5 ms·
I won't agree to arbitration services at all, if it removes your right to sue. I have been burned in the past by a manifestly unfair arbitration decision. We
by MattPalmer1086 2y ago
I won't agree to arbitration services at all, if it removes your right to sue. I have been burned in the past by a manifestly unfair arbitration decision. We submitted our evidence, they asked the other side for their response. The other side lied, and provided no evidence. The arbitration service simply decided in the other parties favor; we were allowed no rebuttal.
- 0goel0 2y agoHow do you opt out from web services? Nearly all of them have a all-or-nothing TOS.
- SoftTalker 2y agoDon't use them.
- Iulioh 2y ago[flagged]
- lupire 2y agoAnd yet here you are. Brilliant performance art. https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ THESE TERMS OF USE CONTAIN AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL, WITH LIMITED EXCEPTION, REQUIRE YOU TO SUBMIT CLAIMS YOU HAVE AGAINST US TO BINDING AND FINAL ARBITRATION.
- Y_Y 2y agoWhen I have claims against Hacker News then I submit them to disinterested coworkers. Dang can't stop me.
- olliej 2y agoBut you're literally using one now, with a forced arbitration agreement that you agreed to, is hackers new commenting literally more important to you than the other services you skip due to arbitration?
- SoftTalker 2y agoI don’t pay anything to post on HN. Therefore I have very little standing to make any claims against them.
- olliej 2y agoYou started this thread with "I don't agree to forced arbitration", and we're discussing that you clearly have done so, for something as trivial as commenting. The whole point is that it's not a matter of you not wanting to sue them now because you "don't pay them anything". What happens if HN/ycombinator does something? Say they offer a service to recommend hire/non-hire for companies based on your comment history, and they for arbitrary/capricious reasons always say "do not hire" (maybe your comment about not agreeing to arbitration agreements), maybe they use "AI" and their service reports you as a "republican democrat homophobic christian anti-christmas woke ..." (e.g. all the keywords that would be needed to ensure that at least one of them would trigger an auto rejection from any company). The fact that you agreed to arbitration, means you can't sue them in a fair court, and you can't use a class action with all the other victims (class actions exist because the "winning" from a single lawsuit like this is generally low enough to render it infeasible, that's the entire reason for arbitration and anti-class action terms). The fact the you agreed in the context of commenting on a free service is not relevant at that point. This is like the Disney "you agreed to arbitration for Disney streaming so you can't sue us for food allergy in a restaurant" (to be fair, as far as I can make out Disney was not responsible in that case, but using the Disney tv arbitration term was clearly bad PR but if they _were_ responsible would be just applicable and just as BS)
- Cpoll 2y agoLegal question: is there an argument to be made that the arbitrator did not behave as a neutral third party (assuming that's the definition of arbitrator in your jurisdiction), and thus the contract has been breached and you're open to sue? I know that sounds Quixotic.
- jordanb 2y agoThe current supreme court loves arbitration so I highly doubt that would work.
- wbl 2y agoCongress, not the supreme court, passed a law favoring arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.
- rendaw 2y agoAccording to this, the supreme court ruled in favor of forced arbitration: https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/supreme-court-favors-forced-arbitration-expense-workers https://www.aclu.org/news/womens-rights/supreme-court-favors... Do you have more details?
- throwaway48476 2y agoIf congress passed a law saying arbitration was illegal the court would have to abide by it. The court has only gotten more power because of a dysfunctional and gridlocked congress.
- eadler 2y agoThe Court, not Congress, favoured arbitration over court in consumer contracts. Arbitration, when passed, was designed for contract disputes between merchants, not statutory claims or between entities of unequal bargaining power. In fact members of Congress expressly disavowed touching either consumer or employment contracts - and even went so far as to make that explicit with respect to employment.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoYou basically cant use any services then. Every single website with a legal team now forces arbitration.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- SoftTalker 2y agoCorrect. That is your option when presented with unacceptable terms. Don't accept them. Counter with your own terms (not likely to work for run-of-the-mill online services though). Additionally you may lobby your lawmakers to make this sort of thing illegal or at least more limited. But these arbitration clauses appeared because our civil law system was out of control with lawsuits. There needs to be reasonable limits on both sides.
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoThis works if enough people act the same way, but not a small minority.
- roenxi 2y agoSpeaking precisely, a small minority is plenty. Successful businesses can run off a few hundred repeat customers and a bit of passion. The root cause is more that it is irrational to behave that way so there may be literally no or single digit people who will behave that way. Putting some estimates to the situation, the calculation is something like (chance of a serious dispute arising = 0.0001) x (chance of a payout from the courts = 0.33) x (payout = $100,000) -> I'd be willing to pay $3.30 extra to avoid fixed arbitration clauses in a deal where there was serious money at stake. That doesn't exactly capture all the game theory of the situation, but it suggests the risks here aren't worth shopping around for. It is easier and more effective to engage in economic voting with feet and punishing businesses that way for failure.
- karmonhardan 2y agoExcept Valve, for their Steam service. But that's only because someone realized that you could Zerg rush them with arbitration claims, whose fees they were obliged to pay (since their ToS forced users into it). Their only option that wouldn't be massively disruptive financially, in that case, would be to agree to a settlement with the arb representatives. So, now, you're only allowed to sue Valve, in a specific court of their choosing.
- balderdash 2y agoI mean that’s sounds reasonable, but only if your willing to up opt of a modern life (cell phones, internet, credit cards, subscription services, travel, insurance, etc.). I think the only way to solve this issue is through legislation. I actually don’t have a problem with arbitration when it’s a mutually agreed deal term. But think that when it’s in a standard TOS/service there needs to be user protections/minimum standards (e.g. capped claimant fees, option for neutral third party arbiter, convenient/virtual location, discovery rights, etc.)
- eesmith 2y agoNor can you publish in scientific journals which require an ORCID. Their terms of service state "Except as set forth herein, all Disputes shall be resolved by through a desk arbitration".
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoI'll happily accept arbitration clauses because I know I don't have the money to sue in the first place. Edit: why are you booing me?? I'm right
- MattPalmer1086 2y agoI don't know what jurisdiction you live in, but in the UK there is the small claims court, which is not expensive (but only for claims up to a few thousand).
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoI would still be terrified to interact with such a mechanism without a lawyer. Court will destroy your life
- scott_w 2y agoWhile your chances of winning are lower without a lawyer, they’re nowhere near what you’d see on an episode of Suits. It’s more akin to what you’d see on Judge Judy without the cameras and irritating preaching from a judge.
- aziaziazi 2y agoNah it’s not (only) the judge but the opponent processional lawyers that are here to make you loose. Can be extremely traumatic.
- manquer 2y agoCivil courts are not the same as criminal courts. When the government is suing you as is in criminal courts it is a 8000 pound gorilla, with all resources of state that also runs and pays for every parts of the criminal justice systems, the courts, law enforcement,prison system, prosecution and even your defense lawyer[1] . The system is not designed to be compassionate or fair or even efficient. You are fighting for your freedom or even life, for everyone in the process else it is just another file they need to move. You get caught in it, no matter if you are found guilty or innocent your life will be altered by the ordeal. --- Civil courts are not like that. Small claims or otherwise, the government is only involved in judging and enforcing the judgements they get paid in fees no matter who wins. Fighting a large corporation with some protections government system affords (like discovery, precedents, torts, small claims etc) is better in most countries where government is indifferent[2] towards the large Co wining or losing, than fighting the same corp via arbitration managed by a entity who gets bulk of their revenue from large Co. You are still disadvantaged because Large Co can expend thousands of hours of lawyer time and you don't have the same luxury. It is still better than when the "neutral" third party is being paid by one large Co in your case and thousand other cases they give them as business. --- [1] when you cannot afford one, which is lot of us most of the time. [2] American criminal justice system is pro business. This is effect of no limits to corporate money allowed in politics and many judicial selections only by election and not appointment, i.e. judges are also politicians who need to fund election campaigns. Even with these disadvantages, they are not as directly being compensated as in arbitration.
- immibis 2y agoThen you won't be allowed to any concert, anywhere, ever, because they have a monopoly and make you sign that to buy a ticket.
- coderjames 2y agoAnd nothing of value was lost.
- chillingeffect 2y agoTheres a concert now by one of my old favorite bands, The Jesus Lizard. I would go with my college buddy, but I'm seriously on the fence bc of Ticket Bastard. I want to support the band, too. Hrmmm
- account42 2y agoGood then that going to concerts is something not essential to the human experience.
- entropi 2y agoI am not a lawyer or anything, but how is that legal? If simply opting out of the legal system is an option, why does it exist?
- michaelt 2y agoWell, because Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which says it's legal. Depending on your views, you might also note that American courts are ruinously expensive and many people are denied access to justice because they can't afford to go through the legal process - which a cheaper parallel system can help with. Or with different political views, you might note that because the powerful elite get to write the contract, the powerful are only subject to arbitration when they want to be. And laws are written by the powerful elite.
- philipov 2y agoThis is why economic inequality is a problem. Although it's often brought up that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and it's possible for everyone to get richer together despite rising inequality, this view doesn't recognize that money brings power, and power is a zero-sum game.
- akira2501 2y agoIt used to be a lot easier to get a law degree. California is currently the only state that will let you sit for the bar without a JD. You have to have equivalent work experience but you can still as a completely private citizen get yourself into practice. Industrial gatekeeping is a real problem. One of the indirect mechanisms is the accumulated complexity of the law and the seeming inability for legislatures to remove outdated and fruitless laws from their books. Unsurprisingly the people most capable of achieving this are not interested in doing it.
- bladegash 2y agoSmall correction, but there are actually four states (CA being one of them) where you can avoid law school by what is called “reading the law”. It entails more or less doing an apprenticeship with a practicing attorney or judge and meeting certain requirements.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> other side lied, and provided no evidence. The arbitration service simply decided in the other parties favor; we were allowed no rebuttal What did your lawyer say about it?
- MattPalmer1086 2y agoLawyers were not involved; the point of arbitration was supposed to be a quicker and cheaper way to resolve the dispute. Accepting arbitration removed your ability to sue later. I naively believed that the process would be vaguely fair. It never occurred to me that they would allow the other side to see what I said, but not allow me to challenge (or even see) what the other side said.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Lawyers were not involved; the point of arbitration was supposed to be a quicker and cheaper way to resolve the dispute Arbitration isn’t small claims. It’s an order of magnitude cheaper than litigation. But it’s still subject to complex rules; you should have counsel when pursuing it. (And hopes akin to self representation in court without.) > never occurred to me that they would allow the other side to see what I said, but not allow me to challenge (or even see) what the other side said Which venue? This sounds more like a procedural errors during preliminary. If you honestly believe they acted incorrectly, I’d be curious how a properly-filed complaint would have been received.
- nitwit005 2y agoIn such an extreme case it may be possible sue to vacate the arbitration. The law does allow for it when they refuse to hear evidence.