4 ms·

That seems unfairly stacked in favor of the defense. If they refuse to pay for the arbitration, that should be the same as if they just refuse to show up to cou

That seems unfairly stacked in favor of the defense. If they refuse to pay for the arbitration, that should be the same as if they just refuse to show up to court, i.e. default judgement in favor of the plaintiff.

whatshisface 7y ago
Arbitration isn't a court, it's a mutually agreed upon deal that might help parties stay out of court.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  > mutually agreed upon So, buried in size 3 font on page 355 of a document included by reference in the 200 page TOS and that can be found at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" -- that one is to have read in full by legal counsel before spending $30/month on internet access? Right. I know that courts know about contracts of adhesion, but suggesting that there's anything mutual about them is absolutely grounds for a little prodding.
- Spivak 7y ago
  And what company is going to write in a default judgement for the plaintiff in their ToS?
  - avs733 7y ago
    The arbitration vendors (and lets be clear...they are vendors not a system of justice) could and probably should write this into their rules. They rely on the appearance of fairness to enable corporations to use their services against consumers/employees. If they aren't careful there is a risk of the courts increasingly observing how tipped the scales of arbitration are. The jurisprudence, to the limited extent I understand it, relies on the assertion that arbitration is fair. Upholding that believe is in the arbitrators interest.
    - e8u3h3jeue 7y ago
      >(and lets be clear...they are vendors not a system of justice) This is misleading, neither America nor any other country has a justice system. Justice is often a goal of the legal system but it is not a direct attribute of the system.
      - bjelkeman-again 7y ago
        How would you design a Justice system then?
      - distances 7y ago
        Most of Europe, at least, isn't bound to the letter of the law, but rather the spirit of it. I'd assume this makes them much more a justice system than the American version.
      - avs733 7y ago
        that is an absolutely fair critique of my word choice. Totally agree, and I'm usually the person making that comment.
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        To be fair, the "justice system" is a commonly accepted name for the legal system, in the same way that you would call it the "Department of Defense" or the "Department for Health and Social Care."
arbitraryacct 7y ago
Arbitration is extremely disruptive. If someone takes you to arbitration, you pay $1k non-refundable, simply because they want to take you to court. If you do end up in court, it's another $20k just for JAMS fees. Again, non-refundable, doesn't matter if you win or lose. So if someone is trying to take you to arbitration over less than $20k, it really doesn't matter AT ALL if they are right or not, it makes sense to settle for whatever amount you can convince them to agree to. You can kill a company with frivolous arbitrations, just by having enough people willing to file one. Doesn't matter if those people have been wronged.
- jeltz 7y ago
  If so, why not just remove the arbitration clause?
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  Should have thought of that before you added a mandatory arbitration clause to your contracts.

whatshisface 7y ago

Arbitration isn't a court, it's a mutually agreed upon deal that might help parties stay out of court.

jjoonathan 7y ago
> mutually agreed upon So, buried in size 3 font on page 355 of a document included by reference in the 200 page TOS and that can be found at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" -- that one is to have read in full by legal counsel before spending $30/month on internet access? Right. I know that courts know about contracts of adhesion, but suggesting that there's anything mutual about them is absolutely grounds for a little prodding.
Spivak 7y ago
And what company is going to write in a default judgement for the plaintiff in their ToS?
- avs733 7y ago
  The arbitration vendors (and lets be clear...they are vendors not a system of justice) could and probably should write this into their rules. They rely on the appearance of fairness to enable corporations to use their services against consumers/employees. If they aren't careful there is a risk of the courts increasingly observing how tipped the scales of arbitration are. The jurisprudence, to the limited extent I understand it, relies on the assertion that arbitration is fair. Upholding that believe is in the arbitrators interest.
  - e8u3h3jeue 7y ago
    >(and lets be clear...they are vendors not a system of justice) This is misleading, neither America nor any other country has a justice system. Justice is often a goal of the legal system but it is not a direct attribute of the system.
    - bjelkeman-again 7y ago
      How would you design a Justice system then?
    - distances 7y ago
      Most of Europe, at least, isn't bound to the letter of the law, but rather the spirit of it. I'd assume this makes them much more a justice system than the American version.
    - avs733 7y ago
      that is an absolutely fair critique of my word choice. Totally agree, and I'm usually the person making that comment.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      To be fair, the "justice system" is a commonly accepted name for the legal system, in the same way that you would call it the "Department of Defense" or the "Department for Health and Social Care."

arbitraryacct 7y ago

Arbitration is extremely disruptive. If someone takes you to arbitration, you pay $1k non-refundable, simply because they want to take you to court. If you do end up in court, it's another $20k just for JAMS fees. Again, non-refundable, doesn't matter if you win or lose. So if someone is trying to take you to arbitration over less than $20k, it really doesn't matter AT ALL if they are right or not, it makes sense to settle for whatever amount you can convince them to agree to. You can kill a company with frivolous arbitrations, just by having enough people willing to file one. Doesn't matter if those people have been wronged.

jeltz 7y ago
If so, why not just remove the arbitration clause?
TheCoelacanth 7y ago
Should have thought of that before you added a mandatory arbitration clause to your contracts.