3 ms·

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, t

by 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...
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> In arbitration, there is no option to combine cases into a class action suit In literally every case other than potential criminal activity directed at you or class actions, arbitration is better for non-1% consumers. In courts, a wealthy adversary can starve you—delay and run in circles with the object of running up legal time. They can't do that in arbitration. This is obviously a shit way to present anything to a customer. But mindlessly opting out of arbitration will reduce the average American's ability to fight large companies.
- slikrick 3y ago
  that's why all these companies are adding arbitration clauses, obviously. because it helps people and they give out more money with them versus normal lawsuits.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > why all these companies are adding arbitration clauses It limits downside. So if you’re someone who could and would sue, it constrains you. If that’s you, opt out. For anyone who wouldn’t (or can’t afford to), it’s a net gain. Most people don’t escalate disputes to even their regulators, so from the company’s perspective they’re irrelevant. If consumer behaviour changed to actually engaging arbitration, companies would be less enthusiastic about it. TL; DR Arbitration is a bet by companies on the masses’ complacency in exchange for dampening short-tail legal risk. If you’re not in that tail, if you’re among most Americans, you can exploit this calculation.
- supertrope 3y ago
  The arbitrator is hired by the business and finds in their favor 99% of the time.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > arbitrator is hired by the business and finds in their favor 99% of the time Wrong and untrue. Arbitration fees are typically paid for by the firm, yes, but this is a plus. The arbitrator is randomly selected or a consensus choice in every system I know of. Win rates for consumers vary by forum, from 60% with FINRA [1] to 22% with AAA [2]. For context, it’s about a third in court [3] and lower still (consumer v. corporate defendant) in small claims. (If you adjust for non-wealthy claimants, the skew in favour of arbitration leaps.) [1] https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/dispute-resolution-statistics https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/dispute-resoluti... [2] https://www.adrtimes.com/chances-of-winning-arbitration/ https://www.adrtimes.com/chances-of-winning-arbitration/ [3] https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/new-study-consumers-and-employees-win-more-money-more-often-and-more-quickly-in-arbitration-than-in-court/#:~:text=Consumers%20were%20more%20likely%20to,court%20(about%2029%20percent) https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/new-study-....

by dangus 3y ago

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...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> In arbitration, there is no option to combine cases into a class action suit In literally every case other than potential criminal activity directed at you or class actions, arbitration is better for non-1% consumers. In courts, a wealthy adversary can starve you—delay and run in circles with the object of running up legal time. They can't do that in arbitration. This is obviously a shit way to present anything to a customer. But mindlessly opting out of arbitration will reduce the average American's ability to fight large companies.

slikrick 3y ago
that's why all these companies are adding arbitration clauses, obviously. because it helps people and they give out more money with them versus normal lawsuits.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > why all these companies are adding arbitration clauses It limits downside. So if you’re someone who could and would sue, it constrains you. If that’s you, opt out. For anyone who wouldn’t (or can’t afford to), it’s a net gain. Most people don’t escalate disputes to even their regulators, so from the company’s perspective they’re irrelevant. If consumer behaviour changed to actually engaging arbitration, companies would be less enthusiastic about it. TL; DR Arbitration is a bet by companies on the masses’ complacency in exchange for dampening short-tail legal risk. If you’re not in that tail, if you’re among most Americans, you can exploit this calculation.
supertrope 3y ago
The arbitrator is hired by the business and finds in their favor 99% of the time.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > arbitrator is hired by the business and finds in their favor 99% of the time Wrong and untrue. Arbitration fees are typically paid for by the firm, yes, but this is a plus. The arbitrator is randomly selected or a consensus choice in every system I know of. Win rates for consumers vary by forum, from 60% with FINRA [1] to 22% with AAA [2]. For context, it’s about a third in court [3] and lower still (consumer v. corporate defendant) in small claims. (If you adjust for non-wealthy claimants, the skew in favour of arbitration leaps.) [1] https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/dispute-resolution-statistics https://www.finra.org/arbitration-mediation/dispute-resoluti... [2] https://www.adrtimes.com/chances-of-winning-arbitration/ https://www.adrtimes.com/chances-of-winning-arbitration/ [3] https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/new-study-consumers-and-employees-win-more-money-more-often-and-more-quickly-in-arbitration-than-in-court/#:~:text=Consumers%20were%20more%20likely%20to,court%20(about%2029%20percent) https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/new-study-....