4 ms·

If people start to actually do that, watch for that to be forbidden shortly afterwards, on some transparently bullshit pro-customer pretense.

by FFP999 3y ago

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.
- BizarroLand 3y ago
  Bill of Rights Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. If they somehow refuse to perform the binding arbitration for whatever reason, then you have a constitutional right to take them to normal court. The Binding Arbitration system is an agreement to not go to court. If one side of the agreement doesn't live up to the agreement then the agreement is null and void. Since typically binding arbitration is favorable to the company by way of preventing emotionally motivated massive damages judgements, aka "nuclear" verdicts (like the totally justified McDonald's "hot coffee" verdict, for instance) they are still an alright deal for the average person because they typically can resolve things quickly and effectively, and the arbitrator isn't going to just side with the company when they did something wrong.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > If one side of the agreement doesn't live up to the agreement then the agreement is null and void This isn’t true for any agreement not drafted with macaroni and crayons [1]. Trivial example: you not paying your rent per contract doesn’t nullify your lease. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability
    - BizarroLand 3y ago
      If a company makes you sign a binding arbitration clause and then refuses to participate in binding arbitration, then you can probably sue them for breach of contract.
  - FFP999 3y ago
    > If one side of the agreement doesn't live up to the agreement then the agreement is null and void Severability clauses, which specifically say that nullification of a single part of the contract affects only that part, not the whole, are standard.
    - 3y ago
nimish 3y ago
They did and the companies whined that they then had to live up to their demands to arbitrate: https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/another-court-rejects-a-companys-attempt-to-avoid-mass-arbitration-fees.html https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/another-court-r... The courts have not looked favorably on the US Chamber of Commerce and other orgs attempting to weasel their way out of fulfilling their contractual obligations.
- FFP999 3y ago
  To quote Nelson Muntz, "HA-ha!"

If people start to actually do that, watch for that to be forbidden shortly afterwards, on some transparently bullshit pro-customer pretense.

by 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.
BizarroLand 3y ago
Bill of Rights Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. If they somehow refuse to perform the binding arbitration for whatever reason, then you have a constitutional right to take them to normal court. The Binding Arbitration system is an agreement to not go to court. If one side of the agreement doesn't live up to the agreement then the agreement is null and void. Since typically binding arbitration is favorable to the company by way of preventing emotionally motivated massive damages judgements, aka "nuclear" verdicts (like the totally justified McDonald's "hot coffee" verdict, for instance) they are still an alright deal for the average person because they typically can resolve things quickly and effectively, and the arbitrator isn't going to just side with the company when they did something wrong.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > If one side of the agreement doesn't live up to the agreement then the agreement is null and void This isn’t true for any agreement not drafted with macaroni and crayons [1]. Trivial example: you not paying your rent per contract doesn’t nullify your lease. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    If a company makes you sign a binding arbitration clause and then refuses to participate in binding arbitration, then you can probably sue them for breach of contract.
- FFP999 3y ago
  > If one side of the agreement doesn't live up to the agreement then the agreement is null and void Severability clauses, which specifically say that nullification of a single part of the contract affects only that part, not the whole, are standard.
  - 3y ago

nimish 3y ago

They did and the companies whined that they then had to live up to their demands to arbitrate: https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/another-court-rejects-a-companys-attempt-to-avoid-mass-arbitration-fees.html https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/news-insights/another-court-r... The courts have not looked favorably on the US Chamber of Commerce and other orgs attempting to weasel their way out of fulfilling their contractual obligations.

FFP999 3y ago
To quote Nelson Muntz, "HA-ha!"