4 ms·

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
    - 1123581321 3y ago
      Wayfair's terms are different; they govern the broader business relationship.) In this case the judge should've done the 'common sense' thing and allowed the case to proceed despite the ToS--but that would've actually gone against the agreed terms, unlike what we are talking about with McDonald's app. It's a troubling case and I understand why you are afraid of judges accepting spurious arguments from corporate defense, and I understand how many people don't appreciate how the difference in wording affects them and so can be intimidated.

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
  - 1123581321 3y ago
    Wayfair's terms are different; they govern the broader business relationship.) In this case the judge should've done the 'common sense' thing and allowed the case to proceed despite the ToS--but that would've actually gone against the agreed terms, unlike what we are talking about with McDonald's app. It's a troubling case and I understand why you are afraid of judges accepting spurious arguments from corporate defense, and I understand how many people don't appreciate how the difference in wording affects them and so can be intimidated.