4 ms·

This is a surprising insight. Can anyone dispute it?

jcranmer 5y ago
The way to dispute it would be to look at actual statistics to figure out if the arbitrators appear to be more biased than regular courts. I think some studies have actually done that and found that there is no inherent bias towards the corporate defendant in arbitration, but I don't have a ready cite in front of me.
- jellicle 5y ago
  On the contrary, every study I know of shows substantial bias towards the corporate side in these sorts of disputes. That's why they're attractive to the corporation in the first place. This link explains how even a "fair" system (arbitrator chosen from a random list) is gamed: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitration-game-rigged-against-customers https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitratio... It's simple. The optimum situation from Amazon's point of view is a system that gives almost enough justice to avoid public outcry, and no more. The most outrageous cases should get paid a modest amount, average cases should get paid a tiny amount, and no stretch cases should get paid. Amazon anticipated that by paying for the arbitration process, they'd end up with a set of pro-Amazon arbitrators and that, in itself, would keep the number of cases filed to a minimum. What they didn't anticipate was enough people angry enough to file cases even in a biased system just to mess with the company.
ThrustVectoring 5y ago
As far as I can tell, the actual point of arbitration is more to dodge the extensive discovery and subpoena powers of actual courts. If you're suing Amazon in small claims court, if you can convince the judge that Jeff Bezos' testimony meets the legal bar, you can compel him to testify in court. Or you can compel Amazon to turn over broad swathes of potentially damaging information. You can even force third parties to come in and testify, if it should be relevant. In arbitration, you do not have a judge, so there isn't subpoena power, and discovery is extremely curtailed.
- dataflow 5y ago
  That would make sense if it's the case, but in that case, is it really worth it for Amazon to give up that protection for the tens of millions of dollars at stake here? I would've thought they'd still prefer to pay that.

The way to dispute it would be to look at actual statistics to figure out if the arbitrators appear to be more biased than regular courts. I think some studies have actually done that and found that there is no inherent bias towards the corporate defendant in arbitration, but I don't have a ready cite in front of me.

jellicle 5y ago
On the contrary, every study I know of shows substantial bias towards the corporate side in these sorts of disputes. That's why they're attractive to the corporation in the first place. This link explains how even a "fair" system (arbitrator chosen from a random list) is gamed: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitration-game-rigged-against-customers https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitratio... It's simple. The optimum situation from Amazon's point of view is a system that gives almost enough justice to avoid public outcry, and no more. The most outrageous cases should get paid a modest amount, average cases should get paid a tiny amount, and no stretch cases should get paid. Amazon anticipated that by paying for the arbitration process, they'd end up with a set of pro-Amazon arbitrators and that, in itself, would keep the number of cases filed to a minimum. What they didn't anticipate was enough people angry enough to file cases even in a biased system just to mess with the company.

ThrustVectoring 5y ago

As far as I can tell, the actual point of arbitration is more to dodge the extensive discovery and subpoena powers of actual courts. If you're suing Amazon in small claims court, if you can convince the judge that Jeff Bezos' testimony meets the legal bar, you can compel him to testify in court. Or you can compel Amazon to turn over broad swathes of potentially damaging information. You can even force third parties to come in and testify, if it should be relevant. In arbitration, you do not have a judge, so there isn't subpoena power, and discovery is extremely curtailed.

dataflow 5y ago
That would make sense if it's the case, but in that case, is it really worth it for Amazon to give up that protection for the tens of millions of dollars at stake here? I would've thought they'd still prefer to pay that.