4 ms·
I think most people here are more than ok with Arbitration being an option, but what people here hate are the clauses in the contracts which require arbitration
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
I think most people here are more than ok with Arbitration being an option, but what people here hate are the clauses in the contracts which require arbitration that is paid for by the company, essentially removing your right to redress in the courts.
- slededit 8y agonon-binding arbitration wouldn't solve the power imbalance, as if the company loses they would file an appeal in court - and you'd have to pay or drop it. For it to work as intended it has to be binding. The flip side is you can't go to court - but alas you couldn't afford to anyways.
- perl4ever 8y agoI don't see the issue as being difficult or complicated - binding arbitration is fine and useful, as long as it is mutually agreed upon after the disagreement arises but before it is litigated. The problem is being pressured to commit to arbitration long before you know what the implications will be. Thus, I think it should not be permitted for anyone to make that decision in advance of the specific dispute.
- slededit 8y agoIf there was class arbitration or arbitration provisions were void in the case of a class action then much of the criticism would go away. The main problem today is companies can commit “small” torts under $1,000 and it’s not worth it for individuals to complain seperately.