3 ms·

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

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

> 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.