5 ms·

There are two separate issues here. Requiring arbitration is one. Disallowing class action is another. You cannot conflate these two things. Disallowing class

There are two separate issues here. Requiring arbitration is one. Disallowing class action is another. You cannot conflate these two things. Disallowing class action is absolutely in-favor of Slack and companies in general. Class action suits are a powerful pro-consumer force. They allow consumers to seek redress without cost - as the legal costs are paid for by the plaintiffs attorneys. Sometime consumers don't get much out of these suits while the attorneys make a lot. But their threat is a strong check on powerful companies. Forcing arbitration is a murkier matter. The first google result on arbitration vs trial (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arbitration-pros-cons-29807.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/arbitration-pros-cons...) provides a decent analysis. Frequently arbitration is less expensive for both sides because the process is simplified. You also avoid shenanigans like fighting for 6 months about jurisdiction and venue (which either side can do to seek a more favorable court). The article states that arbitration is bad because consumers don't have legal representation. This is flat out wrong. Consumers can and should have legal representation in an arbitration. Just like in a trial, consumers need to pay for this legal representation themselves, and it would be foolish not to have it. The article also says that arbitration is bad because companies have more legal resources than consumers. This is a fallacious argument. Companies will also have more legal resources in a trial. If anything, the simplified process of arbitration makes this less of an advantage. So arbitration may be slightly better for consumers in that respect.

duskwuff 12y ago
> Class action suits are a powerful pro-consumer force. They allow consumers to seek redress without cost - as the legal costs are paid for by the plaintiffs attorneys. Keep in mind that Slack is a B2B service, though; its clients are companies, not individuals. Would a class-action suit really make sense here, given that most of the "consumers" involved should already have access to legal representation?
- bjt 12y ago
  The article quotes Consumerist in giving this reason for class actions: > companies can harm large groups of customers but get away with only paying out to those people who are willing to arbitrate. Class action isn't just about big guy vs little guy, or corporation vs individual. It's also about discouraging practices that are illegal, and valuable in aggregate for the defendant, but too small to warrant a court case for any single plaintiff.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Keep in mind that Slack is a B2B service, though; its clients are companies, not individuals. Class actions really exist for economy of justice, particularly with diffuse harms across a large group (regardless of the resources of the individual members of the group), not specifically to deal with access-to-counsel issues. Any time the number of similarly situated parties (customers, in this case) is large on one side, its conceivable that a class action makes sense. This is "pro-consumer" only in that in that it addresses an essential asymmetry of resources-at-stake that disfavors action by the "many" side in any many to one transaction. "Consumers" are an example of this, but not a unique example.
- wpietri 12y ago
  > Would a class-action suit really make sense here Definitely. Their low-end plans are relatively cheap. That means that even if you have legal representation, it often wouldn't be worth suing them. But a class action spreads the legal cost across many plaintiffs. Simple example. Suppose BadCo has 10,000 customers who each pay $1000 per year, for annual revenues of $10m. If they can cheat each customer out of an additional $100 (say by overbilling), then they'll make $1m, which is enough money to be tempting. But very few people will go to the time and trouble of a lawsuit just to get $100 back. But a class action lawyer might happily take the suit thinking they could make 25% of that million.
wcummings 12y ago
Who chooses and compensates the arbitrator?
- spinlock 12y ago
  I'll give you a hint, it's not the consumer.
  - jamesaguilar 12y ago
    False. If you and your opponent can't agree on an arbitrator, you each pick one, and the two of then together agree on a third, who performs the actual arbitration.
  - justintbassett 12y ago
    The knee-jerk answer isn't welcome here. Arbitration agreements (slack's included) usually state that both parties must agree on an arbitrator. If they don't agree, each party picks its own
    - NotOscarWilde 12y ago
      The way I understand the agreement, if you accept it you are bound to use JAMS as the arbitration company -- you may have choice of a specific arbiter inside that company but you have to use that company. Is my understanding correct?

duskwuff 12y ago

> Class action suits are a powerful pro-consumer force. They allow consumers to seek redress without cost - as the legal costs are paid for by the plaintiffs attorneys. Keep in mind that Slack is a B2B service, though; its clients are companies, not individuals. Would a class-action suit really make sense here, given that most of the "consumers" involved should already have access to legal representation?

bjt 12y ago
The article quotes Consumerist in giving this reason for class actions: > companies can harm large groups of customers but get away with only paying out to those people who are willing to arbitrate. Class action isn't just about big guy vs little guy, or corporation vs individual. It's also about discouraging practices that are illegal, and valuable in aggregate for the defendant, but too small to warrant a court case for any single plaintiff.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Keep in mind that Slack is a B2B service, though; its clients are companies, not individuals. Class actions really exist for economy of justice, particularly with diffuse harms across a large group (regardless of the resources of the individual members of the group), not specifically to deal with access-to-counsel issues. Any time the number of similarly situated parties (customers, in this case) is large on one side, its conceivable that a class action makes sense. This is "pro-consumer" only in that in that it addresses an essential asymmetry of resources-at-stake that disfavors action by the "many" side in any many to one transaction. "Consumers" are an example of this, but not a unique example.
wpietri 12y ago
> Would a class-action suit really make sense here Definitely. Their low-end plans are relatively cheap. That means that even if you have legal representation, it often wouldn't be worth suing them. But a class action spreads the legal cost across many plaintiffs. Simple example. Suppose BadCo has 10,000 customers who each pay $1000 per year, for annual revenues of $10m. If they can cheat each customer out of an additional $100 (say by overbilling), then they'll make $1m, which is enough money to be tempting. But very few people will go to the time and trouble of a lawsuit just to get $100 back. But a class action lawyer might happily take the suit thinking they could make 25% of that million.

wcummings 12y ago

Who chooses and compensates the arbitrator?

spinlock 12y ago
I'll give you a hint, it's not the consumer.
- jamesaguilar 12y ago
  False. If you and your opponent can't agree on an arbitrator, you each pick one, and the two of then together agree on a third, who performs the actual arbitration.
- justintbassett 12y ago
  The knee-jerk answer isn't welcome here. Arbitration agreements (slack's included) usually state that both parties must agree on an arbitrator. If they don't agree, each party picks its own
  - NotOscarWilde 12y ago
    The way I understand the agreement, if you accept it you are bound to use JAMS as the arbitration company -- you may have choice of a specific arbiter inside that company but you have to use that company. Is my understanding correct?