3 ms·
Why a Judge Made Uber Create an Email Address
- mindslight 7y agoWhen will a judge just strike down this binding arbitration scheme in general? The setup of binding arbitration goes against the fundamental idea of a contract by handing the power of interpretation to an agent of one of the parties. The groups pushing this nonsense seem to have regrouped at "you agree to arbitration unless you send us a notice to opt out in this small timeframe", adding complexity in an attempt to create something legally defensible. But there is still no consideration for accepting that specific provision besides "ha-ha got you", so it clearly won't last either. We just have to put up with it until the right test case and judge comes along. With what we know about computational complexity, there really needs to be an explicit disincentive for drafters to contracts, contracts of adhesion especially, to not attempt these types of hostile terms in the first place.
- colejohnson66 7y agoThe problem is: the Supreme Court has ruled arbitration agreements legal.
- timoth3y 7y agoIt should probably be made null in non-negotiated contracts like EULAs. If two parties of equal power and status want to agree to resolve their issues trough arbitration rather than litigation, that's a great thing. Traditionally that what binding arbitration was.
- Nextgrid 7y agoI still don’t understand why arbitration is a thing. Like what’s the point of the law if you can just put some BS in an obscure part of the terms of service and become completely immune to it?
- colejohnson66 7y agoThe argument is that you didn’t just agree to the terms by signing up, you checked a box saying you did.
- Nextgrid 7y agoI thought the point of the law was that you can't just opt-out of it if you find it inconvenient.