Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 139 posts

Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice

#21

Post by mikeash »

emergentcypher wrote: post #12
mikeash wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's where my step 4 comes in. They won't all offer the exact same contract they do now, because it will be too expensive for them, and since people are actually reading the contract then competing on clauses will actually be a way to get customers to switch over.

Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice

#22

Post by Quanticles »

matheweis wrote: post #2

I 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.

There is also an imbalance in negotiating position in these agreements. If every credit card company you deal with says you must agree to arbitration, what leverage do you have to push back on that? There's just not enough competition in the market to push back on each one of the issues raised in these agreements.

Either the government needs to create enough competition in the market such that consumers have choice on these issues, or the government needs to advocate for the consumers.

Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice

#23

Post by jjoonathan »

emergentcypher wrote: post #12
mikeash wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Whether you've read the contract is entirely meaningless

No, and that's the whole point. If courts nullified contracts that even a reasonable person would "sign" without reading, phonebook contracts would carry enforcement risk, discouraging the practice.

Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice

#24

Post by mikeash »

m_fayer wrote: post #16
mikeash wrote: post #4

Earlier 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…

>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…

You've edited the quote to make it look like I said something I didn't say.

I said that "most consumers" could understand what contracts say if they actually read and put in effort to understand them.

I said that "people," meaning basically everybody, don't read contracts in the first place.

"Most consumers" and "sign without reading" aren't together in my original comment, either in space or meaning!

In any case, I certainly didn't mean to imply that HN readers are any different in either respect. I'm sure most HN readers could understand contracts, and I'm also sure that almost none of them actually read the boilerplate ones.

Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice

#25

Post by [deleted] »

flyt wrote: post #18
ipsin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[deleted]

Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice

#26

Post by BlackFly »

m_fayer wrote: post #16
mikeash wrote: post #4

Earlier 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…

>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…

I edit the HTML on most end user agreements I sign to read, "I disagree and waive no rights," then I click that button.

I wonder in what sense these agreements are enforceable when they cannot prove that people actually agreed with them? Hard copies of contracts are kept for a reason, I always assumed.

Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice

#27

Post by ccvannorman »

makecheck wrote: post #13

It'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…

Yeah, the "diff" is a big one. There should be 5-10 major types of contracts that companies can work from, and consumers should be told "This is contract 5. The diff is as follows:" and limit the diff in length

Re: Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice

#28

Post by branchless »

makecheck wrote: post #13

It'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…

They should just tell companies if they cannot describe the legal situation in under a page in a clear language for general consumer products then they cannot sell them.

Diffs won't help - the aim from version 1.0 is to obfuscate.

Post reply on HN