4 ms·
If it is, did they really need to do that? Just about every service everywhere already has clauses banning users from joining them, requiring users to waive the
by s73v3r_ 9y ago
If it is, did they really need to do that? Just about every service everywhere already has clauses banning users from joining them, requiring users to waive their Constitutional rights.
- olliej 9y agoI recall somes states are [going to?] simply making any forced arbitration clauses unenforceable (much like no compete clauses in California)
- s73v3r_ 9y agoThat would be a very, very good thing.
- mark212 9y agocan't. There's a federal law from 1928 (I kid you not) that says no state can impair the ability of parties to agree to arbitration. The fiction is that clicking on a terms-of-service button is "consent" to all the terms therein, including arbitration and class action waivers. California for years said such things were unenforceable but the US Supreme Court in 2011 struck it down. (AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011))
- Lionsion 9y ago> There's a federal law from 1928 (I kid you not) that says no state can impair the ability of parties to agree to arbitration. Do you have a citation for to the statute or the USC for that? This is something that I'd like to write my reps about.
- mark212 9y agoI was wrong, it was passed in 1925. More here, including a link to the Concepcion decision by the USSC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act
- s73v3r_ 9y agoI believe there is an argument to make that banning forced arbitration is not impairing the ability of parties to agree to arbitration. All that would do is ensure that the parties are actually agreeing to it, instead of one party bullying the other into arbitration.