3 ms·

It's not sensationalist at all. Let's say you buy a child's meal through the app and your daughter ends up dying of E coli contracted from the meal. Because you

It's not sensationalist at all. Let's say you buy a child's meal through the app and your daughter ends up dying of E coli contracted from the meal. Because you used the app, you theoretically can't sue them, only use arbitration which as everyone knows tends to favor the large corporation paying them (and would never return a result of a large punitive fine like a jury might).

ronsor 3y ago
I'm not sure that's accurate. I don't think it's even possible to waive the right to sue for certain negligent actions.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  IANAL but in many jurisdictions it also comes down to ordinary negligence vs gross negligence. Basically the difference between ordinary mistakes versus "WTF were you thinking".
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I also am not a lawyer, but this will likely depend on the political leanings of the court: https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out... > A father brought a civil suit after his son had been sexually assaulted and stalked at boarding school by another student when he was 12. He argued that St. John’s was on notice of the perpetrator’s strange behavior towards the child, knew of other incidents of physical and sexual assaults on other students on campus and breached its duty to protect them. > The court found that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and ordered all claims into arbitration. --- > Family members brought a wrongful death lawsuit after 90-year-old resident Charlotte Fischer died from an assault allegedly committed by a Colorow employee. The county coroner ruled her death a homicide. According to reports, a nurse’s assistant allegedly threw her against a wall and fractured her hip; he was charged with third-degree assault.[5] When Fischer entered the facility, her daughter filled out the admissions paperwork. Among the documents signed as part of the entry packet: an arbitration agreement compelling arbitration for any claim arising from or relating to Fischer’s relationship with the facility. > the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that only substantial compliance with the formatting requirements of the Act was needed and, as such, the case could be forced into arbitration.
1123581321 3y ago
That is also sensationalist—usage of the app ToC has nothing to do with being harmed by their food, employees, condition of property etc.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > usage of the app ToC has nothing to do with being harmed by their food, employees, condition of property etc. In an ideal world, yes, a regular consumer could just make that observation and *poof* common sense would prevail... but I'm very cynical that it'll work that way in practice. The multi-billion dollar global corporation and its battalions of lawyers will say that your tort falls under the words "arising from" and is resolved "exclusively" by private arbitration: > You agree that [...] any claim or dispute (whether in contract, tort, or otherwise) you may have [...] arising from or related to the online services or these terms will be resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration Are there examples of consumers cheaply and easily escaping this kind of language without spending oodles of time and money trying to "put the system on trial" first?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1123581321 3y ago
    It’s not a common sense folksy thing; it’s how arbitration agreements work. It’s not a blanket covering of all dealings with a company by default. So you wouldn’t fight an uphill battle to get to use the court system; you would just be there and McDonald’s could not remove you with totally unrelated software paperwork. No language to escape. Does that make sense? (I’m not saying it’s easy to sue a large company once in court. I think everyone understands that would be a complex process and either require legal funds assistance or such a lucrative case (e coli, boiling coffee) that good lawyers would accept contingency.)
    - Terr_ 3y ago
      > it’s how arbitration agreements work [...] It’s not a blanket covering of all dealings with a company by default. Again, I agree that's how things ought to be, but in practice it seems like the "wrong" outcomes are still happening anyway. For example [0] a company allegedly sold a customers products contaminated with bedbugs--a physical, tangible good with a harmful defect--and one guy started a class-action lawsuit over it. However the company managed to get a judge to cancel the lawsuit and force everything back into arbitration, based on the website ToS. If you read the details [1] you'll see the consumer made all the sensible arguments just like the ones you're saying would easily prevail against McDonalds... but they didn't work. __________ [0] https://www.consumerreports.org/mandatory-binding-arbitration/forced-arbitration-clause-for-concern/ https://www.consumerreports.org/mandatory-binding-arbitratio... [1] https://casetext.com/case/gorny-v-wayfair-inc https://casetext.com/case/gorny-v-wayfair-inc
remram 3y ago
The intent is almost certainly for people to install the app so they can receive ads and information on deals and other push notifications, which drives them to McDonalds like other royalty program, not so they can agree to arbitration. The title of this submission "McDonalds is giving free French fries in return for waiving the right to sue" is also editorialized compared to the linked article's title "McDonald's New Terms And Conditions Have People Deleting The App" which is directly against the HN guidelines.
- b112 3y ago
  It's further inaccurate, as going through binding arbitration is still suing, just not via court.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    Since you're so very concerned about accuracy then no, the article title is correct and you are mistaken. Lawsuits are things that occur within a public court of law, by definition. Two parties concluding a dispute privately, without government involvement, is not a lawsuit. Even if someone does sue over the arbitration contract itself should apply, that's a separate legal question from the underlying tort.
    - b112 3y ago
      What? Suing is the process, the entire action, which is why suits are, from time to time, settled out of court. And yes, that can mean without any papers filed anywhere. Hell, you can sue for peace.
      - remram 3y ago
        The fact that you settle out of court doesn't mean you didn't bring the case to a court. I don't understand this point.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> and would never return a result of a large punitive fine like a jury might https://www.nursinghomelawcenter.org/significant-award-made-in-nursing-home-abitration-case-involving.html https://www.nursinghomelawcenter.org/significant-award-made-... $2.7 million for a nursing home negligent death arbitration is pretty large.
bastawhiz 3y ago
The point of the fries is not as a reward for accepting the arbitration clause. I can't imagine a native speaker who reads the headline and interprets it any other way. It's pure clickbait.

ronsor 3y ago

I'm not sure that's accurate. I don't think it's even possible to waive the right to sue for certain negligent actions.

Terr_ 3y ago
IANAL but in many jurisdictions it also comes down to ordinary negligence vs gross negligence. Basically the difference between ordinary mistakes versus "WTF were you thinking".
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I also am not a lawyer, but this will likely depend on the political leanings of the court: https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out... > A father brought a civil suit after his son had been sexually assaulted and stalked at boarding school by another student when he was 12. He argued that St. John’s was on notice of the perpetrator’s strange behavior towards the child, knew of other incidents of physical and sexual assaults on other students on campus and breached its duty to protect them. > The court found that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable and ordered all claims into arbitration. --- > Family members brought a wrongful death lawsuit after 90-year-old resident Charlotte Fischer died from an assault allegedly committed by a Colorow employee. The county coroner ruled her death a homicide. According to reports, a nurse’s assistant allegedly threw her against a wall and fractured her hip; he was charged with third-degree assault.[5] When Fischer entered the facility, her daughter filled out the admissions paperwork. Among the documents signed as part of the entry packet: an arbitration agreement compelling arbitration for any claim arising from or relating to Fischer’s relationship with the facility. > the Colorado Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that only substantial compliance with the formatting requirements of the Act was needed and, as such, the case could be forced into arbitration.

1123581321 3y ago

That is also sensationalist—usage of the app ToC has nothing to do with being harmed by their food, employees, condition of property etc.

Terr_ 3y ago
> usage of the app ToC has nothing to do with being harmed by their food, employees, condition of property etc. In an ideal world, yes, a regular consumer could just make that observation and *poof* common sense would prevail... but I'm very cynical that it'll work that way in practice. The multi-billion dollar global corporation and its battalions of lawyers will say that your tort falls under the words "arising from" and is resolved "exclusively" by private arbitration: > You agree that [...] any claim or dispute (whether in contract, tort, or otherwise) you may have [...] arising from or related to the online services or these terms will be resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration Are there examples of consumers cheaply and easily escaping this kind of language without spending oodles of time and money trying to "put the system on trial" first?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- 1123581321 3y ago
  It’s not a common sense folksy thing; it’s how arbitration agreements work. It’s not a blanket covering of all dealings with a company by default. So you wouldn’t fight an uphill battle to get to use the court system; you would just be there and McDonald’s could not remove you with totally unrelated software paperwork. No language to escape. Does that make sense? (I’m not saying it’s easy to sue a large company once in court. I think everyone understands that would be a complex process and either require legal funds assistance or such a lucrative case (e coli, boiling coffee) that good lawyers would accept contingency.)
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    > it’s how arbitration agreements work [...] It’s not a blanket covering of all dealings with a company by default. Again, I agree that's how things ought to be, but in practice it seems like the "wrong" outcomes are still happening anyway. For example [0] a company allegedly sold a customers products contaminated with bedbugs--a physical, tangible good with a harmful defect--and one guy started a class-action lawsuit over it. However the company managed to get a judge to cancel the lawsuit and force everything back into arbitration, based on the website ToS. If you read the details [1] you'll see the consumer made all the sensible arguments just like the ones you're saying would easily prevail against McDonalds... but they didn't work. __________ [0] https://www.consumerreports.org/mandatory-binding-arbitration/forced-arbitration-clause-for-concern/ https://www.consumerreports.org/mandatory-binding-arbitratio... [1] https://casetext.com/case/gorny-v-wayfair-inc https://casetext.com/case/gorny-v-wayfair-inc

remram 3y ago

The intent is almost certainly for people to install the app so they can receive ads and information on deals and other push notifications, which drives them to McDonalds like other royalty program, not so they can agree to arbitration. The title of this submission "McDonalds is giving free French fries in return for waiving the right to sue" is also editorialized compared to the linked article's title "McDonald's New Terms And Conditions Have People Deleting The App" which is directly against the HN guidelines.

b112 3y ago
It's further inaccurate, as going through binding arbitration is still suing, just not via court.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  Since you're so very concerned about accuracy then no, the article title is correct and you are mistaken. Lawsuits are things that occur within a public court of law, by definition. Two parties concluding a dispute privately, without government involvement, is not a lawsuit. Even if someone does sue over the arbitration contract itself should apply, that's a separate legal question from the underlying tort.
  - b112 3y ago
    What? Suing is the process, the entire action, which is why suits are, from time to time, settled out of court. And yes, that can mean without any papers filed anywhere. Hell, you can sue for peace.
    - remram 3y ago
      The fact that you settle out of court doesn't mean you didn't bring the case to a court. I don't understand this point.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> and would never return a result of a large punitive fine like a jury might https://www.nursinghomelawcenter.org/significant-award-made-in-nursing-home-abitration-case-involving.html https://www.nursinghomelawcenter.org/significant-award-made-... $2.7 million for a nursing home negligent death arbitration is pretty large.

bastawhiz 3y ago

The point of the fries is not as a reward for accepting the arbitration clause. I can't imagine a native speaker who reads the headline and interprets it any other way. It's pure clickbait.