4 ms·

Cory Doctorow has pointed out [0] that binding arbitration clauses leave companies open to legal DDOS “mass arbitration” attacks that end up being very pro-cust

• dataflow 3y ago
  Didn't companies easily start addressing that by forbidding you from doing that?
  • munk-a 3y ago
    No - it's not possible to avoid. However, arbitrators aren't robots, if claims are being filed in a clearly malicious or frivolous manner you can expect a level headed mediator to provide a remedy. In a case where one million people were legitimately harmed though, this can be absolutely disastrous for the company unless the wronged agree to waive the arbitration clause with the company and pursue something like a regular class action lawsuit. It'd still be more expensive than a regular class action lawsuit however.
    • dataflow 3y ago
      > No - it's not possible to avoid What? Just go read the PayPal one. It says very clearly you can only bring arbitration cases on an "individual basis". Which was directly in response to this issue. "Unless both you and PayPal agree otherwise, the arbitrator(s) may not consolidate or join more than one person’s or party’s claims and may not otherwise preside over any form of a consolidated, representative or class proceeding." Edit: maybe PayPal was the wrong example here - I definitely saw clauses change after the Uber court case, but it seems the PayPal one had been there longer?
      • munk-a 3y ago
        That doesn't make PayPal immune to being overwhelmed by arbitration requests, it just requires clients to file separately (which they generally should be doing anyways).
      • michaelt 3y ago
        The situation people are thinking of here is when a large corporation has many, many people who are pissed at it for broadly the same reason. For example, if there are 31,000 arbitration requests made by Uber Eats customers 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... or 12,500 arbitration requests made by Uber drivers https://gizmodo.com/ubers-arbitration-policy-comes-back-to-bite-it-in-the-a-1830892372 https://gizmodo.com/ubers-arbitration-policy-comes-back-to-b... and each arbitration request costs Uber $1500-$3000 in fees.
      • danbulant 3y ago
        That means that multiple arbitration cases cannot be joined together - which is actually worse for them, as they have to pay a fee per case, so more cases means more fees to be paid.
        • dataflow 3y ago
          Why do you believe they added this clause if it's worse for them?
• FFP999 3y ago
  If people start to actually do that, watch for that to be forbidden shortly afterwards, on some transparently bullshit pro-customer pretense.
  • Justsignedup 3y ago
    IANAL but... you can't. You can't require that "you cannot file an arbitration case when there exists another one already that isn't you" as that violates the constitution. In any case, I hope DDOS attacks on arbitration start up hard. But so far the problem has been that companies refuse to comply with their own rules. It seems very one-sided. This is something the supreme court needs to rule on.
    • danaris 3y ago
      I doubt it would be as straightforward as "you can't file another arbitration case"; it would be something more like "we reserve the right to cancel arbitration cases if we find that yadda yadda".
      • FFP999 3y ago
        "Because that would be bad for the consumer", they say then, with a straight face. All it takes to get a person to say something like that is a fat paycheck and a broken soul.
      • xkcd-sucks 3y ago
        "Inauthentic" is the "yadda yadda" you're looking for :)
      • Justsignedup 3y ago
        i can see this happening. This really REALLY needs a law or strict court decision at the federal level.
    • FFP999 3y ago
      Well that's where the transparently bullshit rationale comes in.