> I'm more disturbed by the parts of the article which say that he never agreed to a forced arbitration clause in the first place because it wasn't in the ToS w

> I'm more disturbed by the parts of the article which say that he never agreed to a forced arbitration clause in the first place because it wasn't in the ToS when he paid, but the judge decided to go with the later ToS anyway: According to several other articles I read this was argued but lost due to the majority of contributed money came _after_ the ToS update which required him accepting the new ToS. It's still crappy though.