5 ms·

Good. Now I hope they ban forced arbitration agreements. For everybody.

by dreamcompiler 4y ago

charcircuit 4y ago
Arbitration is better for consumers and companies front most of the fees for it.
- vore 4y ago
  I would also be happy to pay for favorable legal decisions in disputes against my company.
- SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
  If it shifts the balance of power away from companies, why are they all trying to enact those polices?
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    Because it's cheaper than going through the actual legal system. Companies want to save money.
  - monksy 4y ago
    Limits on the total payout in a decision.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > why are they all trying to enact those polices? As monksy says, arbitrators tend to grant smaller awards than juries. So for major cases, litigation is better. But arbitration is faster and cheaper for everyone. So for smaller claims (and I mean in litigation land, so under around $1mm) arbitration almost always increases options for consumers and usually does for employees.
    - mLuby 4y ago
      > arbitration almost always increases options for consumers A: could agree to arbitration or decide to go to trial. B: signed away right to trial so can only do arbitration. I fail to see how B provides more options for consumers than A.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > could agree to arbitration or decide to go to trial The point is to commit to a path ex ante. If I know someone has a $100k claim against me, and I have more liquidity than them, I’m not going to agree to arbitration.
    - noirscape 4y ago
      Other countries use an actual small claims court for this sort of thing. Y'know, a court with an actual appointed judge (instead of a third party arbitrator who will in part be beholden to the person paying their wages) who can make the decision rapidly instead of waiting for several weeks before a decision is felled. Arbitration in the US to me (as someone who's had to deal with that shit in digital service EULAs since I'm not in the US) always comes across as signing away your left eye to get a discount on eye surgery on your right eye. Sure, there's some benefit to that discount, but you're trading one hell of a lot away. It's also usually paired up with things like a class action waiver and other assorted crap that mostly seems to exist to give the company an non-negotiable legal advantage over the consumer/employee.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > also usually paired up with things like a class action waiver and other assorted crap These are separate issues. Arbitration excels at medium-sized claims. Should it be a public function? Absolutely. But that recognises that it has a function distinct from small claims and general litigation.
      - bradleyjg 4y ago
        Other countries use an actual If we are going to talk about other countries—-they don’t have class actions or gigantic punitive damages awards. Lawsuits are by and large intended to compensate people for their losses rather than be a substitute regulatory regime as in the US. Consumer arbitration, in practice if not theory, is much closer to that.
  - User23 4y ago
    Because their lawyers thought the same thing and didn't actually think it through. Relevant discussion here[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301
- ElfinTrousers 4y ago
  It's funny how no matter how shitty a legal or economic practice is, someone on HN will step up to defend its honor.
- tenebrisalietum 4y ago
  Is it better for employees?
- kilgnad 4y ago
  No, arbitration companies are deliberately biased against employees. Why? Because most of their income comes from the companies who front the fees for it. A company only fronts fees if they're more likely to win. This isn't theoretical. It's a well known fact among employment law. Do not sign anything that causes disputes to move away from courts toward 3rd party arbitration. It's a sham. Watch the video below. A lawyer details the whole thing: https://youtu.be/eRfLr_BH3lM https://youtu.be/eRfLr_BH3lM
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    "No, arbitration companies are deliberately biased against employees."
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      Thanks. Fixed the grammar mistake. There was a missing comma after the "No".
- LorenPechtel 4y ago
  The arbiters know which side of the bread is buttered. An arbiter who rules for the consumer too much finds himself out of work. You better have an ironclad case if you're going the arbitration route. There's also the ban on class actions--effectively meaning small things become legal because very few will fight when the cost of fighting is more than the expected recovery. (In some places the government is guilty of that, also--the cost to contest a ticket may be higher than the cost of the ticket and not recoverable even if you win.)

Good. Now I hope they ban forced arbitration agreements. For everybody.

charcircuit 4y ago

Arbitration is better for consumers and companies front most of the fees for it.

vore 4y ago
I would also be happy to pay for favorable legal decisions in disputes against my company.
SturgeonsLaw 4y ago
If it shifts the balance of power away from companies, why are they all trying to enact those polices?
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Because it's cheaper than going through the actual legal system. Companies want to save money.
- monksy 4y ago
  Limits on the total payout in a decision.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > why are they all trying to enact those polices? As monksy says, arbitrators tend to grant smaller awards than juries. So for major cases, litigation is better. But arbitration is faster and cheaper for everyone. So for smaller claims (and I mean in litigation land, so under around $1mm) arbitration almost always increases options for consumers and usually does for employees.
  - mLuby 4y ago
    > arbitration almost always increases options for consumers A: could agree to arbitration or decide to go to trial. B: signed away right to trial so can only do arbitration. I fail to see how B provides more options for consumers than A.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > could agree to arbitration or decide to go to trial The point is to commit to a path ex ante. If I know someone has a $100k claim against me, and I have more liquidity than them, I’m not going to agree to arbitration.
  - noirscape 4y ago
    Other countries use an actual small claims court for this sort of thing. Y'know, a court with an actual appointed judge (instead of a third party arbitrator who will in part be beholden to the person paying their wages) who can make the decision rapidly instead of waiting for several weeks before a decision is felled. Arbitration in the US to me (as someone who's had to deal with that shit in digital service EULAs since I'm not in the US) always comes across as signing away your left eye to get a discount on eye surgery on your right eye. Sure, there's some benefit to that discount, but you're trading one hell of a lot away. It's also usually paired up with things like a class action waiver and other assorted crap that mostly seems to exist to give the company an non-negotiable legal advantage over the consumer/employee.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > also usually paired up with things like a class action waiver and other assorted crap These are separate issues. Arbitration excels at medium-sized claims. Should it be a public function? Absolutely. But that recognises that it has a function distinct from small claims and general litigation.
    - bradleyjg 4y ago
      Other countries use an actual If we are going to talk about other countries—-they don’t have class actions or gigantic punitive damages awards. Lawsuits are by and large intended to compensate people for their losses rather than be a substitute regulatory regime as in the US. Consumer arbitration, in practice if not theory, is much closer to that.
- User23 4y ago
  Because their lawyers thought the same thing and didn't actually think it through. Relevant discussion here[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301
ElfinTrousers 4y ago
It's funny how no matter how shitty a legal or economic practice is, someone on HN will step up to defend its honor.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
Is it better for employees?
kilgnad 4y ago
No, arbitration companies are deliberately biased against employees. Why? Because most of their income comes from the companies who front the fees for it. A company only fronts fees if they're more likely to win. This isn't theoretical. It's a well known fact among employment law. Do not sign anything that causes disputes to move away from courts toward 3rd party arbitration. It's a sham. Watch the video below. A lawyer details the whole thing: https://youtu.be/eRfLr_BH3lM https://youtu.be/eRfLr_BH3lM
- pessimizer 4y ago
  "No, arbitration companies are deliberately biased against employees."
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    Thanks. Fixed the grammar mistake. There was a missing comma after the "No".
LorenPechtel 4y ago
The arbiters know which side of the bread is buttered. An arbiter who rules for the consumer too much finds himself out of work. You better have an ironclad case if you're going the arbitration route. There's also the ban on class actions--effectively meaning small things become legal because very few will fight when the cost of fighting is more than the expected recovery. (In some places the government is guilty of that, also--the cost to contest a ticket may be higher than the cost of the ticket and not recoverable even if you win.)