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

Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#61

Post by HarryHirsch »

hodgesrm wrote: post #46
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #40

Arbitration 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…

I"m with you even though I'm extremely leery of arbitration in areas like automobile defects or employment agreements. In these cases it's often only the threat of massive awards that makes companies think twice before they engage in business practices that lead to substantial harm. The potential harm related to Internet access does not seem very high. It's fair to balance that against the cost of frivolous litigatio…

I'm just curious what Comcast and Google are trying to defend against. You'd think that the cases your typical home subscriber and probably your business subscriber would bring would in most all cases be litigated in Small Claims court. It would be about early termination because the connection is too poor or the uptime does not conform to contract.

Are they trying to quash class-action suits or what? I haven't got a clue, someone more familiar with the subject should clue us all in.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#62

Post by rayiner »

twoodfin wrote: post #58
rayiner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations cannot donate to campaigns either. What they can do is donate to Super PACs that make independent expenditures to support particular candidates.

Campaigns for office are a subset of all political campaigns. Post- Citizens United , corporations can engage in or financially support any political campaigning they like in whatever form, as long as they don't make financial or in-kind contributions to the electoral campaigns of individual candidates. They don't need to form a PAC to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Super_P...

Fair enough. I didn't pick up on your use of "campaign" in the broader sense.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#63

Post by EpicEng »

lucb1e wrote: post #37
EpicEng wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Yeah, didn't see that

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#64

Post by DannyBee »

nitrogen wrote: post #30
DannyBee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

It's not misleading. " Of course it is. People are not the companies they work for. Period. Did you read the leaked Sony email where one exec was hounding all the other execs to make large donations to a particular politician?

Again, there are 503 donators. There are not 503 execs at Google.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#65

Post by hodgesrm »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #61
hodgesrm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I"m with you even though I'm extremely leery of arbitration in areas like automobile defects or employment agreements. In these cases it's often only the threat of massive awards that makes companies think twice before they engage in business practices that lead to substantial harm. The potential harm related to Internet access does not seem very high. It's fair to balance that against the cost of frivolous litigatio…

I'm just curious what Comcast and Google are trying to defend against. You'd think that the cases your typical home subscriber and probably your business subscriber would bring would in most all cases be litigated in Small Claims court. It would be about early termination because the connection is too poor or the uptime does not conform to contract. Are they trying to quash class-action suits or what? I haven't got a…

It's usually class actions, which can be very expensive to fight and have large enough awards that legal teams are motivated take them on contingency. The claims you describe are so small they are barely worth litigating even in Small Claims court.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#66

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

arca_vorago wrote: post #43
TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #40

Arbitration 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…

The problem with this perspective is that it doesnt match reality. Consumers have not been taught how to properly negotiate and enter contracts, and companies creating the arbitration clauses almost always have the power to push back on changes until the consumer relents. I wash shocked when I ordered a test Dell Ubuntu machine, took the time to read the EULA/TOS, and was appaled at their terms, which included waivin…

In the case of non-negotiated contracts ... such as with large companies offering goods for sale ... the way an oppressive contract term is bargained away by consumers, is by them choosing the goods or services of a competitor who does not have that term.

If the term is indeed material to the consumer, and if it is not oppressive to the company for them to give it, then at least one competitor will offer it, in order to win some portion of the market away from incumbents.

This usually does not happen with contract terms, because consumers do not look at the terms, nor usually do they care about the terms.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#67

Post by hnbroseph »

benbenolson wrote: post #34
RileyKyeden wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

what are you speaking of in particular?

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#68

Post by tptacek »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #36
DannyBee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 a…

Yes, 'DannyBee has met a significant number of Googlers.

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#69

Post by effingwewt »

I posted this on another article- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11850870 -but it went unanswered, I'm hoping maybe this time someone will see this. It was in regards to google being brought a CA by advertisers who'd felt cheated (and rightly so if I understand correctly).

"Serious question- Would this(a class action suit for screwing customers) have been possible if Google had put in their contract that all parties waive their right to a class action? Many companies do this now- Microsoft's xbox live, for example not only forces you to forfeit any class action lawsuits, but at the time I stopped using their services, I believe they also required meditation with a mediator to be chosen by Microsoft. I sold my xbox 360 and never looked back.

edit- I also remember specifically Microsoft releasing a TOU update just days after, if not the day of, the ruling allowing companies to do this came down."

Re: Like Comcast, Google Fiber now forces customers into arbitration

#70

Post by Natsu »

koolba wrote: post #51
Natsu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why ban it? Just make it so that when it's person vs. company, the person can choose the arbiter. Then they can't shop for a biased arbiter.

> Why ban it? Because it prevents creating a class action to group together impacted customers. Individually it may not be worth it for a customer to proceed with a claim. En masse, there is an economy of scale. Now I'm not in favor of frivolous lawsuits and these clauses are clearly intended as a defend against them, but if the response to that problem shouldn't be binding arbitration everywhere. It should be tort r…

Yes, it might prevent class action, but if that many people have truly been harmed, the company will have a massive number of arbitration suits to handle which could be more expensive. So they still can't just go around and piss off large numbers of customers.

Half the things I've gotten pitiful $5 checks for were not at all in my interests and one, namely the Microsoft class-actions, I was tried but failed to figure out how to object to because of how badly the lawyers in this state sold the class out in what they settled for.

So I'm not convinced that many of the class actions were actually in the interests of the class members to begin with. I'd honestly prefer to bring my own cases to court than have some self-appointed class representative sell me out.

Post reply on HN