6 ms·

If it shifts the balance of power away from companies, why are they all trying to enact those polices?

by SturgeonsLaw 4y ago

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.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Small claims in the US is also focused on compensating victims, no? So if the courts are so flawed why create an entire parallel system, funded by the richer parties? It reeks of selling justice. And the 'voluntary' opt out requires careful reading of lifetimes worth of text, postage, and repeating a bespoke process for every company one ever interacts with. It all sounds to me like there is a bug in the kernel scheduler (judiciary) so dominant programs (say browsers) demand every app that interacts with them use their choice of user-space scheduler which the dominant party happens to have bankrolled. And all this instead of fixing the kernel.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  In the real world, who does actually take a company to arbitration? Tell a regular person that oh, you can sue the company in front of an arbiter of their choosing, who’s fees are paid by the company, and they will immediately walk away, because no one will believe they will get a fair hearing at what appears to be a rigged court.
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

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.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Small claims in the US is also focused on compensating victims, no? So if the courts are so flawed why create an entire parallel system, funded by the richer parties? It reeks of selling justice. And the 'voluntary' opt out requires careful reading of lifetimes worth of text, postage, and repeating a bespoke process for every company one ever interacts with. It all sounds to me like there is a bug in the kernel scheduler (judiciary) so dominant programs (say browsers) demand every app that interacts with them use their choice of user-space scheduler which the dominant party happens to have bankrolled. And all this instead of fixing the kernel.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rhaway84773 4y ago
In the real world, who does actually take a company to arbitration? Tell a regular person that oh, you can sue the company in front of an arbiter of their choosing, who’s fees are paid by the company, and they will immediately walk away, because no one will believe they will get a fair hearing at what appears to be a rigged court.

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