-
64 votes
-
Are mandatory arbitration agreements the new normal?
For clarity, a mandatory arbitration agreement is when a consumer or customer must "agree to have their case reviewed by a third party—called an arbitrator—and to be bound by the arbitrator's...
For clarity, a mandatory arbitration agreement is when a consumer or customer must "agree to have their case reviewed by a third party—called an arbitrator—and to be bound by the arbitrator's decision." The intent is that you waive your right to sue (in a regular court of law) the party you're entering this agreement with. But these agreements can, in some cases, be ruled as invalid by a court. The examples I've seen apply to the US, but I'd be interested in examples from other countries.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's been noticing how out of hand it's becoming to see these statements plastered in Terms of Service and several other locations.
The most newsworthy example recently was Disney claiming that a statement like this in their Disney+ ToS also applied to a wrongful death case on one of their properties. As the linked article says, they backpedaled on this, but it's still disgusting and disturbing they even tried it in the first place.
The most recent example I've seen is this post on Mastodon where it was included on the packaging of a supplement.
I can't help but wonder if this is just a way to deter people from seeking litigation in the first place, especially if they aren't wealthy enough to hire a legal team that could poke holes in the legitimacy of their mandatory arbitration agreement.
I'm sure there's a nearly endless supply of examples of this, especially in software service agreements. But is there anything that can be done about it? Or is this just one more way corporations get to have more power than people that won't ever change?
33 votes -
After the Honduran president repealed a law granting unfettered authority to outside investors, investors took the dispute to a World Bank arbitration court
13 votes -
The strange $55 million saga of a Netflix series you’ll never see
24 votes -
The ugly truth behind “We buy ugly houses”
10 votes -
I fought the PayPal and I won
8 votes -
PSA: Venmo just changed its terms, now including a more draconian arbitration requirement, requiring opt out by 6/22/22
I have mixed views on arbitration, it does lower costs, but arbitrators rarely see things from the consumers' perspectives. Here are the instructions for opting out, which I will be recommending...
I have mixed views on arbitration, it does lower costs, but arbitrators rarely see things from the consumers' perspectives.
Here are the instructions for opting out, which I will be recommending to all my friends (followed by a link to the form):
You can choose to reject this Agreement to Arbitrate (“opt-out”) by mailing us a written opt-out notice. For new Venmo users, the opt-out notice must be postmarked no later than 30 days after the date you accept the User Agreement for the first time. If you are already a current Venmo user and previously accepted the User Agreement prior to the introduction of this Agreement to Arbitrate on May 23, 2022, the Opt-Out Notice must be postmarked no later than June 22, 2022. You must mail the opt-out notice to PayPal, Inc., Attn: Litigation Department, Re: Venmo Opt-Out Notice, 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131. For your convenience, we are providing an opt-out notice form you must complete and mail to opt-out of this Agreement to Arbitrate. You must complete this form by providing all the information it calls for, including your name, address, phone number, Venmo user name, and the email address(es) used to log in to the Venmo account(s) to which the opt-out applies. You must sign the opt-out notice for it to be effective. This procedure is the only way you can opt-out of the Agreement to Arbitrate. If you opt-out of this Agreement to Arbitrate, all other parts of the User Agreement will continue to apply. Opting out of this Agreement to Arbitrate has no effect on any previous, other, or future arbitration agreements that you may have with us.
The form:
22 votes -
Dark Web - Justice League
4 votes -
Supreme Court of Canada sides with Uber drivers, opening door to $400M class-action lawsuit
9 votes -
DoorDash made its couriers agree to binding arbitration, and now a federal judge has ordered them to pay almost $10 million to arbitrate over 5000 claims filed by couriers
10 votes -
Over 150 Riot employees walk out to protest forced arbitration and sexist culture
13 votes -
This burrito includes an arbitration clause
8 votes