For more information about arbitration courts, read this New York Times article:. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbit...
Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
31–40 of 76 posts
Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
#32This isn't exactly rare. It's a very, very common clause in TOS's. It's also often a clause that isn't exactly enforceable (and I believe different venues have different rules about it).
Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
#33It's difficult to understand how such clause is even legal to begin with. It basically sets up a "private" justice system for non criminal cases. That's insane. I get it, there are difference sort of tribunals. But it shouldn't be up to the corporations to decide where justice is supposed to be served.
It's legal because the five justices who decided that money is speech decided that money now gets its own courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepc...
Not really. Arbitration has long been a path that judges recommend for non-criminal cases to reduce strain on the court system. I know that it can often seem nefarious, but a major part of the modern civil court system involves reducing the (frankly, unbelievable) strain on court resources, which are finite (and in many states, being reduced for budgetary reasons).
Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
#34Does anybody care about the Constitution anymore? It seems like every day I read an article about someone either going against the Constitution, or getting very close to denying its importance in the United States.
You should be more specific if you want useful replies. Otherwise, people will chime in to soapbox on their pet constitutional issue.
This was in direct response to the article, in which Google Fiber's new policy strips users of their Constitutional rights.
Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
#35Serious question: how is this legal? I can't imagine I could make someone sign a form that he waives his right to sue me and then shoot him, right? Assuming he doesn't die and it's him, not the government, that prosecutes/sues me.
> I can't imagine I could make someone sign a form that he waives his right to sue me and then shoot him, right?
To answer your question - yes, you could legally have someone sign a contract waiving his right to sue you for shooting him. However, the contract would be unenforceable, and he could sue you (for both shooting him and potentially for the contract - IIRC, that depends on the state). One of the things that became abundantly clear in contract law is that you can put essentially anything into a contract, legally. It's enforcement of said contract that the legal system gets involved in.
Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not misleading. Many of the donations are from top ranking Googlers like Eric Schmidt who directly interact with these politicians in a business sense. Many of these donors have stock-based compensation with Google. Unsurprisingly, almost all pro-Google legislation is sponsored by the same Congresspeople who have received the largest donations from Googlers. So OpenSecrets' format is specifically designed to rev…
"It's not misleading. " Of course it is. People are not the companies they work for. Period. " Many of the donations are from top ranking Googlers like Eric Schmidt who directly interact with these politicians in a business sense." "many". Opensecrets lists 503 unique people identified as googlers donating. I don't believe you have any reasonable argument that there are 503 top ranking googlers who interact directly…
Have you met a significant number of Googlers? Pretty sure they bleed the full spectrum of Google's logo colors. I'd absolutely say Googlers are the company they work for.
I'd argue that while perhaps 1-2% of those donors may be interacting with those politicians directly, that 1-2%, being founders, chairmen, SVPs, etc. are probably the lion's share of the actual money donated, given their higher compensation. (And as I mentioned above, it's quite popular at Google to give equity as part of employees' compensation packages, meaning they have a strong incentive to act in the company's interest, even when donating politically or voting.)
And to be clear, federal law mandates donors disclose their employers for a reason. And OpenSecrets explains how and why they use this information: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/include/contribmethod...
Anna Eshoo is an excellent example of a paid Google representative: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=201...
Here's one example: (Lofgren is paid by Google as well.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/anna-eshoo-zoe-lofg...
But my favorite is this one, where 12 members of Congress, all paid by Google, act as lobbyists towards a foreign government on their behalf. Lead by Eshoo: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/us-lawmakers-ask-...
Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
#37Serious question: how is this legal? I can't imagine I could make someone sign a form that he waives his right to sue me and then shoot him, right? Assuming he doesn't die and it's him, not the government, that prosecutes/sues me.
Well that would be a criminal act and the state would be pressing charges, not the victim. Bad analogy.
> "the state would be pressing charges, not the victim"
I figured, so I edited in (about 30 seconds later, not sure if you fell in that time gap): "Assuming he doesn't die and it's him, not the government, that prosecutes/sues me."
Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't because usually your options are 50 Mbit line (maybe 100 if you're really lucky) or a 1Gb line for the same price. I'd happily take the arbitration clause for 10x and probably 20x the speedup.
Beyond that, your other options will also usually include arbitration clauses. If it's a deal-breaker for choosing Google, it'll be a deal-breaker for choosing anyone else.
That's a fair point. As the article's title points out, Comcast does the same.
Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
#39Serious question: how is this legal? I can't imagine I could make someone sign a form that he waives his right to sue me and then shoot him, right? Assuming he doesn't die and it's him, not the government, that prosecutes/sues me.
> I can't imagine I could make someone sign a form that he waives his right to sue me and then shoot him, right? To answer your question - yes, you could legally have someone sign a contract waiving his right to sue you for shooting him. However, the contract would be unenforceable, and he could sue you (for both shooting him and potentially for the contract - IIRC, that depends on the state). One of the things that…
> you could legally have someone sign a contract waiving [t]his right [...] However, the contract would be unenforceable
I understand I can write any nonsense and sign it, probably because of freedom of expression or something. My point was whether that contract would be enforceable. If such a thing wasn't enforceable Google and others wouldn't be putting it in their contracts.
Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration
#40Arbitration clauses are allowed because in contracts the tradition is that the parties are allowed to create private rules that will govern their future transaction. You can also nominate the venue and laws that will apply to the contract, even if you don't arbitrate.
The reasoning is that the contract is a bargained document between the parties, and if a party does not like the contract, they are not forced to enter it.
If what you get in return for the contract is not sufficient to join the contract, then you don't execute it.
This is efficient so long as the bargaining power in the market is not highly asymmetrical. The US market is not ideal, but I'm not entirely certain arbitration provisions are a bad idea, regardless.
One reason arbitration provisions might be good, is because its a way for companies to opt out of the hunting territory of the trial lawyers association. The lawyers are another powerful group that has created many kinds of nuisance lawsuits that act as a private tax on corporations in the US. If the private tax is unavoidable, the cost is passed on as a price increase to consumers.
The lack of arbitration clause could manifest itself as increased cost of goods in the current climate, because of the huge cost of nuisance class actions, etc.
Just a perspective.