2 ms·

> It seems one of the potential stumbling blocks is mandatory arbitration unless you thought to opt-out very early. It's actually so wild that the judge upheld

by dvt 2y ago

> It seems one of the potential stumbling blocks is mandatory arbitration unless you thought to opt-out very early. It's actually so wild that the judge upheld arbitration[1]. I guess he's technically correct that it doesn't "waive a plaintiff's right to seek public injunctive relief" but it definitely makes it way more annoying. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/judge-upholds-tesla-arbitration-agreement-that-drivers-called-unconscionable/?comments=1&comments-page=1 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/judge-upholds-te...

jcranmer 2y ago
It's not wild, it's the requirement of the statute: if an agreement says an issue goes to arbitration, the courts are required to send it to arbitration; there's no discretion allowed. There's a bill before Congress that would make arbitration agreements unenforceable in class-action, employment, civil rights, and antitrust disputes, but it hasn't gone anywhere despite being introduced in the last 4 Congresses.
- dvt 2y ago
  > It's not wild, it's the requirement of the statute: if an agreement says an issue goes to arbitration, the courts are required to send it to arbitration; there's no discretion allowed. I'm not a lawyer, but there seems to definitely be some discretion allowed. In fact, the McGill rule is often cited as being a litmus test[1]. Honestly, in the Tesla case, and why I said it's wild, is because Tesla is still selling cars touting full self driving[2]. The injunction here would presumably bar Tesla from selling (or at least advertising) FSD in the interest of public good. In other words, I think the judge got it wrong. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I might be misunderstanding something, but that's my take. [1] https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2022/02/a-new-era-mcgill-arbitration-ca-hodges-v-comcast/ https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2022/02/a-new-er... [2] https://www.tesla.com/support/articles/30-day-fsd-trial https://www.tesla.com/support/articles/30-day-fsd-trial

by dvt 2y ago

jcranmer 2y ago

It's not wild, it's the requirement of the statute: if an agreement says an issue goes to arbitration, the courts are required to send it to arbitration; there's no discretion allowed. There's a bill before Congress that would make arbitration agreements unenforceable in class-action, employment, civil rights, and antitrust disputes, but it hasn't gone anywhere despite being introduced in the last 4 Congresses.

dvt 2y ago
> It's not wild, it's the requirement of the statute: if an agreement says an issue goes to arbitration, the courts are required to send it to arbitration; there's no discretion allowed. I'm not a lawyer, but there seems to definitely be some discretion allowed. In fact, the McGill rule is often cited as being a litmus test[1]. Honestly, in the Tesla case, and why I said it's wild, is because Tesla is still selling cars touting full self driving[2]. The injunction here would presumably bar Tesla from selling (or at least advertising) FSD in the interest of public good. In other words, I think the judge got it wrong. Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I might be misunderstanding something, but that's my take. [1] https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2022/02/a-new-era-mcgill-arbitration-ca-hodges-v-comcast/ https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2022/02/a-new-er... [2] https://www.tesla.com/support/articles/30-day-fsd-trial https://www.tesla.com/support/articles/30-day-fsd-trial