4 ms·

This 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 t

This 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 ago
  That's more recent. And many companies don't.
- jquery 5y ago
  Yep. When I was hired by my previous employer, I used this to opt out of arbitration for pay disbutes.
- meatmanek 5y ago
  Some 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 ago
FYI "getting more than you bargained for" is a commonly used expression. It doesn't have to mean there was actual bargaining.
revel 5y ago
We 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
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  It's not entirely technical. The law that allows binding arbitration, and it's associated caselaw, says that parties that impose binding arbitration are also financially responsible for the filing fees of aggrieved parties that want to engage in arbitration. If you don't pay those fees, then the binding arbitration clause is null and void and your counter-parties are free to sue in court. This is specifically because binding arbitration isn't supposed to grant corporations sovereign immunity. It's just to provide an alternative to litigation for people who want it.

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 ago
That's more recent. And many companies don't.
jquery 5y ago
Yep. When I was hired by my previous employer, I used this to opt out of arbitration for pay disbutes.
meatmanek 5y ago
Some 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 ago

FYI "getting more than you bargained for" is a commonly used expression. It doesn't have to mean there was actual bargaining.

revel 5y ago

We 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

kmeisthax 5y ago
It's not entirely technical. The law that allows binding arbitration, and it's associated caselaw, says that parties that impose binding arbitration are also financially responsible for the filing fees of aggrieved parties that want to engage in arbitration. If you don't pay those fees, then the binding arbitration clause is null and void and your counter-parties are free to sue in court. This is specifically because binding arbitration isn't supposed to grant corporations sovereign immunity. It's just to provide an alternative to litigation for people who want it.