Many companies make opt out clauses - can we make an program that does automatically?
I've never heard of that. Can you provide one example of a company that allows you to opt out of binding arbitration?
Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
11–20 of 139 posts
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Whether you've read the contract is entirely meaningless when there are only three competitors in your market who all offer the exact same contract and have the freedom to tell you to fuck off if you don't want to sign it.
It is all about bargaining power.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#13It's not just the length of the initial contract, it's the lack of a sane "diff" system.
Even if someone is willing and able to read a 44 page contract the first time, the next time version 1.0.1 of something comes out you are generally given a 44.5 page contract to re-agree to. "Somewhere" in there, they changed something; good luck figuring it out. So even if the version you read gave you permission to sue, the amendment that you clicked-through-in-agreement later may have given away that right (an amendment they probably made because somebody sued them).
We solved this type of thing years ago, the solution just hasn't made its way into legalese: use revision control. I wish that large documents were:
- Publicly revision-controlled with a system that has clients everyone can easily use (i.e. no arcane commands, and push-buttons for the most common things like "compare to last version").
- Public accountability for the entire revision history of every single line. If somebody wants to add [Horrible Clause A] two months after I first signed it, then I get to know exactly who made the change and if I want to I can take a look at other changes they've made to other documents.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#14I've always wondered: since I don't have the ability or power to negotiate these contracts, are they even a legal contract regardless of if I agree to them?
Moreover, as a consumer, all (or nearly all) establishments that sell similar products use similar contracts, so do I actually have a choice?
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#15The post is about consumers but there are cases when an employers's binding arbitration agreement is void. I am writing an article and will post when finished. It's important that employees know our rights.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#16I 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…
>Most consumers... They simply sign without reading...
You seem to be implying that many people on HN do read them, and if that's the case, I would be very surprised. I certainly don't. There's frequently a new EULA I have to consent to when I update iOS, or iTunes, or some app, or sign into a cloud console, and the list goes on. If I read all of them it would probably add up to a good workday every week. I'm willing to bet that the number of people who are willing to devote that large a chunk of their lives to reading EULAS is somewhere near zero.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#17I've always wondered: since I don't have the ability or power to negotiate these contracts, are they even a legal contract regardless of if I agree to them? Moreover, as a consumer, all (or nearly all) establishments that sell similar products use similar contracts, so do I actually have a choice?
They are generally legally enforceable contracts but sometimes not: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_of_adhesion.
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#18Many companies make opt out clauses - can we make an program that does automatically?
I've never heard of that. Can you provide one example of a company that allows you to opt out of binding arbitration?
Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/privacy#terms
Opt-out of Agreement to Arbitrate. You can decline this agreement to arbitrate by clicking here and submitting the opt-out form within 30 days of first accepting these Terms.
Which links to https://www.dropbox.com/arbitration_optout
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#19[deleted]
Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice
#20It's not just the length of the initial contract, it's the lack of a sane "diff" system. Even if someone is willing and able to read a 44 page contract the first time, the next time version 1.0.1 of something comes out you are generally given a 44.5 page contract to re-agree to. "Somewhere" in there, they changed something; good luck figuring it out. So even if the version you read gave you permission to sue, the ame…
We didn't solve this type of thing for the adversarial case. If contracts became easily electronically diffable, then companies who didn't want their diffs comprehensible would randomly move sentences around and substitute words in every version of their contracts.