12 ms·

Tell HN: JPMorgan Chase forcing arbitration agreement to log in

190 points by iamdamian 3y ago

iamdamian 3y ago
I ran into this today. Not only is Chase forcing me to opt into a 125 page agreement [0] in order to log in to my account—say, to pay my bill or check my balance—but that agreement has a new arbitration clause. The arbitration clause says you can opt out within 60 days but gives no instructions for how to do so. Not even an email address to contact. I would love to log into my account tonight but won't until I know I can opt out of arbitration. This upsets me, maybe more than it should, and I'm thinking of dropping Chase. Anyone else? [0]: https://static.chasecdn.com/content/dam/legal-agreements/library/en/dsa_la/versions/dsa_la.pdf https://static.chasecdn.com/content/dam/legal-agreements/lib...
- nathanaldensr 3y ago
  There's no escape from this trend except through legislation.
  - iamdamian 3y ago
    I agree with you. I also believe that raising the alarm via social media is a good first step toward building shared understanding and focus on this problem.
    - nsriv 3y ago
      Highly recommend organizing people that are similarly alarmed or affected into filing complaints with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - shanekandy 3y ago
    While that's true in some regard, there are alternatives. I joined a local credit union for my banking over a decade ago and I have never looked back. There is a nationwide network, so I can bank anywhere. I have not noticed much if any difference from investment banks in any negative way. It's nice to know that my money is working in the community and that I'm an owner!
    - throwaway2037 3y ago
      local credit union Sounds good. Can you share the name? Others here may be interested.
      - pixelatedindex 3y ago
        You can find credit unions close to you by looking for them up here: https://mapping.ncua.gov/ https://mapping.ncua.gov/
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    9 out 10 times new legislation will be in favor of rich and corps who put money in lobbying and supporting politicians. They may wrap it into some cool language like Protection of Citizen Rights Act 2024.
- throwaw1yyy 3y ago
  I switched to Capital One recently. Have a friend who works there. However the best bank I ever used was I believe a smaller bank, 5/3rd. 5/3rd had the best service a non bloated mobile app and good rates on loans/mortgages. Moved out of the country so I closed the account but I do miss that bank
  - rplst8 3y ago
    5/3rd has some suuuuper sketchy loan terms that caught my parents up during a refi on the mortgage for their primary residence. I do not recommend that bank, at all.
    - SkyPuncher 3y ago
      I have mixed feelings about 5/3. Overall, they're a fine bank and they service their own loans. We've had two mortgages with them and had not major issues with the mortgages themselves. That being said, we had a lot of professionalism/ethical concerns with our most recent loan originator/agent with 5/3. This person seems to have intentionally misrepresented my wife and I's profession on the internal loan application to qualify us for a better rate. This was only caught well into the process when underwriting asked for proof of said profession (which of course I couldn't provide since I never claimed to be of said profession). We ended up having to restart the entire application process 10 days out from closing. It seems to have been a one-off situation, as this person's manager ended up taking over and was _fantastic_. We pulled everything together in some unbelievably short amount of time. Our prior loan was smooth as heck with them and they've serviced the loan the entire duration.
      - geoelectric 3y ago
        Not to defend the bank, as I don’t know them, but that does sound like it could be a single bad actor. If they have checks that caught the misrepresentation in your case, it seems unlikely they condone it broadly. Sounds like the agent was either ignorant or foolish to have even tried it.
        3y ago
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  If you don’t need lending products (mortgage, auto), I recommend Fidelity. Cash Management account is a better checking account, and you can hold money market funds instead of a savings account. Wires in and out are free. Checks are free. Easy to buy brokered CDs and US treasuries (which you buy will depend on your investment objectives and if your state has an income tax). Customer service is domestic and helpful. Branches are not everywhere, but you should be able to accomplish everything online or via mail (ie depositing a check that exceeds mobile deposit limits of $100k daily). No Zelle though, will need to hold an account elsewhere to have that capability.
  - GavinMcG 3y ago
    Is Fidelity a bank that is FDIC insured?
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Cash held in their cash management account is FDIC insured up to $5M when all partner banks are enabled for their sweep program. Otherwise, traditional limits apply. https://www.fidelity.com/why-fidelity/safeguarding-your-accounts https://www.fidelity.com/why-fidelity/safeguarding-your-acco...
    - jon_richards 3y ago
      This particular account will actually automatically split your money between several FDIC insured banks, effectively massively raising the limit.
  - captainkrtek 3y ago
    Do they offer some kind of debit card to access the cash account from an ATM?
    - kccqzy 3y ago
      Yes. They even reimburse you for ATM fees charged by owners of the ATM. Same thing with Schwab. Both also have outstanding customer service.
- godelski 3y ago
  > forcing me to opt into a 125 page agreement There's a weird legal issue that I don't get why it is widely accepted. Why is an average person expected to understand legalize? There is absolutely no reason to believe the average person a) reads that whole thing (clear dark pattern) and b) understands the whole thing. Even intelligent people! Because it is lawyer language written for lawyers. It is like expecting the average person (not on HN) to be able to tell you what metadata is or how machine learning models work (okay maybe HN too ;). How do we not see these as patterns of deciept and taking advantage of people? We live in a highly specialized world and that has been great, but we can't reasonable expect people to comprehend these decisions. It comes down to some combination of trust, naivety, and arm twisting in the end, and this shouldn't be seen as okay.
  - anytime5704 3y ago
    Isn’t this one of the reasons why privacy agreements/terms of use often don’t hold up in court when tested? Fwiw, I agree it’s scummy and the average person is likely to rollover because they think they already agreed to ____.
    - jahewson 3y ago
      They absolutely do hold up in court. In recent years multiple US courts have found even browsewrap licenses to be enforceable.
      - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
        you probably should not use the word absolutely regarding legal issues on a site that, while strongly biased towards the U.S., actually international. This specific situation is of course in reference to the U.S so the following pertains https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/terms-and-conditions-legally-binding/ https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/terms-and-conditio... and actually I'm not sure if this fulfills the conditions of a contract? >According to contract law, in order for a contract to be valid, there must be an offer, consideration, and acceptance. Being able to prove your customer accepted your terms (and therefore entered a contract with you) will determine whether or not your Terms and Conditions are enforceable. In this case someone is accessing their account, not signing up for an account, not purchasing anything - so not sure if there is actually an offer or consideration the way there would be if a user purchased a pair of shoes.
- 3abiton 3y ago
  You probably know the answer, the only way to send a message
- k0k0 3y ago
  > but gives no instructions for how to do so. Not even an email address to contact. Yes it does, under: Can I (customer) cancel or opt out of this agreement to arbitrate? "If you want to opt out, go to the Legal Agreements and Disclosures section of your chase.com or jpmorganonline.com profile or on Chase Mobile or JP Morgan Mobile." On the lower left side bar of the desktop/full site in small print is the legal agreements and disclosures link. That page has the link for the Arbitration opt-out https://imgur.com/a/6QRp4vJ https://imgur.com/a/6QRp4vJ Oh and let's be clear - Chase is an absolute trash bank. I have no idea why anyone would waste time with their retail deposit or savings products. However Chase does offer some of the best travel Credit Card products in the US, the only one directly competing with them is Amex and they are not a great worldwide traveling card, Capitol One is close but not quite. Chases' customer service is a mixed bag, but it's on par or better than most of the competition (say, Citi, ugh).
  - Izkata 3y ago
    > I have no idea why anyone would waste time with their retail deposit or savings products. I regularly get offers from them in the mail, free money if I open an account. I imagine some people are going for it then just stay.
  - k-nearest-food 3y ago
    hm so the user have to know about / find this? how about putting a simple "disagree" button?
  - Gabrys1 3y ago
    If there's someone taking recommendations, I'm gonna recommend Capital One. When I was new to the US it was the only bank that wanted to give me a credit card (even Citi didn't even though I had an established credit history from Citibank in Poland). As I built my credit score, I got the credit limit increased, the WebApp is very reasonable, I used fraud protection a few times which worked (got my money back and credit card replaced after the CC was used to buy some things I didn't authorize). And they have a zero-fee foreign currency transactions that still give you cashback. It's really good (from my perspective). The only downside is they require an US phone number to use the products (on top of SSN)
- throwaway2037 3y ago
  I suggest that you file a complaint. It is not very difficult to do, and your case is very strong. Even the 125 page agreement is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe this would be upheld in court. There simply no way that customers are reading the full document before agreeing. HOWTOs from official US gov't websites: https://ask.fdic.gov/fdicinformationandsupportcenter/s/article/Q-How-do-I-file-a-complaint-against-a-bank?language=en_US https://ask.fdic.gov/fdicinformationandsupportcenter/s/artic... https://www.usa.gov/bank-credit-complaints https://www.usa.gov/bank-credit-complaints https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/credit_12666.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/credit_12666.htm
  - jahewson 3y ago
    > I find it hard to believe this would be upheld in court. I think you mean in arbitration.
    - martin8412 3y ago
      No, court. If the contract is found unenforceable, it will be in court.
- datavirtue 3y ago
  Contact the CFPB. HN is useless for this.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dangus 3y ago
If you haven’t heard, arbitration agreements are the shit. Law firms have caught on and have figured out how to spam claims at corporations. In arbitration, there is no option to combine cases into a class action suit.
- procrastitron 3y ago
  The Zoom arbitration agreement includes a specific clause for that which lets them combine separate claims together and only arbitrate 15 of them. From a consumer perspective it really is a no-win situation. The agreements are specifically designed to make the process as one sided as possible.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > lets them combine separate claims together and only arbitrate 15 of them Link to the language? I don't believe they can dismiss an unrelated claim on the basis of having argued another.
    - procrastitron 3y ago
      https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/ https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/ I misremembered; it’s 16, not 15
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        This looks innocuous. It lets them consolidate cases of “substantially similar nature brought against either party by or with the assistance of the same law firm, group of law firms, or organizations.” Each side picks eight cases while the others are held. Once those sixteen are decided the rest are resolved, collectively, taking those sixteen cases’ resolutions into account. At each step, you can dispute the characterisation, and Zoom pays the arbitration fees. Nobody’s case is ignored. It’s to avoid this [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uber-loses-appeal-block-92-million-mass-arbitration-fees-2022-04-18/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uber-loses-appeal-b...
jph 3y ago
Very likely you'll need to write a postal letter. Sign in with a notary. Keep a copy. Mail original via certified mail. Related guidance for Chase arbitration policy opt out: https://www.creditkarma.com/insights/i/chase-binding-arbitration-how-to-opt-out https://www.creditkarma.com/insights/i/chase-binding-arbitra...
logN_2 3y ago
Is arbitration a bad thing in the context of personal banking?
- alexfromapex 3y ago
  It’s bad in any context, by vastly reducing your legal remedies
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > It’s bad in any context, by vastly reducing your legal remedies Opting out of arbitration also reduces your avenues for legal remedy by removing your option to force arbitration. Chase knows your financial condition. Its lawyers can ascertain with terrific precision the odds of you, on one hand, accepting their Chevy's gift card and then forgetting to even call your elected, or, on the other hand, assembling a legal team.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Is arbitration a bad thing in the context of personal banking? If you can afford the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars taking a case against a well-heeled adversary costs (together with a proper legal PR campaign), yes. If you can't, no. Arbitration massively levels the field between adversaries of different wealth.
  - casualscience 3y ago
    I can't tell if you're being serious. Arbitration often means that you can not even discuss the case. If you screw over 1000000 customers, none of them, nor anyone in the public, will ever know. A lot of the reason coorperations don't do questionable things is because of the PR backlash. If you sign an arb, you have to choose whether you will take them to the arbitrator or raise awareness in public. You also can not appeal the decision, nor are you normally able to have any say in who the arbitrator will be (it's typically chase that chooses who decides the case, how convenient for chase!)
pyrophane 3y ago
Did a quick google search and saw someone talking about this in 2019, and it raised a few eybrows then as well. I don't like arbitration agreements generally, and I don't think they should be allowed be used so universally, but this doesn't seem especially obnoxious. It is just the terms for using their "digital services," and so it should not impact the terms you agreed to when you signed up for your account, which probably already have a separate arbitration agreement.
- iamdamian 3y ago
  I hear you, but there was no arbitration clause in my original agreement.
effbanks 3y ago
[dead]
nimos 3y ago
Honestly I prefer arbitration agreements. My lazy ass aint making it down to the court house but you bet your ass I can fill out a form online. But yeah they and every other company are basically counting on no one ever doing anything. I'm really hoping it blows up in some company's face where there are a lot of individuals with claims and it goes viral. Would tickle me funny if a Fortune 500 company got bankrupted by some zoomer on tiktok doing a stupid dance while telling people how to file for arbitration. AFAIK it is actually FAR FAR more expensive than a class action lawsuit if a non-trivial number of people actually file for arbitration.
- cosmotic 3y ago
  Some judges have forced individual arbitration for whole classes when companies cite this clause during class action cases. The companies quickly regret the forced arbitration.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  The mandatory arbitration provisions are actually bad for 'lazy ass' people like you, since they mean that you can't join in on a class action lawsuit.
  - nimos 3y ago
    Eh I've been a part of a bunch of class action law suits and I think the most I've gotten was a 10-20 dollar gift card? The only time I've started arbitration a) my problem got fixed almost immediately b) I walked away with an extra 1000 dollars (which probably could have been more but again I was lazy and instantly settled) IIRC I filled out 1 online form and had previously sent 1 copy-paste demand letter.
- teeray 3y ago
  Sounds like an opportunity for one of those “we fight your parking ticket” style of company. Download the app and they automate filing for arbitration on your behalf. Maybe they take a cut out of the proceeds.
- anon373839 3y ago
paulkon 3y ago
Would this impact resolution of a disputed transaction when using their credit card product?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
balderdash 3y ago
Wishful thinking: Why can’t consumers create a reciprocal TOS that undoes all of this like, an email response that says “by continuing to send emails to this address you agree to xxxxxx, otherwise the only form of acceptable correspondence is certified mail…”
- thatguy0900 3y ago
  https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/updated-russian-man-turns-tables-on-bank-changes-fine-print-in-credit-card-agreement-then https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/updated-russian-man-turns-ta... It's certainly something that works occasionally
cebert 3y ago
Perhaps this only applies if you have a bank account with Chase? I have a credit card with them, but am not presented with an arbitration agreement when I log in.
- notyourwork 3y ago
  I have both and today opened the mobile app without being presented this new clause. Wonder if it’s web only?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
datavirtue 3y ago
[flagged]
w10-1 3y ago
fyi, it was in the roaring 20's that the federal arbitration act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) was passed (i.e., before our first crash). It says essentially that courts cannot intervene when arbitration clause is valid, and indeed must enforce the results of arbitration. More recently, the Supreme Court held that a district court had to stay proceedings just because an appellate court was considering whether the arbitration clause was valid. So a hundred years later, it's being enforced to its fullest extent. The FCC has regulations against negative options, i.e., making a contract if you don't do something, but online companies seem to get away with changing terms and prices, and requiring you to cancel your subscription or reject new terms. To me it seems like a violation of contract to make a contract and then change the terms -- after the other party relies on the contract. But without any real damages, there's no money for attorneys to go up against the corporate attorneys, so the law continues to evolve in their favor.
- creer 3y ago
  The better behavior is not much better: my french bank sends terms and conditions updates regularly. Each time it says you are very welcome to reject the new terms and you should simply let them know and they will simply close your account, no hard feelings. Heh.
gzer0 3y ago
Interesting. Amazon did the opposite back in 2021. They were hit with 75,000 arbitration claims, at once, regarding allegations of the Echo device secretly recording customers [1]. Now, all disputes of this nature are handled in federal court. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/business/amazon-arbitration-customer-disputes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/business/amazon-arbitrati...
casualscience 3y ago
I hate that this has been normalized, we can't seem to pass legislation to get rid of mandatory arbitration. The courts uphold this crap because it's supposed to be agreed upon by your own free will, but withholding service unless you give up your right to a jury trail is a bastardization, especially when this has become so commonplace you either live as a luddite or cede your rights. This is especially true for labor. We should have laws that say you can't withhold service or employment based on acceptance of arbitration.
creer 3y ago
I thought businesses had been moving away from imposing arbitration because it became too expensive?
renegat0x0 3y ago
Not necessarily related: - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/terms-of-service-visualizing-the-length-of-internet-agreements/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/terms-of-service-visualizin... - https://www.zzzuckerberg.com/ https://www.zzzuckerberg.com/ - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/terms-of-service-online-contracts-fine-print https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/terms-of-... ... and yet people read terms of service
eadler 3y ago
I wrote more about this sort of thing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37278222 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37278222 and urge anyone who thinks arbitration is 'fair' to read https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ Some highlights - Employee win rates in mandatory arbitration are much lower than in either federal court or state court, with employees in mandatory arbitration winning only just about a fifth of the time (21.4 percent), which is 59 percent as often as in the federal courts and only 38 percent as often as in state courts - Differences in damages awarded are even greater, with the median or typical award in mandatory arbitration being only 21 percent of the median award in the federal courts and 43 percent of the median award in the state courts - average outcome in mandatory arbitration is only 16 percent of that in the federal courts and 7 percent of that in state courts - The mandatory arbitration–litigation gap in outcomes has a direct effect on the ability of individual workers to recover compensation for the injuries they have suffered. - ""The fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy."" While this relates to employee vs employer arbitration - similar effects apply to consumer arbitration. mandatory arbitration and class-action waivers are two of the most pernicious terms allowed in modern contracts of adhesion and must be fixed.

190 points by iamdamian 3y ago

I ran into this today. Not only is Chase forcing me to opt into a 125 page agreement [0] in order to log in to my account—say, to pay my bill or check my balance—but that agreement has a new arbitration clause. The arbitration clause says you can opt out within 60 days but gives no instructions for how to do so. Not even an email address to contact. I would love to log into my account tonight but won't until I know I can opt out of arbitration. This upsets me, maybe more than it should, and I'm thinking of dropping Chase. Anyone else? [0]: https://static.chasecdn.com/content/dam/legal-agreements/library/en/dsa_la/versions/dsa_la.pdf https://static.chasecdn.com/content/dam/legal-agreements/lib...

nathanaldensr 3y ago
There's no escape from this trend except through legislation.
- iamdamian 3y ago
  I agree with you. I also believe that raising the alarm via social media is a good first step toward building shared understanding and focus on this problem.
  - nsriv 3y ago
    Highly recommend organizing people that are similarly alarmed or affected into filing complaints with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- shanekandy 3y ago
  While that's true in some regard, there are alternatives. I joined a local credit union for my banking over a decade ago and I have never looked back. There is a nationwide network, so I can bank anywhere. I have not noticed much if any difference from investment banks in any negative way. It's nice to know that my money is working in the community and that I'm an owner!
  - throwaway2037 3y ago
    local credit union Sounds good. Can you share the name? Others here may be interested.
    - pixelatedindex 3y ago
      You can find credit unions close to you by looking for them up here: https://mapping.ncua.gov/ https://mapping.ncua.gov/
- riku_iki 3y ago
  9 out 10 times new legislation will be in favor of rich and corps who put money in lobbying and supporting politicians. They may wrap it into some cool language like Protection of Citizen Rights Act 2024.
throwaw1yyy 3y ago
I switched to Capital One recently. Have a friend who works there. However the best bank I ever used was I believe a smaller bank, 5/3rd. 5/3rd had the best service a non bloated mobile app and good rates on loans/mortgages. Moved out of the country so I closed the account but I do miss that bank
- rplst8 3y ago
  5/3rd has some suuuuper sketchy loan terms that caught my parents up during a refi on the mortgage for their primary residence. I do not recommend that bank, at all.
  - SkyPuncher 3y ago
    I have mixed feelings about 5/3. Overall, they're a fine bank and they service their own loans. We've had two mortgages with them and had not major issues with the mortgages themselves. That being said, we had a lot of professionalism/ethical concerns with our most recent loan originator/agent with 5/3. This person seems to have intentionally misrepresented my wife and I's profession on the internal loan application to qualify us for a better rate. This was only caught well into the process when underwriting asked for proof of said profession (which of course I couldn't provide since I never claimed to be of said profession). We ended up having to restart the entire application process 10 days out from closing. It seems to have been a one-off situation, as this person's manager ended up taking over and was _fantastic_. We pulled everything together in some unbelievably short amount of time. Our prior loan was smooth as heck with them and they've serviced the loan the entire duration.
    - geoelectric 3y ago
      Not to defend the bank, as I don’t know them, but that does sound like it could be a single bad actor. If they have checks that caught the misrepresentation in your case, it seems unlikely they condone it broadly. Sounds like the agent was either ignorant or foolish to have even tried it.
      - 3y ago
toomuchtodo 3y ago
If you don’t need lending products (mortgage, auto), I recommend Fidelity. Cash Management account is a better checking account, and you can hold money market funds instead of a savings account. Wires in and out are free. Checks are free. Easy to buy brokered CDs and US treasuries (which you buy will depend on your investment objectives and if your state has an income tax). Customer service is domestic and helpful. Branches are not everywhere, but you should be able to accomplish everything online or via mail (ie depositing a check that exceeds mobile deposit limits of $100k daily). No Zelle though, will need to hold an account elsewhere to have that capability.
- GavinMcG 3y ago
  Is Fidelity a bank that is FDIC insured?
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Cash held in their cash management account is FDIC insured up to $5M when all partner banks are enabled for their sweep program. Otherwise, traditional limits apply. https://www.fidelity.com/why-fidelity/safeguarding-your-accounts https://www.fidelity.com/why-fidelity/safeguarding-your-acco...
  - jon_richards 3y ago
    This particular account will actually automatically split your money between several FDIC insured banks, effectively massively raising the limit.
- captainkrtek 3y ago
  Do they offer some kind of debit card to access the cash account from an ATM?
  - kccqzy 3y ago
    Yes. They even reimburse you for ATM fees charged by owners of the ATM. Same thing with Schwab. Both also have outstanding customer service.
godelski 3y ago
> forcing me to opt into a 125 page agreement There's a weird legal issue that I don't get why it is widely accepted. Why is an average person expected to understand legalize? There is absolutely no reason to believe the average person a) reads that whole thing (clear dark pattern) and b) understands the whole thing. Even intelligent people! Because it is lawyer language written for lawyers. It is like expecting the average person (not on HN) to be able to tell you what metadata is or how machine learning models work (okay maybe HN too ;). How do we not see these as patterns of deciept and taking advantage of people? We live in a highly specialized world and that has been great, but we can't reasonable expect people to comprehend these decisions. It comes down to some combination of trust, naivety, and arm twisting in the end, and this shouldn't be seen as okay.
- anytime5704 3y ago
  Isn’t this one of the reasons why privacy agreements/terms of use often don’t hold up in court when tested? Fwiw, I agree it’s scummy and the average person is likely to rollover because they think they already agreed to ____.
  - jahewson 3y ago
    They absolutely do hold up in court. In recent years multiple US courts have found even browsewrap licenses to be enforceable.
    - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
      you probably should not use the word absolutely regarding legal issues on a site that, while strongly biased towards the U.S., actually international. This specific situation is of course in reference to the U.S so the following pertains https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/terms-and-conditions-legally-binding/ https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/terms-and-conditio... and actually I'm not sure if this fulfills the conditions of a contract? >According to contract law, in order for a contract to be valid, there must be an offer, consideration, and acceptance. Being able to prove your customer accepted your terms (and therefore entered a contract with you) will determine whether or not your Terms and Conditions are enforceable. In this case someone is accessing their account, not signing up for an account, not purchasing anything - so not sure if there is actually an offer or consideration the way there would be if a user purchased a pair of shoes.
3abiton 3y ago
You probably know the answer, the only way to send a message
k0k0 3y ago
> but gives no instructions for how to do so. Not even an email address to contact. Yes it does, under: Can I (customer) cancel or opt out of this agreement to arbitrate? "If you want to opt out, go to the Legal Agreements and Disclosures section of your chase.com or jpmorganonline.com profile or on Chase Mobile or JP Morgan Mobile." On the lower left side bar of the desktop/full site in small print is the legal agreements and disclosures link. That page has the link for the Arbitration opt-out https://imgur.com/a/6QRp4vJ https://imgur.com/a/6QRp4vJ Oh and let's be clear - Chase is an absolute trash bank. I have no idea why anyone would waste time with their retail deposit or savings products. However Chase does offer some of the best travel Credit Card products in the US, the only one directly competing with them is Amex and they are not a great worldwide traveling card, Capitol One is close but not quite. Chases' customer service is a mixed bag, but it's on par or better than most of the competition (say, Citi, ugh).
- Izkata 3y ago
  > I have no idea why anyone would waste time with their retail deposit or savings products. I regularly get offers from them in the mail, free money if I open an account. I imagine some people are going for it then just stay.
- k-nearest-food 3y ago
  hm so the user have to know about / find this? how about putting a simple "disagree" button?
- Gabrys1 3y ago
  If there's someone taking recommendations, I'm gonna recommend Capital One. When I was new to the US it was the only bank that wanted to give me a credit card (even Citi didn't even though I had an established credit history from Citibank in Poland). As I built my credit score, I got the credit limit increased, the WebApp is very reasonable, I used fraud protection a few times which worked (got my money back and credit card replaced after the CC was used to buy some things I didn't authorize). And they have a zero-fee foreign currency transactions that still give you cashback. It's really good (from my perspective). The only downside is they require an US phone number to use the products (on top of SSN)
throwaway2037 3y ago
I suggest that you file a complaint. It is not very difficult to do, and your case is very strong. Even the 125 page agreement is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe this would be upheld in court. There simply no way that customers are reading the full document before agreeing. HOWTOs from official US gov't websites: https://ask.fdic.gov/fdicinformationandsupportcenter/s/article/Q-How-do-I-file-a-complaint-against-a-bank?language=en_US https://ask.fdic.gov/fdicinformationandsupportcenter/s/artic... https://www.usa.gov/bank-credit-complaints https://www.usa.gov/bank-credit-complaints https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/credit_12666.htm https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/credit_12666.htm
- jahewson 3y ago
  > I find it hard to believe this would be upheld in court. I think you mean in arbitration.
  - martin8412 3y ago
    No, court. If the contract is found unenforceable, it will be in court.
datavirtue 3y ago
Contact the CFPB. HN is useless for this.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

dangus 3y ago

If you haven’t heard, arbitration agreements are the shit. Law firms have caught on and have figured out how to spam claims at corporations. In arbitration, there is no option to combine cases into a class action suit.

procrastitron 3y ago
The Zoom arbitration agreement includes a specific clause for that which lets them combine separate claims together and only arbitrate 15 of them. From a consumer perspective it really is a no-win situation. The agreements are specifically designed to make the process as one sided as possible.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > lets them combine separate claims together and only arbitrate 15 of them Link to the language? I don't believe they can dismiss an unrelated claim on the basis of having argued another.
  - procrastitron 3y ago
    https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/ https://explore.zoom.us/en/terms/ I misremembered; it’s 16, not 15
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      This looks innocuous. It lets them consolidate cases of “substantially similar nature brought against either party by or with the assistance of the same law firm, group of law firms, or organizations.” Each side picks eight cases while the others are held. Once those sixteen are decided the rest are resolved, collectively, taking those sixteen cases’ resolutions into account. At each step, you can dispute the characterisation, and Zoom pays the arbitration fees. Nobody’s case is ignored. It’s to avoid this [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uber-loses-appeal-block-92-million-mass-arbitration-fees-2022-04-18/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uber-loses-appeal-b...

jph 3y ago

Very likely you'll need to write a postal letter. Sign in with a notary. Keep a copy. Mail original via certified mail. Related guidance for Chase arbitration policy opt out: https://www.creditkarma.com/insights/i/chase-binding-arbitration-how-to-opt-out https://www.creditkarma.com/insights/i/chase-binding-arbitra...

logN_2 3y ago

Is arbitration a bad thing in the context of personal banking?

alexfromapex 3y ago
It’s bad in any context, by vastly reducing your legal remedies
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > It’s bad in any context, by vastly reducing your legal remedies Opting out of arbitration also reduces your avenues for legal remedy by removing your option to force arbitration. Chase knows your financial condition. Its lawyers can ascertain with terrific precision the odds of you, on one hand, accepting their Chevy's gift card and then forgetting to even call your elected, or, on the other hand, assembling a legal team.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Is arbitration a bad thing in the context of personal banking? If you can afford the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars taking a case against a well-heeled adversary costs (together with a proper legal PR campaign), yes. If you can't, no. Arbitration massively levels the field between adversaries of different wealth.
- casualscience 3y ago
  I can't tell if you're being serious. Arbitration often means that you can not even discuss the case. If you screw over 1000000 customers, none of them, nor anyone in the public, will ever know. A lot of the reason coorperations don't do questionable things is because of the PR backlash. If you sign an arb, you have to choose whether you will take them to the arbitrator or raise awareness in public. You also can not appeal the decision, nor are you normally able to have any say in who the arbitrator will be (it's typically chase that chooses who decides the case, how convenient for chase!)

pyrophane 3y ago

Did a quick google search and saw someone talking about this in 2019, and it raised a few eybrows then as well. I don't like arbitration agreements generally, and I don't think they should be allowed be used so universally, but this doesn't seem especially obnoxious. It is just the terms for using their "digital services," and so it should not impact the terms you agreed to when you signed up for your account, which probably already have a separate arbitration agreement.

iamdamian 3y ago
I hear you, but there was no arbitration clause in my original agreement.

effbanks 3y ago

[dead]

nimos 3y ago

Honestly I prefer arbitration agreements. My lazy ass aint making it down to the court house but you bet your ass I can fill out a form online. But yeah they and every other company are basically counting on no one ever doing anything. I'm really hoping it blows up in some company's face where there are a lot of individuals with claims and it goes viral. Would tickle me funny if a Fortune 500 company got bankrupted by some zoomer on tiktok doing a stupid dance while telling people how to file for arbitration. AFAIK it is actually FAR FAR more expensive than a class action lawsuit if a non-trivial number of people actually file for arbitration.

cosmotic 3y ago
Some judges have forced individual arbitration for whole classes when companies cite this clause during class action cases. The companies quickly regret the forced arbitration.
gnicholas 3y ago
The mandatory arbitration provisions are actually bad for 'lazy ass' people like you, since they mean that you can't join in on a class action lawsuit.
- nimos 3y ago
  Eh I've been a part of a bunch of class action law suits and I think the most I've gotten was a 10-20 dollar gift card? The only time I've started arbitration a) my problem got fixed almost immediately b) I walked away with an extra 1000 dollars (which probably could have been more but again I was lazy and instantly settled) IIRC I filled out 1 online form and had previously sent 1 copy-paste demand letter.
teeray 3y ago
Sounds like an opportunity for one of those “we fight your parking ticket” style of company. Download the app and they automate filing for arbitration on your behalf. Maybe they take a cut out of the proceeds.
anon373839 3y ago

paulkon 3y ago

Would this impact resolution of a disputed transaction when using their credit card product?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

balderdash 3y ago

Wishful thinking: Why can’t consumers create a reciprocal TOS that undoes all of this like, an email response that says “by continuing to send emails to this address you agree to xxxxxx, otherwise the only form of acceptable correspondence is certified mail…”

thatguy0900 3y ago
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/updated-russian-man-turns-tables-on-bank-changes-fine-print-in-credit-card-agreement-then https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/updated-russian-man-turns-ta... It's certainly something that works occasionally

cebert 3y ago

Perhaps this only applies if you have a bank account with Chase? I have a credit card with them, but am not presented with an arbitration agreement when I log in.

notyourwork 3y ago
I have both and today opened the mobile app without being presented this new clause. Wonder if it’s web only?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

datavirtue 3y ago

[flagged]

w10-1 3y ago

fyi, it was in the roaring 20's that the federal arbitration act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) was passed (i.e., before our first crash). It says essentially that courts cannot intervene when arbitration clause is valid, and indeed must enforce the results of arbitration. More recently, the Supreme Court held that a district court had to stay proceedings just because an appellate court was considering whether the arbitration clause was valid. So a hundred years later, it's being enforced to its fullest extent. The FCC has regulations against negative options, i.e., making a contract if you don't do something, but online companies seem to get away with changing terms and prices, and requiring you to cancel your subscription or reject new terms. To me it seems like a violation of contract to make a contract and then change the terms -- after the other party relies on the contract. But without any real damages, there's no money for attorneys to go up against the corporate attorneys, so the law continues to evolve in their favor.

creer 3y ago
The better behavior is not much better: my french bank sends terms and conditions updates regularly. Each time it says you are very welcome to reject the new terms and you should simply let them know and they will simply close your account, no hard feelings. Heh.

gzer0 3y ago

Interesting. Amazon did the opposite back in 2021. They were hit with 75,000 arbitration claims, at once, regarding allegations of the Echo device secretly recording customers [1]. Now, all disputes of this nature are handled in federal court. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/business/amazon-arbitration-customer-disputes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/business/amazon-arbitrati...

casualscience 3y ago

I hate that this has been normalized, we can't seem to pass legislation to get rid of mandatory arbitration. The courts uphold this crap because it's supposed to be agreed upon by your own free will, but withholding service unless you give up your right to a jury trail is a bastardization, especially when this has become so commonplace you either live as a luddite or cede your rights. This is especially true for labor. We should have laws that say you can't withhold service or employment based on acceptance of arbitration.

creer 3y ago

I thought businesses had been moving away from imposing arbitration because it became too expensive?

renegat0x0 3y ago

Not necessarily related: - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/terms-of-service-visualizing-the-length-of-internet-agreements/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/terms-of-service-visualizin... - https://www.zzzuckerberg.com/ https://www.zzzuckerberg.com/ - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/terms-of-service-online-contracts-fine-print https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/terms-of-... ... and yet people read terms of service

eadler 3y ago

I wrote more about this sort of thing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37278222 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37278222 and urge anyone who thinks arbitration is 'fair' to read https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ Some highlights - Employee win rates in mandatory arbitration are much lower than in either federal court or state court, with employees in mandatory arbitration winning only just about a fifth of the time (21.4 percent), which is 59 percent as often as in the federal courts and only 38 percent as often as in state courts - Differences in damages awarded are even greater, with the median or typical award in mandatory arbitration being only 21 percent of the median award in the federal courts and 43 percent of the median award in the state courts - average outcome in mandatory arbitration is only 16 percent of that in the federal courts and 7 percent of that in state courts - The mandatory arbitration–litigation gap in outcomes has a direct effect on the ability of individual workers to recover compensation for the injuries they have suffered. - ""The fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy."" While this relates to employee vs employer arbitration - similar effects apply to consumer arbitration. mandatory arbitration and class-action waivers are two of the most pernicious terms allowed in modern contracts of adhesion and must be fixed.