4 ms·

IRL this is called binding arbitration, and it's often opt-out for your ISP and cellphone provider. Most companies prefer this, as it's faster and more efficie

by csdvrx 5y ago

IRL this is called binding arbitration, and it's often opt-out for your ISP and cellphone provider. Most companies prefer this, as it's faster and more efficient than the judicial system.

ThrustVectoring 5y ago
It's a bit more specific than just being "faster" and "more efficient". There's two main advantages: First, waiver of class-action rights. This is a big deal because there's a cottage industry of enterprising lawyers who do find a couple main plaintiffs, generate a suit on behalf of a large class against a deep-pocketed defendant, and settle for something around a dollar per class member plus millions in legal fees. Second is a limitation on discovery and subpoena rights for plaintiffs. In a traditional court setting, you may be allowed to force a company to turn over extensive communication records and other documents, corporate executives to testify or be deposed, and even burden non-party witnesses (eg, part suppliers). In many jurisdictions, companies that wish to use binding arbitration have to pay the entirety of the significant fees to fund the arbitration system (and in a timely manner). It's still worthwhile for them to do so, even if they aren't tipping the scales of justice one micrometer. With the exact same outcome as a court case, the arbitration fees are fully worth it to avoid discovery, better protect executives from being forced to testify, dodge class-action fishing expeditions, etc.
- matsemann 5y ago
  True reason is of course that the arbitration courts side with those paying the bills. Otherwise they would have few repeat customers.
  - t0suj4 5y ago
    If you can buy a judgement wouldn't people just refuse to be judged by such courts? The arbiter would risk losing all their customers.
    - lovich 5y ago
      When it’s a take it or leave it agreement and every company has added it to their offers, there’s not really a whole lot of choice
    - AutumnCurtain 5y ago
      See Epic v. Lewis
- jasonfarnon 5y ago
  A fourth reason corporations favor them over the courts: The proceedings and outcomes are not in the public record.
Cupertino95014 5y ago
> it's faster and more efficient than the judicial system Only in theory, or maybe if you take averages. As soon as you give people rights (to see the evidence against them, to confront witnesses, etc.) you have to create processes to manage those rights, and it ends up resembling the judicial system. I had a friend go through a wrongful termination arbitration, and it took two years. Lawyers were present on both sides; the larger party could (and did) stretch out the process so as to bankrupt the smaller one; settlement negotiations were interminable. It's not clear to me that a court case would have been appreciably longer.
- UIUC_06 5y ago
  I've heard the same stories. People imagine "arbitration" is like Judge Judy: you both tell your side, and then she issues a ruling. Badda bing, badda boom. NOT! You have to get a lawyer, and it drags on and on.
denton-scratch 5y ago
I had a friend, a barrister and an architect, whose main business was arbitrating big international deals in the construction and mining industries. By writing arbitration into the contract you get an arbitrator who is a top-notch lawyer and knows the industry, whereas if you rely on the court system the parties are going to have to spend time (and money) educating the judge, possibly unsuccessfully. This guy was actually part of a consortium of similar lawyers all over the world. These disputes are completely normal. The amounts of money involved in these contracts is huge; and it's impossible to write into a contract every detail of what might go wrong. So when something goes wrong that isn't written into the letter of the contract, arbitrators pick up the slack. Contract arbitration is generally a paper exercise. The parties don't normally face-off in a courtroom. There are even internationally-agreed standards of jurisprudence concerned with this kind of arbitration. The specific rules to be used willl be written into the contract. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/contractualtexts/arbitration https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/contractualtext...

by csdvrx 5y ago

IRL this is called binding arbitration, and it's often opt-out for your ISP and cellphone provider. Most companies prefer this, as it's faster and more efficient than the judicial system.

ThrustVectoring 5y ago

It's a bit more specific than just being "faster" and "more efficient". There's two main advantages: First, waiver of class-action rights. This is a big deal because there's a cottage industry of enterprising lawyers who do find a couple main plaintiffs, generate a suit on behalf of a large class against a deep-pocketed defendant, and settle for something around a dollar per class member plus millions in legal fees. Second is a limitation on discovery and subpoena rights for plaintiffs. In a traditional court setting, you may be allowed to force a company to turn over extensive communication records and other documents, corporate executives to testify or be deposed, and even burden non-party witnesses (eg, part suppliers). In many jurisdictions, companies that wish to use binding arbitration have to pay the entirety of the significant fees to fund the arbitration system (and in a timely manner). It's still worthwhile for them to do so, even if they aren't tipping the scales of justice one micrometer. With the exact same outcome as a court case, the arbitration fees are fully worth it to avoid discovery, better protect executives from being forced to testify, dodge class-action fishing expeditions, etc.

matsemann 5y ago
True reason is of course that the arbitration courts side with those paying the bills. Otherwise they would have few repeat customers.
- t0suj4 5y ago
  If you can buy a judgement wouldn't people just refuse to be judged by such courts? The arbiter would risk losing all their customers.
  - lovich 5y ago
    When it’s a take it or leave it agreement and every company has added it to their offers, there’s not really a whole lot of choice
  - AutumnCurtain 5y ago
    See Epic v. Lewis
jasonfarnon 5y ago
A fourth reason corporations favor them over the courts: The proceedings and outcomes are not in the public record.

Cupertino95014 5y ago

> it's faster and more efficient than the judicial system Only in theory, or maybe if you take averages. As soon as you give people rights (to see the evidence against them, to confront witnesses, etc.) you have to create processes to manage those rights, and it ends up resembling the judicial system. I had a friend go through a wrongful termination arbitration, and it took two years. Lawyers were present on both sides; the larger party could (and did) stretch out the process so as to bankrupt the smaller one; settlement negotiations were interminable. It's not clear to me that a court case would have been appreciably longer.

UIUC_06 5y ago
I've heard the same stories. People imagine "arbitration" is like Judge Judy: you both tell your side, and then she issues a ruling. Badda bing, badda boom. NOT! You have to get a lawyer, and it drags on and on.

denton-scratch 5y ago

I had a friend, a barrister and an architect, whose main business was arbitrating big international deals in the construction and mining industries. By writing arbitration into the contract you get an arbitrator who is a top-notch lawyer and knows the industry, whereas if you rely on the court system the parties are going to have to spend time (and money) educating the judge, possibly unsuccessfully. This guy was actually part of a consortium of similar lawyers all over the world. These disputes are completely normal. The amounts of money involved in these contracts is huge; and it's impossible to write into a contract every detail of what might go wrong. So when something goes wrong that isn't written into the letter of the contract, arbitrators pick up the slack. Contract arbitration is generally a paper exercise. The parties don't normally face-off in a courtroom. There are even internationally-agreed standards of jurisprudence concerned with this kind of arbitration. The specific rules to be used willl be written into the contract. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/contractualtexts/arbitration https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/contractualtext...