4 ms·

Yet another company that is opting out of complying with any legal system by forcing an arbitration clause on its customers. I switched from Hipchat when it cha

by mark212 12y ago

Yet another company that is opting out of complying with any legal system by forcing an arbitration clause on its customers. I switched from Hipchat when it changed its TOS to include mandatory arbitration and now it looks like I'll have to ditch Slack, too. Pity. It's a good service. (kind of hilariously, the arbitration provisions are not well drafted and are almost certainly unenforceable.)

AlexandrB 12y ago
Kind of a two-faced approach: - please trust us with your data - you have no recourse if we do screw up though
wdewind 12y ago
> opting out of complying with any legal system by forcing an arbitration clause on its customers. I don't fully understand the context. Can you explain the arbitration clause they are forcing? Edit: Found this, also on the front page right now: https://konklone.com/post/slack-is-now-forcing-users-into-arbitration-and-that-is-terrible https://konklone.com/post/slack-is-now-forcing-users-into-ar...
MCRed 12y ago
Companies often choose arbitration when doing agreements between themselves, even large companies. The reason for this is, if, say, Nike and Apple did a deal and it went sour enough to have a lawsuit, they can resolve it much more quickly and cheaply than if they had to go to court. The US court system is very slow, and requires significant resources in terms of lawyers that are not required with arbitration. This should also be to the benefit of individuals as well, as the bar for suing a company as a consumer is much higher than picking a mutually agreed arbiter and getting the case heard. IF the clause is fair (e.g.: mutually agreed arbiter certified by a national arbiter certification organization) then I tend to see these clauses as consumer friendly.
- gnopgnip 12y ago
  Without the clause, arbitration is still available if it is agreed by both parties. In practice the arbiters that do not side with the companies are not chosen again in the future.
  - aragot 12y ago
    Bias, what about bias? I've always wondered if my software license should contain a thrid-party arbitration, and I've always chosen not to, because I have no control on the arbitration's neutrality. They could charge customers a fee for settling "in favor of", or settle based on their membership time or random dice, and it would still be enforceable in court. Note that my business is located in France so a US arbitrator could have a national preference for arbitraging in favor of a US citizen, and there would be nothing illegal in that.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Sometimes. Depending on the source, it's like 10% of B2B contracts include arbitration clauses, versus the vast majority of B2C contracts. I think there are advantages to arbitration in B2B settings, but a significant use of the procedure is to hammer away at consumers. The problem, though is more contracts of adhesion than arbitration clauses per se.
aspir 12y ago
Legitimately, what would you propose instead if you were running Slack, or a company like Slack? Would you prefer to run a company that maintains a retainer for quality legal counsel in every nation (and potentially every state/province) where a user purchases your software? Would you want to welcome lawsuits from any user, regardless of if they pay you as little as $6/month?
- mark212 12y ago
  no, I'd have insurance with a $10 million umbrella policy and a duty to defend that kicks in at $50,000. No one with a brain "welcomes lawsuits" but this is a fool's errand. If Slack really messes up, they'll get hit with a lawsuit no matter what. And defending it will likely be just as expensive.
the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
Funny. My legal system did not allow class action lawsuits to begin with. Has very little impact :)

by mark212 12y ago

AlexandrB 12y ago

Kind of a two-faced approach: - please trust us with your data - you have no recourse if we do screw up though

wdewind 12y ago

> opting out of complying with any legal system by forcing an arbitration clause on its customers. I don't fully understand the context. Can you explain the arbitration clause they are forcing? Edit: Found this, also on the front page right now: https://konklone.com/post/slack-is-now-forcing-users-into-arbitration-and-that-is-terrible https://konklone.com/post/slack-is-now-forcing-users-into-ar...

MCRed 12y ago

Companies often choose arbitration when doing agreements between themselves, even large companies. The reason for this is, if, say, Nike and Apple did a deal and it went sour enough to have a lawsuit, they can resolve it much more quickly and cheaply than if they had to go to court. The US court system is very slow, and requires significant resources in terms of lawyers that are not required with arbitration. This should also be to the benefit of individuals as well, as the bar for suing a company as a consumer is much higher than picking a mutually agreed arbiter and getting the case heard. IF the clause is fair (e.g.: mutually agreed arbiter certified by a national arbiter certification organization) then I tend to see these clauses as consumer friendly.

gnopgnip 12y ago
Without the clause, arbitration is still available if it is agreed by both parties. In practice the arbiters that do not side with the companies are not chosen again in the future.
- aragot 12y ago
  Bias, what about bias? I've always wondered if my software license should contain a thrid-party arbitration, and I've always chosen not to, because I have no control on the arbitration's neutrality. They could charge customers a fee for settling "in favor of", or settle based on their membership time or random dice, and it would still be enforceable in court. Note that my business is located in France so a US arbitrator could have a national preference for arbitraging in favor of a US citizen, and there would be nothing illegal in that.
rayiner 12y ago
Sometimes. Depending on the source, it's like 10% of B2B contracts include arbitration clauses, versus the vast majority of B2C contracts. I think there are advantages to arbitration in B2B settings, but a significant use of the procedure is to hammer away at consumers. The problem, though is more contracts of adhesion than arbitration clauses per se.

aspir 12y ago

Legitimately, what would you propose instead if you were running Slack, or a company like Slack? Would you prefer to run a company that maintains a retainer for quality legal counsel in every nation (and potentially every state/province) where a user purchases your software? Would you want to welcome lawsuits from any user, regardless of if they pay you as little as $6/month?

mark212 12y ago
no, I'd have insurance with a $10 million umbrella policy and a duty to defend that kicks in at $50,000. No one with a brain "welcomes lawsuits" but this is a fool's errand. If Slack really messes up, they'll get hit with a lawsuit no matter what. And defending it will likely be just as expensive.

the_mitsuhiko 12y ago

Funny. My legal system did not allow class action lawsuits to begin with. Has very little impact :)