Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
1–10 of 139 posts
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#2I suspect the fine print will eventually be outlawed for use on the average consumer (unless we radically increase the education of the average consumer). It is well established by now that today's average consumer lacks the reading comprehension level required to fully understand these fine print agreements.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#3When this sets precedence, the possibilities for customers to defend their rights will be largely diminished.
One further step in direction to almighty international corporations and right-less countries and people. Already, many countries are regularly blackmailed by the big corporations.
The TTIP proceedings are also controlled by the industry lobbyists -- that is the reason, that those are kept so secret, that even the parliaments of EU countries are not allowed access to the data. With such regulations like TTIP, the possibilities to abolish customer laws in the countries will be also largely enlarged.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#4I suspect the fine print will eventually be outlawed for use on the average consumer (unless we radically increase the education of the average consumer). It is well established by now that today's average consumer lacks the reading comprehension level required to fully understand these fine print agreements.
I don't know that it's about reading comprehension. I think most consumers could understand them if they put the effort in.
The problem is simply that people don't read this stuff in the first place. They simply sign without reading, assuming/hoping/praying that the terms are reasonable.
And really, can you blame them? Contracts are so vastly overused and they're made with the assumption that the consumer isn't going to read them. Most companies won't give you a two-page contract if a twenty-page contract will do. Many contracts are excessively long and are part of a sales process built on speed that assumes nobody will take the time to read before signing.
I would like to see a change in how contracts are handled, such that if one side knows the other side didn't read before signing, the contract is void. That wouldn't take care of everything (American Express's contract is probably handled by mail, so they can reasonably expect you to read the contract at leisure in your home before you sign) but it would put a stop to abusive situations in retail, where they had you a bunch of paperwork to sign. If they had to actually watch you and make sure you read it all before signing, the contracts would probably become a lot shorter. If people got used to reading the things, then it might even change their habits for other scenarios like doing stuff through the mail.
However, I also think it is completely insane that contracts are allowed to put any restrictions on either party's access to courts. The whole point of courts is to be the arbiter when something goes wrong. A clause saying that you must use some third-party arbitration service instead of the courts, or a clause saying that you agree not to participate in class-action lawsuits, should be completely unenforceable, just like a clause that says you agree to become the other party's slave.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#5I suspect the fine print will eventually be outlawed for use on the average consumer (unless we radically increase the education of the average consumer). It is well established by now that today's average consumer lacks the reading comprehension level required to fully understand these fine print agreements.
I don't know that it's about reading comprehension. I think most consumers could understand them if they put the effort in. The problem is simply that people don't read this stuff in the first place . They simply sign without reading, assuming/hoping/praying that the terms are reasonable. And really, can you blame them? Contracts are so vastly overused and they're made with the assumption that the consumer isn't goin…
I don't, as a consumer, sign these things because I think they're reasonable. I sign them because I don't have the negotiating power to get a better contract, and the market isn't frictionless enough to offer my preferred terms at any reasonable price.
There is already specific law in some jurisdictions which reduces the applicability of this kind of consumer take-it-or-leave-it contract: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#6Many companies make opt out clauses - can we make an program that does automatically?
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know that it's about reading comprehension. I think most consumers could understand them if they put the effort in. The problem is simply that people don't read this stuff in the first place . They simply sign without reading, assuming/hoping/praying that the terms are reasonable. And really, can you blame them? Contracts are so vastly overused and they're made with the assumption that the consumer isn't goin…
I don't, as a consumer, sign these things because I think they're reasonable. I sign them because I don't have the negotiating power to get a better contract, and the market isn't frictionless enough to offer my preferred terms at any reasonable price. There is already specific law in some jurisdictions which reduces the applicability of this kind of consumer take-it-or-leave-it contract: see https://en.wikipedia.org…
I think that simply requiring the contracts to be read in order to have force could take care of unreasonable terms in this case. Here's how I imagine it playing out:
1. Because long contracts would immediately cause hugely increased costs for these companies if they had to wait for every customer to read them, they would greatly reduce the length and complexity of their contracts.
2. The most unconscionable clauses are also often the least necessary, so they would likely be the first to go. Of those that remain, the consumer is now much more likely to both read and understand them.
3. Because everybody is reading the contracts, they'll become aware of unconscionable clauses immediately, rather than only when they get bitten, or when they see some news story like this one.
4. Because everybody knows they're in there, competitive pressure or widespread outcry should force the removal of any remaining unconscionable clauses. (In theory this should happen now, but in practice people mostly don't know the clauses are there in the first place.)
Reading the whole contract as an individual wouldn't change much (although I think it's a good idea anyway), but I think that forcing everyone to read them would change a lot.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#8I suspect the fine print will eventually be outlawed for use on the average consumer (unless we radically increase the education of the average consumer). It is well established by now that today's average consumer lacks the reading comprehension level required to fully understand these fine print agreements.
Considering corporate influence on the government, I suspect fine print laws will be strengthened, not outlawed.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#9I suspect the fine print will eventually be outlawed for use on the average consumer (unless we radically increase the education of the average consumer). It is well established by now that today's average consumer lacks the reading comprehension level required to fully understand these fine print agreements.
Let say that I sell a car with the fine print that said "To the extent permitted by applicable law, you may not drive it, move it or sell it".
Having the reading comprehension to read that is very different from the required legal comprehension to understand it. Customers who do read every contract they sign and see a clause about individual arbitration will have to parse it under the legal context in which the statement is put.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#10It's a symptom of collapsing faith in the American judiciary. Individuals can't trust that innocence and good faith will protect them, and corporations have the same problem. This is their solution.