7 ms·
Amazon changes TOS to let customers sue, after facing 75K+ arbitration demands
- pwg 5y agoA good quote from the article that neatly summarizes the issue: “Companies thought they were getting out of liability altogether,” by adding arbitration clauses, said Chicago lawyer Travis Lenkner, whose firm filed the majority of the Amazon claims. “Now they’re seeing exactly what they bargained for, and they don’t like it.”
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Animats 5y agoRead the actual judgement.[1] "The employer here, DoorDash,faced with having to actually honor its side of the bargain, now blanches at the cost of the filing fees it agreed to pay in the arbitration clause. No doubt, DoorDash never expected that so many would actually seek arbitration. Instead, in irony upon irony, DoorDash now wishes to resort to a class-wide lawsuit, the very device it denied to the workers, to avoid its duty to arbitrate. This hypocrisy will not be blessed, at least by this order." Also in that order is DoorDash trying to force drivers to switch from the American Arbitration Association (which is generally considered legit) to some off-brand arbitration company with whom DoorDash had cut a deal. Then DoorDash wanted to seal the details of that deal, which had come out at trial. The judge said no. The American Arbitration Association is trying to keep from being a tool of big companies to oppress consumers and customers. If a contract requires arbitration under AAA consumer rules, the AAA will allow the customer to opt for small claims court, instead.([2], p. 15.) That's why so many EULAs now call for arbitration under the commercial rules, which are intended for bigger disputes. But the AAA charges the company a substantial up-front fee for commercial arbitrations. Which is how DoorDash got into trouble here. [1] https://aboutblaw.com/ONJ https://aboutblaw.com/ONJ [2] https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer-Rules-Web.pdf https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer-Rules-Web.p...
- MikeTheGreat 5y agoThis is a great quote, and it does summarize things nicely. One quibble about the quote: companies didn't bargain for this, they imposed it. At no point did they ask for, or negotiate for, or bargain for this. They said "Here's what we're offering, take it or leave it" But the main point is 100% valid - companies thought they were getting out of liability altogether.
- paulgb 5y ago> Here's what we're offering, take it or leave it Technically, most companies do sneak in a way to opt out in their ToS, in order to bolster their claim that you “accepted” it if you don't happen to read that part of the ToS. I've successfully opted out of a number of arbitration clauses that way, though.
- pseudalopex 5y agoThat's more recent. And many companies don't.
- jquery 5y agoYep. When I was hired by my previous employer, I used this to opt out of arbitration for pay disbutes.
- meatmanek 5y agoSome companies (for example, Wealthfront) have that phrasing in their ToS, but then when you actually try to opt out of arbitration, they threaten to close your account. This gives you a choice of using their service and not being able to sue, or being able to sue but not use their service.
- paxys 5y agoFYI "getting more than you bargained for" is a commonly used expression. It doesn't have to mean there was actual bargaining.
- revel 5y agoWe shouldn't celebrate too early on what appears to be a largely technical mistake. It's just a matter of time until the language is cleaned up and the issue goes away for the companies. We need long term structural fixes to address forced arbitration
- didibus 5y agoWhat's the legal basis for allowing arbitration clauses?
- hnfong 5y agoThe legal basis is probably this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_contract But then this is premised on the fact that the legal system is capitalistic (laissez-faire economics and free-market libertarianism, etc etc).
- fidesomnes 5y agoThis is so clueless you should stop while you are ahead.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago> But then this is premised on the fact that the legal system is capitalistic (laissez-faire economics and free-market libertarianism, etc etc). Er. Free market, maybe, but what does it have to do with capital?
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoThe legal systen is 'free market'? Thats why offering money to anyone except your attorney is a crime? Being a jury is a public duty, poor people get a state sponsored defence atturney, judges are employed by the state, prosecutors are employed by the state. The day legal system goes 'free market' you will have mafia rulling the streets.
- throwaway3699 5y agoA defence attorney, sure, but you've got no chance of recompense if you have a legitimately sue (e.g. Amazon) to secure your rights.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoYou mean if you have to go on the offensive and sue a company that has wronged you? Thats kind of true, but thats the point of many regulatory agencies and complaints procedures - in UK we have many Ombundsments which are meant to pursue the offenders on behalf of consumers. Also class actions lawsuits are meant to help with that. Thats why these arbitration clauses seem like they subvert the legal sysstem and they should not be allowed.
- bmurphy1976 5y agoAnybody have a non-paywalled link? From what I can read the first part of the article implies that they can't consolidate the 75K+ arbitration demands into a single instance (ala a class-action) therefore they have to arbitrate every single demand individually. Sounds like a great way to fight this arbitration nonsense to me.
- hoppyhoppy2 5y agohttps://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/after-75000-echo-arbitration-demands-amazon-now-lets-you-sue-it/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/06/after-75000-echo...
- Hamuko 5y agoI didn't even realise it was paywalled since I have Bypass Paywalls Clean installed in Firefox. https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clean https://gitlab.com/magnolia1234/bypass-paywalls-firefox-clea...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- paulgb 5y agoI don't have access beyond the paywall, but it sounds like the same thing that happened to DoorDash: https://www.vox.com/2020/2/12/21133486/doordash-workers-10-million-forced-arbitration-class-action-supreme-court-backfired https://www.vox.com/2020/2/12/21133486/doordash-workers-10-m... As someone who dislikes forced arbitration, allow me to enjoy the schadenfreude for a minute. Edit: the linked article also points out that the same thing happened to Uber: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-uber-ipo-arbitration-miscalculation-20190508-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-uber-ipo-arbitration-...
- beebmam 5y agoPersonally I'd appreciate it if: 1. We stopped allowing paywalled site links on Hacker News 2. We linked to archived versions of those paywalled articles, so that all of us can read them
- Qub3d 5y agoFrom https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html: > It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds. > In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989). More here (https://hn.algolia.com/?query=paywalls%20by:dang&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=paywalls%20by:dang&dateRange=a...).
- jjulius 5y agoSomeone else posted the link[1] to the archived version of the article right around the same time you made your post. Further, you could always take the article's URL over to archive.is yourself and share it in the comments if someone else hasn't done it yet, which would probably take just a few seconds longer than it took for you to post your comment. :) [1] https://archive.is/RFOHF https://archive.is/RFOHF
- jrockway 5y agoI like the Wall Street Journal links. I pay for a subscription, but often miss interesting articles. Seeing it on HN lets me extract max value from my subscription. Sure, it would be annoying if you had to pay $30 a month to read every article on HN. But... it's the Wall Street Journal. Many people subscribe to that, that's how it exists.
- whoisjuan 5y agoGiven how expensive arbitration is, I'm not surprised they are changing this. When you have 75k disputes, it's probably cheaper to get sued through the regular judicial system than to pay arbitration for everything. Arbitration really only works when the two parties need speed. Like two large business entrenched in a multi-million dollar contract issue. Not for when you have disputes with your customers. My guess is that this is a problem caught through an audit. They realized they were siphoning millions of dollars of arbitration fees to solve menial conflicts.
- KirillPanov 5y ago> Keller Lenkner has secured more than $375 million in settlements for more than 100,000 individual arbitration clients over about two years. Nah, you don't need an audit to notice $187 million/year flying out the door. I have never needed to sue anybody, but if someday I do, my first phone call will be to Keller Lenkner. These guys are true hackers.
- mcherm 5y ago> Arbitration really only works when the two parties need speed. I disagree. Arbitration also works when one party wants to win all the time and the arbitrators will allow that. At least, it normally works under those circumstances... Amazon's change of policy here is an exception.
- kmeisthax 5y agoNot to mention, the courts have a system specifically to cheaply handle disputes that a large number of people might have. It's called a class action lawsuit. Y'know, the thing every company thought they were opting out of when they pushed these arbitration clauses on us?
- jjeaff 5y agoThere is no way it is cheaper to get sued through the regular court system. But the thing is, the burden for a consumer to sue in the regular court system is much higher, and they must pay for their own legal fees. So I'm sure the idea will be that they will have fewer cases to deal with by getting rid of the arbitration. Also, they can move to get multiple similar suits combined into a single lawsuit.
- vineyardmike 5y agoI recall Chipotle facing a similar issue https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chipotle-mandatory-arbitration-agreements_n_5c1bda0de4b0407e90787abd https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chipotle-mandatory-arbitratio...
- josh_fyi 5y agoWhy do arbitrators ever act fairly? They are chosen and paid by one side, who does this many times.