3 ms·
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 go
by 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 agoIt'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.