4 ms·

Agreed. Here's my question (because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration): What happens if you try to challenge insanely overbroad te

Agreed. Here's my question (because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration): What happens if you try to challenge insanely overbroad terms in arbitration? Because you almost certainly signed away your right to sue. I'm not super-worked up about attorneys putting the most restrictive language that they can in a contract, knowing that in 'real' court a judge will simply throw a bunch of it out for being unconscionably one-sided. But if you never get a real court hearing, but instead are shunted into arbitration..... Do judges in arbitration even assess unconscionability?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ziddoap 3y ago
>because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration Yep, they do (of course). It's in the very first section of the terms and, surprisingly, in all capitals so you can't miss it (assuming someone reads the terms, which, who ever really does). The fun part of their forced arbitration clause is this friendly reminder: >IN ARBITRATION THERE IS LESS DISCOVERY AND APPELLATE REVIEW THAN IN COURT.
eadler 3y ago
Arbiters have the same power as judges in court and could, in theory, rule the contract unconscionable. In practice, arbiters are less likely to do so because - they don't realise they are allowed to do so. - they are biased towards the businesses who pay them. - it potentially invalidates the entire contract. - one of the only valid reasons to appeal an arbitration award is "going outside the terms of the contract". If the arbiter invalidates portions of the contract then it potentially opens the entire decision up for appeal. The really weird part of arbitration is that you're allowed to delegate "arbitrability" itself to the arbiter (whom may rule that it must go back to court) I haven't come across any specific studies but this is my understanding from my reading [0] (n.b. I am not a lawyer). [0] https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ziddoap 3y ago

>because I'm assuming Spotify's ToS also includes mandatory arbitration Yep, they do (of course). It's in the very first section of the terms and, surprisingly, in all capitals so you can't miss it (assuming someone reads the terms, which, who ever really does). The fun part of their forced arbitration clause is this friendly reminder: >IN ARBITRATION THERE IS LESS DISCOVERY AND APPELLATE REVIEW THAN IN COURT.

eadler 3y ago

Arbiters have the same power as judges in court and could, in theory, rule the contract unconscionable. In practice, arbiters are less likely to do so because - they don't realise they are allowed to do so. - they are biased towards the businesses who pay them. - it potentially invalidates the entire contract. - one of the only valid reasons to appeal an arbitration award is "going outside the terms of the contract". If the arbiter invalidates portions of the contract then it potentially opens the entire decision up for appeal. The really weird part of arbitration is that you're allowed to delegate "arbitrability" itself to the arbiter (whom may rule that it must go back to court) I haven't come across any specific studies but this is my understanding from my reading [0] (n.b. I am not a lawyer). [0] https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/references/