8 ms·

Having done this once myself, I will also add this: I'm in my mid-40s now, and arbitration triggered long-dormant school-type psychological patterns of "ohmigos

by jerf 4y ago

Having done this once myself, I will also add this: I'm in my mid-40s now, and arbitration triggered long-dormant school-type psychological patterns of "ohmigosh I'm going to get in trouble if I don't do this perfectly", or "What if I get B-?". The attorneys on the other side may even try to deliberately trigger these, they know the deal. The reality is, if you bring an action, the worst case outcome is basically: You lose. Yup, losing sucks. But... that's it. It's not going to trash your credit record, cause your significant other to leave, get you held back a grade, result in being grounded, kill your job (barring bring arbitration against your employer, of course, even if law forbids it), etc. etc. Your brain may incorrectly assess the stakes as being far higher than they are because of the form of the matter. You may need to consciously control those patterns. But if you want to be able to hold companies accountable, this is a big tool in your belt and if more people used it we'd probably see companies being less bold in screwing their customers over. It's a losing proposition for them from the moment you file. I certainly don't encourage frivolous filings, but by all means, when it isn't frivolous, think of it as a pro-social, pro-consumer action that you can take to bring companies to task and in at least in some small way represent other consumers who they probably screwed over too, but don't have the wherewithal to file arbitrations of their own.

encryptluks2 4y ago
Let's not forget the bigger tool in the belt and the one that is more likely to be more fair and balanced and affordable, and that is not having forced arbitration clauses and rights waivers. Companies doing this are not doing it to do anyone a favor and to pretend otherwise is a con by the same people that want you to lose.
- jerf 4y ago
  There is a certain amount of evidence that if enough people start using the arbitration clauses, companies start reconsidering them and returning to standard class-action clauses. Companies for a long time were using arbitration in no small part precisely because nobody knew how to do it. But every person who goes through the process learns how to do it, and even if they start with Company X, that makes it that much easier to go after Company Y later. So over time knowledge is diffusing out. If the arbitration clauses offend you, you can take concrete action to help getting them out of the contracts by using them yourself.
  - glitcher 4y ago
    And imagine if we started teaching high school kids about these types of tools to help them navigate the real world! I barely understood the broad picture of how government was supposed to work, much less offered any "applied" knowledge of the systems I would actually need to interact with as a citizen.
pseingatl 4y ago
It's not financially viable for an attorney. Lawyers charge by the hour; how much time does an arbitration take? For a case like this: -listen to your story : 1 hr.\\ -read your documents .5 \\ -follow up questions .25 \\ -draft request for arbitration .5 \\ -review rules .5 \\ -respond to correspondence, select arbitrator 1. -respond to answer from Defendant .5 \\ -schedule arbitration .25 \\ -hearing 2. \\ -request payment .5 total: 5.5 This is an extremely conservative estimate. At $100/hr, that's $550. Good luck finding a lawyer who will charge $100/per and it's much more likely that time estimate is off. Double it, plus... So your legal costs at a minimum are going to hit $1000. On a $2000 claim. and if payment isn't made, there's a whole 'nuther round... These cases just aren't economical for lawyers, unless you specialize in them and do nothing but crank them out.
- escape_goat 4y ago
  Further up the thread there's an attorney who does arbitration all the time, but just in case he doesn't respond to you I will point out that professional specialization is exactly how everything works.
- akhosravian 4y ago
  thathndude says they are an attorney above, and pointed out some states have laws that allow for attorney’s fees on top of the actual claim. They also said they do the work on a contingency basis. If that is common practice one is out only their time if speaking to an attorney.
  - pseingatl 4y ago
    Contingency? Perish the thought. Now your attorney is your banker and your partner, entitled to his cut. No, no, no.
thathndude 4y ago
I absolutely love this attitude. And, candidly, as a lawyer, this is part of why I love arbitration. It's a lot less formal. It's more about just getting to the right result without all the unnecessary pomp and circumstance. It lets me do my job--advocate for my clients--without worrying about whether I made sure to include some magic words or hit a specific, inflexible deadline. If there's a health issue with a kid, I send the arbitrator an email and ask for 7 more days. No formal "motion for continuance pursuant to local rule 8.9(c)(3)(f)." Lastly, I agree that this a tool. I like to think of arbitration, in this context, as the best customer service tool out there. Remember back when the hack was that you send a letter to the office of the president and that got you a competent response? Arbitration is like that on steroids.
- 8ytecoder 4y ago
  The reason for the fear is the possibility of bias against the consumer. If companies pay for the cost of arbitration and everything is behind closed doors, how do we know we can trust the process to be fair? I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert or even believe the judicial system is always fair. But at least it’s open and rules are well laid. So as a layman, why should I believe arbitration? (Genuine question; not a judgment)
  - ABCLAW 4y ago
    The main reason for the fear is the loss of class action potential, which means almost all small disputes are impossible to obtain redress for. If you're in a situation where the case is worth 5-50k, it's generally a better option to go for an arbitration barring concerns associated with bias (which very much do exist - many specialty boards like various copyright boards consistently make pro-industry mistakes in procedure), but the primary overarching anti-consumer element of mandated arbitration clauses is the removal of class actions as a vehicle for making mass-litigation viable.
    - crashbunny 4y ago
      Blocking class action for arbitration is a double-edged sword for companies. I can't remember what article I read ages ago, not this one, but this one seems to say the same thing from skimming the top https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/jpmorgan-facebook-fight-mass-arbitration-legal-strategy https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/jpmorgan-fa... Instead of companies defending one class action suit, they (potentially) defend 1000s of individual disputes in arbitration and it ends up costing them more. I'm just guessing here, I have no idea, if OP didn't settle and lost, it would have cost the company more than what they paid to settle. These days I'd image you could do the arbitration over a video call. Easily worth my time for $2000.
omoikane 4y ago
> worst case outcome is basically: You lose The part that really irks me is not about possibly losing, but all the time wasted in the process. I see a lot of protections in the spirit of "get your money back", but no one is going to compensate for the time spent to get that money. Depending on the amount of money, customers might not attempt to file these cases so that they can cut their losses early. Companies knows these too, which is why contracts and customer support channels are often designed to waste your time. I know people who would still go after companies purely on principle, but that is a tiresome way to live.
- mLuby 4y ago
  > I know people who would still go after companies purely on principle, but that is a tiresome way to live. One click to sue would be great. Class-action lawsuits are on the right track but they scale on behalf of courts and companies, not consumers.
zeruch 4y ago
"when it isn't frivolous, think of it as a pro-social, pro-consumer action that you can take to bring companies to task and in at least in some small way represent other consumers who they probably screwed over too, but don't have the wherewithal to file arbitrations of their own. " An absolutely laudable and supportable position. Firms get away with garbage behavior because almost no one takes out the trash, so to speak. If they did, the behavior would shift dramatically.
Ansil849 4y ago
> The reality is, if you bring an action, the worst case outcome is basically: You lose. Yup, losing sucks. But... that's it. What about having to pay the attorney fees?
monksy 4y ago
> I'm in my mid-40s now, and arbitration triggered long-dormant school-type psychological patterns of "ohmigosh I'm going to get in trouble if I don't do this perfectly", or "What if I get B-?". The attorneys on the other side may even try to deliberately trigger these, they know the deal. I've seen this attitude in the padnemic and it's certainly weird. Health departments ride on that, and fail to do professional due diligence. Context: There was a vaccine finders group for my region.. I mentioned a few helpful hints for those concerned at going to get the vaccine. (Being in contact with others is a risk). I suggested respirators (N95s, KN95s,KF94s). But the response I got before was "what is your credentials?! you're not a doctor! health department person x doesn't say that". I could point to numerous studies showing the effectiveness but if you're not a credentialed person.. sigh. When I talk about the health department people, many of them just parroted what they heard from the CDC's dubious advice.

by jerf 4y ago

encryptluks2 4y ago

Let's not forget the bigger tool in the belt and the one that is more likely to be more fair and balanced and affordable, and that is not having forced arbitration clauses and rights waivers. Companies doing this are not doing it to do anyone a favor and to pretend otherwise is a con by the same people that want you to lose.

jerf 4y ago
There is a certain amount of evidence that if enough people start using the arbitration clauses, companies start reconsidering them and returning to standard class-action clauses. Companies for a long time were using arbitration in no small part precisely because nobody knew how to do it. But every person who goes through the process learns how to do it, and even if they start with Company X, that makes it that much easier to go after Company Y later. So over time knowledge is diffusing out. If the arbitration clauses offend you, you can take concrete action to help getting them out of the contracts by using them yourself.
- glitcher 4y ago
  And imagine if we started teaching high school kids about these types of tools to help them navigate the real world! I barely understood the broad picture of how government was supposed to work, much less offered any "applied" knowledge of the systems I would actually need to interact with as a citizen.

pseingatl 4y ago

It's not financially viable for an attorney. Lawyers charge by the hour; how much time does an arbitration take? For a case like this: -listen to your story : 1 hr.\\ -read your documents .5 \\ -follow up questions .25 \\ -draft request for arbitration .5 \\ -review rules .5 \\ -respond to correspondence, select arbitrator 1. -respond to answer from Defendant .5 \\ -schedule arbitration .25 \\ -hearing 2. \\ -request payment .5 total: 5.5 This is an extremely conservative estimate. At $100/hr, that's $550. Good luck finding a lawyer who will charge $100/per and it's much more likely that time estimate is off. Double it, plus... So your legal costs at a minimum are going to hit $1000. On a $2000 claim. and if payment isn't made, there's a whole 'nuther round... These cases just aren't economical for lawyers, unless you specialize in them and do nothing but crank them out.

escape_goat 4y ago
Further up the thread there's an attorney who does arbitration all the time, but just in case he doesn't respond to you I will point out that professional specialization is exactly how everything works.
akhosravian 4y ago
thathndude says they are an attorney above, and pointed out some states have laws that allow for attorney’s fees on top of the actual claim. They also said they do the work on a contingency basis. If that is common practice one is out only their time if speaking to an attorney.
- pseingatl 4y ago
  Contingency? Perish the thought. Now your attorney is your banker and your partner, entitled to his cut. No, no, no.

thathndude 4y ago

I absolutely love this attitude. And, candidly, as a lawyer, this is part of why I love arbitration. It's a lot less formal. It's more about just getting to the right result without all the unnecessary pomp and circumstance. It lets me do my job--advocate for my clients--without worrying about whether I made sure to include some magic words or hit a specific, inflexible deadline. If there's a health issue with a kid, I send the arbitrator an email and ask for 7 more days. No formal "motion for continuance pursuant to local rule 8.9(c)(3)(f)." Lastly, I agree that this a tool. I like to think of arbitration, in this context, as the best customer service tool out there. Remember back when the hack was that you send a letter to the office of the president and that got you a competent response? Arbitration is like that on steroids.

8ytecoder 4y ago
The reason for the fear is the possibility of bias against the consumer. If companies pay for the cost of arbitration and everything is behind closed doors, how do we know we can trust the process to be fair? I’m not a lawyer or a legal expert or even believe the judicial system is always fair. But at least it’s open and rules are well laid. So as a layman, why should I believe arbitration? (Genuine question; not a judgment)
- ABCLAW 4y ago
  The main reason for the fear is the loss of class action potential, which means almost all small disputes are impossible to obtain redress for. If you're in a situation where the case is worth 5-50k, it's generally a better option to go for an arbitration barring concerns associated with bias (which very much do exist - many specialty boards like various copyright boards consistently make pro-industry mistakes in procedure), but the primary overarching anti-consumer element of mandated arbitration clauses is the removal of class actions as a vehicle for making mass-litigation viable.
  - crashbunny 4y ago
    Blocking class action for arbitration is a double-edged sword for companies. I can't remember what article I read ages ago, not this one, but this one seems to say the same thing from skimming the top https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/jpmorgan-facebook-fight-mass-arbitration-legal-strategy https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/jpmorgan-fa... Instead of companies defending one class action suit, they (potentially) defend 1000s of individual disputes in arbitration and it ends up costing them more. I'm just guessing here, I have no idea, if OP didn't settle and lost, it would have cost the company more than what they paid to settle. These days I'd image you could do the arbitration over a video call. Easily worth my time for $2000.

omoikane 4y ago

> worst case outcome is basically: You lose The part that really irks me is not about possibly losing, but all the time wasted in the process. I see a lot of protections in the spirit of "get your money back", but no one is going to compensate for the time spent to get that money. Depending on the amount of money, customers might not attempt to file these cases so that they can cut their losses early. Companies knows these too, which is why contracts and customer support channels are often designed to waste your time. I know people who would still go after companies purely on principle, but that is a tiresome way to live.

mLuby 4y ago
> I know people who would still go after companies purely on principle, but that is a tiresome way to live. One click to sue would be great. Class-action lawsuits are on the right track but they scale on behalf of courts and companies, not consumers.

zeruch 4y ago

"when it isn't frivolous, think of it as a pro-social, pro-consumer action that you can take to bring companies to task and in at least in some small way represent other consumers who they probably screwed over too, but don't have the wherewithal to file arbitrations of their own. " An absolutely laudable and supportable position. Firms get away with garbage behavior because almost no one takes out the trash, so to speak. If they did, the behavior would shift dramatically.

Ansil849 4y ago

> The reality is, if you bring an action, the worst case outcome is basically: You lose. Yup, losing sucks. But... that's it. What about having to pay the attorney fees?

monksy 4y ago

> I'm in my mid-40s now, and arbitration triggered long-dormant school-type psychological patterns of "ohmigosh I'm going to get in trouble if I don't do this perfectly", or "What if I get B-?". The attorneys on the other side may even try to deliberately trigger these, they know the deal. I've seen this attitude in the padnemic and it's certainly weird. Health departments ride on that, and fail to do professional due diligence. Context: There was a vaccine finders group for my region.. I mentioned a few helpful hints for those concerned at going to get the vaccine. (Being in contact with others is a risk). I suggested respirators (N95s, KN95s,KF94s). But the response I got before was "what is your credentials?! you're not a doctor! health department person x doesn't say that". I could point to numerous studies showing the effectiveness but if you're not a credentialed person.. sigh. When I talk about the health department people, many of them just parroted what they heard from the CDC's dubious advice.