4 ms·

> The motion says the PlayStation Terms of Service put a binding arbitration agreement and a class action waiver in Section 14, and quotes the opt-out clause: .

• Jcampuzano2 1mo ago
  This is also one of those scenarios similar to subscription or membership cancellation where we should not allow accepting/signing up for something require using an entirely different method of communication to cancel/opt out. Requiring written notification while the TOS being accepted entirely via digital means should be illegal. Not to mention I think its insane that we allow companies to be able to dictate how citizens are allowed to utilize their legal system.
• mtlynch 1mo ago
  > Binding arbitration on individuals should be illegal, full stop. The only use case is taking away people's rights as consumers and workers. Or dodging responsibility for deadly mistakes like the Disney+ incident. Hijacking to link to another website that has good information about how binding arbitration is stacked against the consumer/employee: https://arbitrationinformation.org/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/
  • cortesoft 1mo ago
    Binding arbitration as an abstract concept seems fair (really, the entire court system is a complicated system for binding arbitration) However, in practice it isn’t fair at all.
    • LocalH 1mo ago
      Big capitalism has a way of taking things that should be fair and stacking the deck in their favor.
• wat10000 1mo ago
  Access to the legal system is a fundamental right. It should not be possible to sign it away, any more than you can sign away your right to life or liberty.
  • Terr_ 1mo ago
    A related outrage: Companies that are happy the law enshrines their private rules/standards, but they want to charge you for access. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/04/congress-no-one-should-own-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/04/congress-no-one-should...
  • fineIllregister 1mo ago
    How would anyone ever settle a case? Also, it's pretty easy to sign away your life and liberty: join the military.
    • chowells 1mo ago
      It's not difficult to communicate the difference between losing all future rights and settling a dispute over an incident that has already happened. I don't know why you'd act like it's a huge challenge to understand the difference. But yeah; don't join the military.
    • wat10000 1mo ago
      I don't see signing away your right to access the legal system as an essential part of a settlement. You could just sign a settlement that says, here's what happened, here's the remedy we've agreed to. And then if one party decides to sue later on, the existence of the settlement could be used by the other side as extremely strong evidence that the matter was already concluded to the mutual satisfaction of both parties, and the lawsuit should be dismissed. But it would be "this was already handled" rather than "the plaintiff gave up their right to address this matter in court." As far as the military goes, that's very much a special case, and it should remain so. The fact that you can give up certain fundamental legal rights by joining the military is not an argument for being able to give up certain fundamental legal rights by accepting a click-through agreement from Sony.
• _def 1mo ago
  what was the disney+ incident? /gen
  • saghm 1mo ago
    Disney argued that the family of a man who died at one of their parks couldn't sue because he had signed up for Disney+, which has binding arbitration terms: https://fortune.com/2024/08/15/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit-jeffrey-piccolo/ https://fortune.com/2024/08/15/disney-wrongful-death-lawsuit... This pretty much flies in the face of what any reasonable person would think the law should allow IMO
    • deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
  • ray_v 1mo ago
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-says-man-cant-sue-wifes-death-agreed-disney-terms-service-rcna166594 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/disney-says-man-cant-su... Guest died from allergic reaction despite informing staff multiple times of the risk, but the case was dismissed because they had signed up for Disney+ years prior.
    • chunky1994 1mo ago
      The case wasn't dismissed because of the arbitration clause. Disney dropped the argument after they got severely lambasted in public over the absurdity of the defense. It was dismissed later by the plaintiff (so there was likely some settlement)
      • AlexandrB 1mo ago
        I don't think this is the last time we will see this argument. Disney has a lot of value in brand equity to protect so it made sense for them to back away, but a "bad guy" company that's already regarded with distrust will probably go all in on this in the future.
• matsemann 1mo ago
  In my country, many laws state that the consumer (or "weak" part) can not sign away their rights, any contract with stipulations regarding that would void that clause. Feel like that should be the norm. Shouldn't be able to lose your consumer rights just by pressing a button, then the rights are worthless if everyone just have a huge TOS / EULA for any service covering their asses.
  • matherial 1mo ago
    Similarly to many other countries, the US has a concept of "adhesion contracts" - essentially, contracts where you have no realistic opportunity to negotiate the terms, and your rights are constrained much more than the rights of the party imposing these terms. Courts often look at these contracts differently, but around the world, they allow them to exist because they are useful. A good example are the "terms of service" for public or private transit. If the carrier can't define some common-sense rules, like that you can be kicked out or fined for not wearing pants and playing bagpipes on the bus, it'd complicate things. The legal standard is basically that the rules hold unless they're unreasonable or unconscionable. But of course, what's seen as reasonable depends on the country, the state, and the judge.
    • jMyles 1mo ago
      > not wearing pants and playing bagpipes on the bus The problem for some of us here is that we're left without a viable transit option, as the yes-pants-no-bagpipes model of transit essentially has a state-sanctioned monopoly. I suspect if market forces were allowed to operate in this area, we'd see fewer pants and more pipes.
      • throwaway85825 1mo ago
        What do you have against bagpipes?
        • smcin 1mo ago
          no-true-Scotsman...
• BeetleB 1mo ago
  Binding arbitration when there is a significant power imbalance should be illegal. If it's between two similarly abled parties (e.g. two individuals), it should be fine. I studied a bit of this in a university course. Between a lot of organizations, binding arbitration is more efficient (i.e. cheaper) than the legal system. If your company wants to make a deal with another company, binding arbitration often makes sense. Ditto for 2 individuals: If they had to go through the legal system, it could end up being a war of attrition - the one who has more money to pay lawyers wins. Binding arbitration is a way to "level" that field. The down side (at least in many, if not all, states) is that you have little recourse if the arbiter is totally unfair. With the legal system, you can appeal, etc. But between an individual and a large company - no way! In my last job, the (very big) company automatically enrolls new employees into a binding arbitration agreement, but they do give a timeline to opt out. I was surprised I had that option. I even paid a lawyer to review the docs. He said "Yep, you can (and should) opt out. I'm surprised they even gave you that option."
  • braiamp 1mo ago
    Binding arbitration shouldn't be a thing. If we want to go to arbitration is because we are in the same level of negotiation. One side imposing arbitration or any other kind of restriction on the mechanism that the individual or organization has to redress issues shouldn't be a thing
    • BeetleB 1mo ago
      The counterargument is that if you don't have binding arbitration, you can be constantly worried that the other party will drive you bankrupt with frivolous legal proceedings, and that fear discourages collaboration. A binding arbitration puts that fear at ease.
      • LocalH 1mo ago
        Banning binding arbitration means that class actions can happen.
• thrance 1mo ago
  > deadly mistakes like the Disney+ incident Well, that led me down a wild rabbithole.
• throwaway85825 1mo ago
  Users should not be held to terms they were unaware of. Companies should be required to collect digital signatures and initials for every unusual term.
  • autoexec 1mo ago
    Sadly, the scammy parts of ToS are common enough to be "usual"
  • mitxela 1mo ago
    Has anyone tried arguing they didn't agree to the ToS? Without your signature it should be nearly impossible for the company to prove that you did.
• kstrauser 1mo ago
  And in any circumstances, the ludicrous notion of adding a contract after a purchase is made is unconscionable. You buy a car. You pay cash. It’s yours. Afterward, the seller says “oh, and you have to agree to these terms before you’re allowed to start it.” Proper response: fuck off, I already paid you. It’s the same here. If you want to apply extra terms and conditions, negotiate them before the conclusion of the purchase. Anything afterward should be utterly laughed out of court.
  • onefiftymike 1mo ago
    My favorite was some (probaby Microsoft) boxed software I got in the 90s. The top of the box had a big warning that by opening the box you agreed to the terms of service that were IN the box.
    • kstrauser 1mo ago
      Good grief. "Bet I don't!"
      • b3lvedere 1mo ago
        Microsoft CD-ROM cases (jewel cases) were cool. There was this huge red sticker applied on it which said you wil agree to all terms and/or could not refund te product if this sticker was damaged. Normal human beings had to tore the sticker in order to get the CD-ROM and install Windows, so they automatically 'agreed' to the TOS. Until it was found out you can actually open a jewel case at the other side by carefully disonnecting the little plastic lids on the other side, thus never damaging the sticker.
        • kstrauser 1mo ago
          I remember this, and my stubborn side rejoiced in the hack.
  • cwillu 1mo ago
    A friend bought a rowing machine; turns out you can't use the fancy magnetic resistance element without agreeing to the app's terms and entering a credit card. I really tried to convince them to return it…
• dathinab 1mo ago
  it is, just not in the US
• kajman 1mo ago
  I was once a juror during a very vindictive two day civil trial against what was essentially a hobby business. I left with a newfound respect for binding arbitration. My feelings are different where there's grave power imbalances like you describe, but there's very little about dealing with a large corporations that is just or dignified these days.
  • RugnirViking 1mo ago
    You were a juror during a civil trial? Is that a thing? Where?
    • pxx 1mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite... > 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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law 47/50 states also provide for this right in their constitutions. the remaining three don't have it in their constitution but still have legislation or rules supporting it
      • RugnirViking 29d ago
        Thanks! Interesting, you can perhaps tell I'm based in Europe, seems like lots of countries don't have that here. Seems like probably a good feature of American justice?
    • deleted 1mo ago
      [deleted]
• greyface- 1mo ago
  > taking away people's rights as [...] workers I was recently reviewing a collective bargaining agreement (after being approached by a campaign to add my job category to an existing union at my employer), and was surprised to find that it forced arbitration for all employee disputes, with no opt out. It's not just employers that use binding arbitration to take away workers' rights.
• eru 1mo ago
  Being able to restrict yourself is exactly what the right to enter contracts is. Just like being able to commit yourself to showing up to work everyday restricts your freedom. But it's essential to getting the other party to give up something in consideration. Of course, you can argue that consumers should be treated like legal babies that can't enter into agreements.
  • ndsipa_pomu 1mo ago
    There's a difference between restricting your freedom and restricting your rights. When you enter an employment contract, you agree to give up some freedom in return for a salary etc. but it doesn't take away any of your rights. You still have the right to life, liberty etc. You still have the right to not turn up to work, though too much of that will likely cause them to terminate your employment. An employment contract that removes rights is typically not legal in sane countries (e.g. agreeing to become a slave).
    • eru 1mo ago
      In Germany your employment contract can have Vertragsstrafen, ie the contract can say that if you do something you need to pay a penalty even above and beyond damages. But in any case, employment contracts are weirdly restricted in many places, exactly because lawmakers think workers are metaphorical babies. You can have a look at contracts between equals to see that being able to restrict yourself is important.
      • ndsipa_pomu 1mo ago
        > because lawmakers think workers are metaphorical babies. To be fair, there's a long history of abusive employers, so it's wise to try to tilt the law in favour of the employee as otherwise they get exploited even more than usual. The nature of employment is typically skewed as employers will have a lot more power than the employees - that's why Unions were invented to try to redress that balance. > You can have a look at contracts between equals to see that being able to restrict yourself is important. There's an important distinction between restricting yourself and signing away inalienable rights. You can certainly agree to restrict your speech so as to not embarrass your employer or give away secrets, but signing away your right to liberty is different.
• eadler 1mo ago
  I agree with you to the point that I wrote this https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/ https://arbitrationinformation.org/docs/problems/