4 ms·

What's the problem? Send these guys a private offer to arbitrate, according to your terms. Put your concerns on an affidavit concluded with your offer, and give

What's the problem? Send these guys a private offer to arbitrate, according to your terms. Put your concerns on an affidavit concluded with your offer, and give them an opportunity to respond within 10-15 days. If they go silent (they will), send a notice of default next, and then file your lawsuit in civil court. You will have satisfied the private arbitration clause (arbitration went nowhere), and with your options exhausted, you now must file in court. Source: I'm an ex aequo et bono arbitrator.

lanstein 12y ago
To say nothing of the fact that large companies are not agreeing to these terms, they will have custom MSAs which dictate jurisdiction, etc.
function_seven 12y ago
I may be a bit dense, but your comment doesn't seem to relate to the article I just read. Is this the wrong thread or am I missing something? EDIT: I have to be missing something. Half the comments here talk about arbitration, but that word doesn't appear once in the blog post. Was it edited?
- etjossem 12y ago
  The changes to the Terms of Service (linked from the blog post) include a new binding arbitration clause.
- slig 12y ago
  Looks like another thread was merged here.
- thetrumanshow 12y ago
  Yes. If you Google "slack ycombinator", you'll see the original title in the results (as of 12:26 PST). Edit: also, as another commenter said, it was merged.
- mbreese 12y ago
  You're not missing anything. Two posts were merged. This is the Privacy policy blog post by Slack. There was another blog post (third-party) that talked about changes in their TOS to include arbitration. 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...
tinco 12y ago
The problem is that they have suspended their service until we agree to their terms. Their service enables much of our company communication, so basically they've maimed our internal communication until our lawyer has had a chance to review these new terms, which could take any amount of time. You as a jurist might look at this and go "meh, it's fine", but if you're the CEO of a small company this sort of thing really fucks with you. their CEO gave his ideas on this situation: https://twitter.com/stewart/status/537007282811195392?t=1&cn=bWVudGlvbg%3D%3D&sig=5e779a572b337ff703074288685b68d3fb21d0ca&al=1&iid=0058a38e84e349b88e74fced474db47b&autoactions=1416867488&uid=15160492&nid=4+1264 https://twitter.com/stewart/status/537007282811195392?t=1&cn...
- anonbanker 12y ago
  Then agree under duress. You have 72 hours to modify any contract you enter (which becomes 10 days by snail mail), so agree quickly with your adversary, so as to get out of his way. Once you have access to your account, immediately begin arbitration whilst looking for another safe place.
  - mark212 12y ago
    don't know what you're smoking, but this is not the law in California -- which is what Slack chose (unilaterally) as the governing law of this document.
    - kordless 12y ago
      I believe that's a federal rule governed by the FTC, not the state.
      - mark212 12y ago
        the FTC does not have plenary power over all contracts. There are certain "cooling off" periods for specific purchases (cell phone service and automobiles come to mind) but as a general rule? No way. And really really no way in this context.
    - 12y ago
mark212 12y ago
First, this isn't "exhaustion" of remedies. Second, there is no recourse to court in the event of a default. The TOS (did you read them before offering legal advice?) requires a claimant to first try informal resolution then open a claim with JAMS. There is no ability to go to court, unless it's small claims court (under $7,500 in California).
- amalcon 12y ago
  Well, you could try to dispute the arbitration clause in court. That would almost definitely be unproductive, but you could go to court. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, don't take legal advice from unknown Internet people, and all that.

lanstein 12y ago

To say nothing of the fact that large companies are not agreeing to these terms, they will have custom MSAs which dictate jurisdiction, etc.

function_seven 12y ago

I may be a bit dense, but your comment doesn't seem to relate to the article I just read. Is this the wrong thread or am I missing something? EDIT: I have to be missing something. Half the comments here talk about arbitration, but that word doesn't appear once in the blog post. Was it edited?

etjossem 12y ago
The changes to the Terms of Service (linked from the blog post) include a new binding arbitration clause.
slig 12y ago
Looks like another thread was merged here.
thetrumanshow 12y ago
Yes. If you Google "slack ycombinator", you'll see the original title in the results (as of 12:26 PST). Edit: also, as another commenter said, it was merged.
mbreese 12y ago
You're not missing anything. Two posts were merged. This is the Privacy policy blog post by Slack. There was another blog post (third-party) that talked about changes in their TOS to include arbitration. 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...

tinco 12y ago

The problem is that they have suspended their service until we agree to their terms. Their service enables much of our company communication, so basically they've maimed our internal communication until our lawyer has had a chance to review these new terms, which could take any amount of time. You as a jurist might look at this and go "meh, it's fine", but if you're the CEO of a small company this sort of thing really fucks with you. their CEO gave his ideas on this situation: https://twitter.com/stewart/status/537007282811195392?t=1&cn=bWVudGlvbg%3D%3D&sig=5e779a572b337ff703074288685b68d3fb21d0ca&al=1&iid=0058a38e84e349b88e74fced474db47b&autoactions=1416867488&uid=15160492&nid=4+1264 https://twitter.com/stewart/status/537007282811195392?t=1&cn...

anonbanker 12y ago
Then agree under duress. You have 72 hours to modify any contract you enter (which becomes 10 days by snail mail), so agree quickly with your adversary, so as to get out of his way. Once you have access to your account, immediately begin arbitration whilst looking for another safe place.
- mark212 12y ago
  don't know what you're smoking, but this is not the law in California -- which is what Slack chose (unilaterally) as the governing law of this document.
  - kordless 12y ago
    I believe that's a federal rule governed by the FTC, not the state.
    - mark212 12y ago
      the FTC does not have plenary power over all contracts. There are certain "cooling off" periods for specific purchases (cell phone service and automobiles come to mind) but as a general rule? No way. And really really no way in this context.
  - 12y ago

mark212 12y ago

First, this isn't "exhaustion" of remedies. Second, there is no recourse to court in the event of a default. The TOS (did you read them before offering legal advice?) requires a claimant to first try informal resolution then open a claim with JAMS. There is no ability to go to court, unless it's small claims court (under $7,500 in California).

amalcon 12y ago
Well, you could try to dispute the arbitration clause in court. That would almost definitely be unproductive, but you could go to court. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, don't take legal advice from unknown Internet people, and all that.