4 ms·
It’s not unusual. They decide that they don’t want to do business with you anymore. It can be included in their TOS that pre-arbitration is mandatory. By you go
by WinterMount223 5y ago
It’s not unusual. They decide that they don’t want to do business with you anymore. It can be included in their TOS that pre-arbitration is mandatory. By you going directly to civil courts you are breaching their TOS which is a reason for termination.
- indymike 5y ago> By you going directly to civil courts you are breaching their TOS which is a reason for termination That's a novel theory. So if I sue the power company because a cherry picker rear-ended my 1978 land yacht they can just shut me off in -20 winter weather because I sued them?
- WinterMount223 5y agoI didn’t say that. In your example, you are a consumer of a public service. In the Google case you are a user of a private service.
- indymike 5y agoNo, I'm a consumer of a giant publicly traded company that rides on some amount of publicly funded infrastructure. Hmm... sounds like Google a bit doesn't it?
- sangnoir 5y ago> That's a novel theory. This is not novel at all - patent cross-licensing has been using similar language for decades: "Your license to our bag of patents is valid unless you take us to court - then all bets are off". It's a very short jump from patent licensing to Terms of Service, I bet there's a lot of related case law.
- R0b0t1 5y agoQuite different as disputes between businesses are seen quite differently from consumer and business disputes. The protections in the US are not nearly as strong as, say, Germany, where it's entirely possible that a grocery store can't ban you because they're the only place to shop. The right to do business with who you wish is more protected in the US. At the same time, there are laws about and the courts look poorly on retaliating on a weaker party for seeking legitimate redress.