Well, then we should close all our accounts on Microsoft, Apple, Steam, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Because they all have recently added similar Anti-Class Action Suit clauses.
Is arbitration as evil as it's popularly made out to be? I will say, the thought of being able to settle a dispute via a neutral third party without invoking the morass that is the legal system sounds enticing, and i'm the consumer.
Are there any stats on how often they find for the corporation vs the consumer? Nothing jumped out at me when I did a search.
Another question I just thought of, how freely can courts ignore the contract of adhesion in which you "agreed" not to bring a class action?
Except it isn't a neutral third party when one party gets to pick the arbitrator and the other party has no say.
It's why forced arbitration in employment contracts are so odious, it's the corporation + a corporate lawyer vs you, and you have no options if they for instance allow you to be brutally raped and then imprison you in a shipping container for days for reporting it.
I second what illuminate said. Plenty of society's systems hide info for potentially nefarious reasons, so that you have little choice but to draw your own conclusions. Just follow the money.
Being able to settle a dispute via a neutral third party is enticing. And I'm a big fan of arbitration.
But you're not thinking of arbitration, you're thinking of binding arbitration. That's where a 3rd party is picked (in these cases, picked by the corporation) and then both sides must do whatever that person says, regardless of whether they find it fair.
The agreement is just another contract. Contracts can't make you do anything; they just list penalties if you don't adhere to the agreement.What penalties if you go ahead and file a Class Action suit?
The judge will throw out the class action when shown that the plaintiff agreed to arbitration only. Hence lawyers won't start the class action to begin with.
Unless they have unfair contract terms, or are accepted under duress, or don't make terms/changes visible enough (e.g a tiny wording change written in 8 point in the middle of a 20 page contract may be unenforceable) etc - at least in the UK.
I'd gladly close my Paypal account, and have felt that way for years, if there was a decent alternative. There simply isn't. I need Paypal, and use it almost every day. So I am at their whims, and they know it.
He could need it to pay out people, to receive payments from ad networks/partners, etc. I know I definitely need it to pay contractors who live in Asia or Europe and only have Paypal (or otherwise is easier than doing a bank wire).
I wish everyone would start using Dwolla so I could give up on Paypal forever. I think the thing that keeps Paypal on top is since eBay owns them, they basically force you to use Paypal if you want to do any transactions on their site.
26 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 43.0 ms ] threadBasically, no class action lawsuits, etc. They've rewritten the entire Arbitration section.
Are there any stats on how often they find for the corporation vs the consumer? Nothing jumped out at me when I did a search.
Another question I just thought of, how freely can courts ignore the contract of adhesion in which you "agreed" not to bring a class action?
It's why forced arbitration in employment contracts are so odious, it's the corporation + a corporate lawyer vs you, and you have no options if they for instance allow you to be brutally raped and then imprison you in a shipping container for days for reporting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arbitration_Forum
The corporations choose the arbitration firms. The arbitration firms should know full well who's feeding them. So stats aren't really necessary.
> ... how freely can courts ignore the contract of adhesion in which you "agreed" not to bring a class action?
My understanding is, zero freedom for that.
Yes, the incentives are perverse but empirical evidence is always necessary.
But you're not thinking of arbitration, you're thinking of binding arbitration. That's where a 3rd party is picked (in these cases, picked by the corporation) and then both sides must do whatever that person says, regardless of whether they find it fair.