4 ms·

Amazon TOS: > Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon Service, or to any products or services sold or distributed by Amazon or throu

Amazon TOS: > Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon Service, or to any products or services sold or distributed by Amazon or through Amazon.com will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court > We each agree that any dispute resolution proceedings will be conducted only on an individual basis and not in a class, consolidated or representative action. If for any reason a claim proceeds in court rather than in arbitration we each waive any right to a jury trial.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
How is that even possible? Kind of defeats the point of having a justice system... EDIT or let me rephrase that question: what's the original purpose of such forced arbitration clauses existing? How do they contribute to the public good?
- rrix2 8y ago
  The idea behind it is that any individual with a claim can stand to be reimbursed for their damages more if their arbitration claim is won than if they got 0.70$ for being a class-member. It disclaims any notion of collective action other than for self-gain, but the logic behind it is supported by the current laws.
- smnrchrds 8y ago
  The idea is that arbitration reduces the burden on the justice system while simultaneously giving people a faster and cheaper method for dispute resolution. Unfortunately contract law seems to be written with the assumption that the sides have equal power and their lawyers have negotiated the terms of the contract. In today's world where contacts are simply forced upon individuals by corporations, maybe we should revisit contract law.
  - ema 8y ago
    In which way is Amazon's TOS forced upon me? I could choose to not shop there, couldn't I?
    - Retric 8y ago
      You can shop there without being aware it exists.
    - the_duke 8y ago
      The same reason why large parts of TOS are usually unenforceable. Almost no one reads them. Even of those that read them, most couldn't understand the finer legal points and implications contained therein.
    - smnrchrds 8y ago
      Sometimes TOS is forced. Imagine living in an area with only a single ISP. You can technically forego internet access, but for most people that is not a realistic option. But even in the case of Amazon, TOS is forced on you in the sense that you have no way of negotiating it. It is not a meeting of the minds; they write it and you sign it, often without even reading it. This is not the assumption with which contract law was written.
  - howard941 8y ago
    I'm not optimistic about revisiting contract law for this abuse. The grounds might be adhesion (I'm drawing a blank for other grounds but haven't had coffee yet) but those attacks haven't been successful since time immemorial (exaggeration?). After the coming change in government Congress needs to reign the Federal Arbitration Act back in to its intended purpose, that of encouraging ADR in B2B environments, and sew some testicles onto an aggressive FTC. The role for government to step in and aggressively resolve unfair trade practices is clear when arbitration is forced on monopoly customers and customers for whom there is no ability to meaningfully negotiate contract terms.
- lozenge 8y ago
  Every contract is legal unless there is a specific reason for it not to be legal. Forced arbitration can be overridden in some circumstances but is essentially legal.
  - hakfoo 8y ago
    > Every contract is legal unless there is a specific reason for it not to be legal. I always wondered if this was a major structural folly. It sort of worked when contracts were mostly B2B things, or rare B2C dealing with significant okay-better-talk-it-over-with-a-lawyer financial stakes. But these days, a typical consumer is incidentally tangling themselves into hundreds of pages of contracts a day, written by people with far more access to legal support and presented with little option for negotiation. I wonder if we'd be better off with just standardized "Mad Libs" style contracts. There'd be only one standard retail sales contract, one standard software license, one standard website terms of service, etc, codified into law. Nothing else is binding. A lot of contract law would become cut and dry because there'd be no easy way to introduce new ambiguities or surprises into it-- we'd have most of the precedent we needed pretty fast. It would also force a lot more transparency into some of the skeezier applications of contracts. There's no room for an unexpected cost or caveat when it's the same contract template every other business in your category uses. If the firms that all slapped "no class actions" and "mandatory arbitration" into every little clickthrough had to instead had to lobby a regulator to change the standard contract template, it would likely trigger public backlash.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  One benefit for the consumer is that they don't have to risk paying out lawyers fees for complicated multi-year legal battles.
  - lozenge 8y ago
    That would be a benefit of optional arbitration, not forced arbitration.
    - tomjen3 8y ago
      No, because the company would then deny it.
Twisell 8y ago
I don’t know well US laws, but in EU theses terms would be considered unlawful and non applying by any judge and won’t prevent a legal action.
- fmajid 8y ago
  Yes. Sadly, the corporate-friendly US Supreme Court has ruled binding arbitration legal (in the case of AT&T Wireless' contracts) and worse overturned a Californa state law that banned them.
  - singularity2001 8y ago
    you should seriously consider resetting your system
    - fmajid 8y ago
      Not mine, I just live there (French). The US Constitution was designed for stability, and explicitly (Madison) to protect the opulent. That’s why the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments, i.e. an afterthought. It’s working as designed (how many other constitutions have survived over 200 years?), and almost impossible to change from within the system.
- GuB-42 8y ago
  Class actions are uncommon in the EU. They are a common law thing and the EU is mostly civil law.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

How is that even possible? Kind of defeats the point of having a justice system... EDIT or let me rephrase that question: what's the original purpose of such forced arbitration clauses existing? How do they contribute to the public good?

rrix2 8y ago
The idea behind it is that any individual with a claim can stand to be reimbursed for their damages more if their arbitration claim is won than if they got 0.70$ for being a class-member. It disclaims any notion of collective action other than for self-gain, but the logic behind it is supported by the current laws.
smnrchrds 8y ago
The idea is that arbitration reduces the burden on the justice system while simultaneously giving people a faster and cheaper method for dispute resolution. Unfortunately contract law seems to be written with the assumption that the sides have equal power and their lawyers have negotiated the terms of the contract. In today's world where contacts are simply forced upon individuals by corporations, maybe we should revisit contract law.
- ema 8y ago
  In which way is Amazon's TOS forced upon me? I could choose to not shop there, couldn't I?
  - Retric 8y ago
    You can shop there without being aware it exists.
  - the_duke 8y ago
    The same reason why large parts of TOS are usually unenforceable. Almost no one reads them. Even of those that read them, most couldn't understand the finer legal points and implications contained therein.
  - smnrchrds 8y ago
    Sometimes TOS is forced. Imagine living in an area with only a single ISP. You can technically forego internet access, but for most people that is not a realistic option. But even in the case of Amazon, TOS is forced on you in the sense that you have no way of negotiating it. It is not a meeting of the minds; they write it and you sign it, often without even reading it. This is not the assumption with which contract law was written.
- howard941 8y ago
  I'm not optimistic about revisiting contract law for this abuse. The grounds might be adhesion (I'm drawing a blank for other grounds but haven't had coffee yet) but those attacks haven't been successful since time immemorial (exaggeration?). After the coming change in government Congress needs to reign the Federal Arbitration Act back in to its intended purpose, that of encouraging ADR in B2B environments, and sew some testicles onto an aggressive FTC. The role for government to step in and aggressively resolve unfair trade practices is clear when arbitration is forced on monopoly customers and customers for whom there is no ability to meaningfully negotiate contract terms.
lozenge 8y ago
Every contract is legal unless there is a specific reason for it not to be legal. Forced arbitration can be overridden in some circumstances but is essentially legal.
- hakfoo 8y ago
  > Every contract is legal unless there is a specific reason for it not to be legal. I always wondered if this was a major structural folly. It sort of worked when contracts were mostly B2B things, or rare B2C dealing with significant okay-better-talk-it-over-with-a-lawyer financial stakes. But these days, a typical consumer is incidentally tangling themselves into hundreds of pages of contracts a day, written by people with far more access to legal support and presented with little option for negotiation. I wonder if we'd be better off with just standardized "Mad Libs" style contracts. There'd be only one standard retail sales contract, one standard software license, one standard website terms of service, etc, codified into law. Nothing else is binding. A lot of contract law would become cut and dry because there'd be no easy way to introduce new ambiguities or surprises into it-- we'd have most of the precedent we needed pretty fast. It would also force a lot more transparency into some of the skeezier applications of contracts. There's no room for an unexpected cost or caveat when it's the same contract template every other business in your category uses. If the firms that all slapped "no class actions" and "mandatory arbitration" into every little clickthrough had to instead had to lobby a regulator to change the standard contract template, it would likely trigger public backlash.
tomjen3 8y ago
One benefit for the consumer is that they don't have to risk paying out lawyers fees for complicated multi-year legal battles.
- lozenge 8y ago
  That would be a benefit of optional arbitration, not forced arbitration.
  - tomjen3 8y ago
    No, because the company would then deny it.

Twisell 8y ago

I don’t know well US laws, but in EU theses terms would be considered unlawful and non applying by any judge and won’t prevent a legal action.

fmajid 8y ago
Yes. Sadly, the corporate-friendly US Supreme Court has ruled binding arbitration legal (in the case of AT&T Wireless' contracts) and worse overturned a Californa state law that banned them.
- singularity2001 8y ago
  you should seriously consider resetting your system
  - fmajid 8y ago
    Not mine, I just live there (French). The US Constitution was designed for stability, and explicitly (Madison) to protect the opulent. That’s why the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments, i.e. an afterthought. It’s working as designed (how many other constitutions have survived over 200 years?), and almost impossible to change from within the system.
GuB-42 8y ago
Class actions are uncommon in the EU. They are a common law thing and the EU is mostly civil law.