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.
A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
171–180 of 250 posts
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#172Hi To ALL
i am good writer and poet i have publish to many books but now i am getting start website you can check on below link
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#173Stack 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/
It seems like every mundane service these days either has added binding arbitration, or requires it on sign up. Anyone from Pornhub/various adult sites to Blue Apron all want you to waive away your rights.
Even more troubling is binding-arbitration and class-action waivers for employment. They suppress cases of systematic mistreatment and allow issues to be swept under the rug, even more so than they are already.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took State Farm to small claims court. They paid to upgrade it to general division at the last possible moment, which significantly increases the logistics and complexity of the case. I think they did it as an intimidation tactic. Corporations are horrible.
State Farm is a mutual company. That means that the policyholders (i.e. you) actually own it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Farm
Why do the policyholders pay for so much TV advertising to get new policyholders? Increase in volume lowers overheads and spreads the risk pool, but surely not to the extent of the TV spending.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#175How come it seems like every time I hear Alsup's name in the news it's because he's telling a major corporation to stop being an asshole. It's refreshing to hear from a judge.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "censored" TV shows are really just the networks not wanting to piss off their advertisers. There is little to no censorship in the sense that the government actually prevents you from publishing something - especially now that almost all media is internet or cable. The last area where government actually decided content was with broadcast television, since the government got to decide how to use a limited number…
The FCC still levies fines for certain levels profanity and certain forms of nudity for over-the-air broadcasts for TV and FM/AM radio (I dont think satellite is bound due to being a paid service). Granted the standard for finable offenses has loosened over the years, and you can get away with more late night (presumably because the kids should be in bed). I dont recall if the "wardrobe malfunction" in the Janet Jack…
Right, but over air broadcast hasn't been a primary mode of media consumption for decades at this point. The "censorship" on cable broadcasts you refer to are private companies keeping their content advertiser friendly not government restrictions.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#177Stack 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/
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.
This is very region/system specific, the US and UK adhere more strictly to what was written than most of continental Europe. In Europe there is more weight on "reasonable" interpretation and consumer protection compared to the literal agreement. That makes things more vague, but the result is also that going to court with the claim "the terms are too unfavorable to me and I was forced to click OK" is accepted by the courts as a reason to ignore the TOS.
So a mandatory arbitration clause can be written here, but you would fail to stop your customer from going to court if they disagree with the arbitration outcome.
Similar for things like excluding warranty, you cannot legally decrease consumer product warranty below 2 years in Europe. You would loose that case, because the courts have ruled that less then 2 years (or less than the reasonably expected economic life of the product if that's longer) is unfavorable to the consumer and thus null.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#178This seems like fantastic news -- if class action suits aren't allowed, then technology now makes it easier to file "cookie cutter" arbitration suits at such low cost that it effectively acts like a small class-action suit anyways. But I'm worried companies will be able to respond in a way that neutralizes it -- tweaking arbitration terms somehow. I hope not, though. It is absolutely necessary that we hold companies…
It seems like an easy tweak to nullify this strategy is to invalidate automated arbitration claims. Even without this tweak, if a company saw a huge increase in "cookie cutter" arbitration suits they could probably just not respond to these suits and hope that the majority of complainants aren't willing to go to court. A cookie cutter suit likely indicates a low-effort action, not likely to be followed up with a laws…
That won't work, because someone will setup a "assign me power of attorney and I'll get you something in return for 30% of the profits" service. That service will first file several thousands of arbitration claims, the company doesn't pay and then it will file a class action lawsuit and make it lawyers rich.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#179The 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…
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.
Re: A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
No longer binding if the company breachs the arbitration clause. They're going to be sued if the issue is real.
It seems simple enough for a binding arbitration clause to simply require the plaintiff to pay, and to tack on additional clauses to indemnify the corporate party.
I would assume that these scum companies would’ve already done so long ago if this was possible.