and cutting people off at will with no recourse, even when their decisions contradict established legal rulings.

If this is just ‘how business works,’ as you suggest, then let’s apply that logic fairly: Why does PADI still do business with convicted criminals and negligent professionals but expel a documented victim of assault? That’s not just a business decision—that’s selective, self-serving hypocrisy.

Any organisation that wields power without accountability isn’t just making ‘business decisions’—it’s engaging in unethical conduct, plain and simple.

 

[Blackcrusader]

Hey jborg,

You’re right—PADI is just a company. But when a company holds monopoly-like control over an industry and can unilaterally strip professionals of their ability to work with zero accountability, it’s no longer just a “private business decision.”



Your thoughts?

There are other agencies you can work with. Has PADI tried to prevent you working with another dive agency?

 

[StoneFish2017]

There are other agencies you can work with. Has PADI tried to prevent you working with another dive agency?

Has PADI tried to prevent me from working with another agency? No. But that’s not the point, is it?

PADI didn’t just decide not to work with me—they used an arbitrary, vague contract clause to retroactively erase my license and therefore career within their system, despite my spotless professional safety record as an instructor.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t about whether I can work elsewhere. It’s about how they terminated my membership—with no transparency, no due process, and in direct contradiction to a court ruling that confirmed I was the victim in the incident they used as a pretext.

More broadly, this is about the unchecked power they wield over thousands of instructors worldwide. If they can do this to me today, they can do it to anyone tomorrow. That’s why this matters far beyond just my case.

If you believe businesses should have absolute power over people’s livelihoods without oversight, then sure, move along, nothing to see here. But if you believe in fairness, accountability, and basic professional rights, then this is exactly the kind of discussion the dive industry needs to have.