4 ms·
No. The judge announced that courts of law do not apply, only arbitration psuedocourts apply. Arbitration is no longer thrown out almost ever, because of ATT
by kevin_b_er 8y ago
No. The judge announced that courts of law do not apply, only arbitration psuedocourts apply.
Arbitration is no longer thrown out almost ever, because of ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. An unconscionable contract with arbitration is not an exception to arbitration anymore and state laws no longer apply to arbitration compelled agreements. The arbiter will decide what, if any, laws to follow. The arbiter will decide if the contract is fair. The arbiter will decide if they even want to rule based on the dispute at hand or something arbitrary.
You are behind the times on the sheer power of mandatory binding arbitration.
- ajross 8y ago> because of ATT Mobility LLC v. Concepcion Then perhaps your ire should be directed at the politicians responsible for appointing judges with more acceptable leanings on civil liberty issues like this, and not at some random local magistrate who failed to rule for the gambling rando who lost $4500 on kickstarter. I get what you're saying. This isn't a good example of the problem, nor a productive location to whine about it.
- pas 8y agoYou have a say in who gets to arbitrate your case. Are arbitration tribunals more biased than the regular courts? Also, "An unconscionable contract with arbitration is not an exception to arbitration anymore" then isn't the problem deceptive business conduct? Can't people form a class and sue for that? (Or is that a process only the FTC can initiate?)