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

A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 250 posts

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#181

Post by caro_douglos »

piker wrote: post #169
antonzabirko wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ianal and all that - but these tos are dubious. They can be ruled unconscionable, not enforceable because they are easy to miss, and being overly favored to tho company. Ignore the arbitration clauses and talk to your lawyer.

IAAL and banking on a court voiding a contract provision is tenuous. "adhesion contracts" in the form of website TOS, click-throughs, etc. are upheld by courts.

Are there any firms you can recommend that specialize in fighting TOS?

Is it similar to criminal defense or PI where an attorney seeks out the case and will then take a large fee if they win?

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#182

Post by throw_m239339 »

gumby wrote: post #13
mandelken wrote: post #6

As a European, reading these articles on arbitration, no-compete, required licenses, 'right-to-work', tipping, "gig work", firing over zoom, and so much more, it seems U.S. workers could really use some collective bargaining? Here unions are the obvious century-old solution to improve working conditions, why don't workers organize there? Are we just lucky here, like with universal health care?

Unions have suffered from a bad reputation in the United States over the past few decades. Some of it is deserved BTW; some big unions were/are corrupted and some were connected with organized crime. Even more innocently, unions have been quite conservative; as jobs and technology changed some were very resistant and fought modernization (requiring people who were not needed to be around). But a lot of it also stems…

> Unions have suffered from a bad reputation in the United States over the past few decades.

When I see "unions" such as "game worker unite" which is more of a communist political party than a union, or what Kickstarter union wants (have more say on what campaigns can be featured on Kickstarter or not, which is not what a union should be about), I understand why American unions have such a bad rep. These 2 examples aren't what unions should be about. What does a say in moderation policies on a platform has to do with worker conditions? Nothing.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#183

Post by arbitraryacct »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #95
Animats wrote: post #28

Oh, it's even worse than that for companies. The 9th and 10th circuits have both agreed that if the defense refuses to pay for arbitration, plaintiff can go to court. They're no longer barred from suing at that point. Incidentally, the AAA rules have some useful provisions in consumer disputes. Either party can request to transfer the case to small claims court. At least in California, that's not only cheaper, small…

That seems unfairly stacked in favor of the defense. If they refuse to pay for the arbitration, that should be the same as if they just refuse to show up to court, i.e. default judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

Arbitration is extremely disruptive. If someone takes you to arbitration, you pay $1k non-refundable, simply because they want to take you to court.

If you do end up in court, it's another $20k just for JAMS fees. Again, non-refundable, doesn't matter if you win or lose.

So if someone is trying to take you to arbitration over less than $20k, it really doesn't matter AT ALL if they are right or not, it makes sense to settle for whatever amount you can convince them to agree to.

You can kill a company with frivolous arbitrations, just by having enough people willing to file one. Doesn't matter if those people have been wronged.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#184

Post by arbitraryacct »

function_seven wrote: post #4

The article mentions 6,000 arbitration cases against DoorDash amounted to $9 million in fees from the American Arbitration Association. That's $1,500 a pop! If you have a dispute with a company, and are bound by an arbitration clause, it seems like you have a $1,500 hammer to hit them with? (Assuming your agreement states that the company will front the fees). What happens if the arbitrator decides the case against y…

Yes, when you file an arbitration against a company, regardless of how legitimate your filing is or how likely it is to be thrown out of court, that company is out at least $1000. If you wanted, you could pull together 10,000 HN users to file arbitrations, and HN is going to be hit with a $10M hammer regardless of whether there is any legitimacy to the claims.

I believe the amount varies state to state, but is generally over $1000

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#185

Post by arbitraryacct »

comex wrote: post #106
gamblor956 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The arbitration clause is for the company's protection, therefore the arbitration fees are their burden. If they breach the arbitration clause by not paying for arbitration in a timely manner, the plaintiff is entitled to go to court in the 9th and 10th Circuits.

But what if the arbitration clause says the plaintiff will pay? I believe that's what the parent comment was talking about.

Not allowed

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#186

Post by arbitraryacct »

caseysoftware wrote: post #81
function_seven wrote: post #4

The article mentions 6,000 arbitration cases against DoorDash amounted to $9 million in fees from the American Arbitration Association. That's $1,500 a pop! If you have a dispute with a company, and are bound by an arbitration clause, it seems like you have a $1,500 hammer to hit them with? (Assuming your agreement states that the company will front the fees). What happens if the arbitrator decides the case against y…

This is one of the tradeoffs of forcing arbitration. If you take away my ability to file suit, you pick up more of the fees. When I did it last year, filing as a plaintiff was a flat $250. Getting pissed off people to come up with $250 may be a challenge but not impossible. * I'm not sure if you could pull a Thiel/Hulk Hogan thing to bankroll an arbitration swarm but if so, this could definitely get ugly for companie…

"this could definitely get ugly for companies that misbehave"

It doesn't just have to be companies that misbehave. If you don't like your competitor, maybe you'll sponsor that $250 per user to allow their userbase to throw arbitrations at them.

You can burn your competitor down at a ratio of at least 1:5 if you do something like this. If you take some fees for every case you win or that ends up settling, the ratio will be far better than 1:5

The arbitration system as it stands is a tool that allows anyone with enough money and intention to smite any company by pulling together unhappy users and paying arbitration fees for them.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#187

Post by arbitraryacct »

Nextgrid wrote: post #179
jerzyt wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean that someone is getting $1500 because their pizza arrived cold? I hope not.

If the service’s promise is to deliver warm pizza and they fail without compensating the customer (as these delivery services often do, essentially saying “tough luck” with fake, canned apologies and hoping you don’t bother doing a chargeback) then I don’t see why the customer shouldn’t be getting $1500.

The $1500 doesn't go to the customers, it goes to the courts. It's effectively a fine that a customer can arbitrarily impose on a company.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#188

Post by Nextgrid »

arbitraryacct wrote: post #187
Nextgrid wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the service’s promise is to deliver warm pizza and they fail without compensating the customer (as these delivery services often do, essentially saying “tough luck” with fake, canned apologies and hoping you don’t bother doing a chargeback) then I don’t see why the customer shouldn’t be getting $1500.

The $1500 doesn't go to the customers, it goes to the courts. It's effectively a fine that a customer can arbitrarily impose on a company.

But the customer has to pay it back if the lose the lawsuit, correct? If so then it’s absolutely fair.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#189

Post by d4rti »

joshuaheard wrote: post #43

The "reform" is to clog the system with a huge number of cases? I don't see the benefit here. A better solution would be for the American Arbitration Association to have a special system for class actions like government courts do.

Or companies could stop using binding arbitration and allow class action lawsuits.

Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume

#190

Post by nabla9 »

surround wrote: post #152

Stack overflow’s TOS has a binding arbitration clause, [1] despite overwhelming user feedback to the contrary. [2] Y Combinator’s TOS has an arbitration clause. [3] If you’ve created an account on HN, you’ve agreed to arbitration. [1] https://stackoverflow.com/legal/terms-of-service/public [2] https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/309756 [3] https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/

The US stands alone in consumer arbitration.

In most countries consumer arbitration is either heavily regulated, or non binding. In EU pre-dispute binding consumer arbitration clauses are considered unfair terms.

American Exceptionalism in Consumer Arbitration https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2265556

Post reply on HN