3 ms·

You're changing the target. As for your example, it doesn't appear that the plaintiff asserted 7th amendment rights to a jury trial. AFAIK a court will throw yo

You're changing the target. As for your example, it doesn't appear that the plaintiff asserted 7th amendment rights to a jury trial. AFAIK a court will throw you out on the first technical violation. As for the deposition, my answers would be that I have no idea if that screen was similar to any screen I saw on the vendor's site or what buttons I may have pushed (I may see dozens of these screens from multitudes of vendors in a single day) and would ask them if it was the exact same screen I was displayed when I visited their site, how they know, and what evidence they have that it is. I'd then ask them to turn over any evidence that they claim.

hodag 12y ago
I don't believe I'm changing the target. I'm trying to explain that the way that you see the 7th Amendment -- as giving you an ultimate right to a jury trial in all civil cases over $20 -- is simply not what the 7th Amendment does. You can make this argument, that you've asserted $20 in damages and you want your jury, but you will lose. If you would like to see your argument addressed specifically by a court, in the context of arbitration, have a look at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8425065483034750666 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=842506548303475.... As far as your deposition goes, you don't get to ask any questions. It will last all day, all you get to do is answer questions. You get to ask questions when you take depositions, and you can ask all of the questions that you mentioned, but it won't get you far. After all the discovery is done, they're going to have pretty good circumstantial evidence that you checked the checkbox by virtue of signing up for the account, and you're going to have literally no evidence showing that you didn't. This is not going to make the judge believe you. Look, at the end of the day, here's what you're up against: 1) a strong policy in favor of arbitration agreements (courts use those exact words in their decisions), 2) a judge who wants cases of her docket, 3) big business with limitless lawyering resources who want to make absolutely sure that the arbitration clause will be enforced. I'm not saying that you can't beat it. It's possible, and sometimes companies do lose on their motions to compel arbitration. But what I am saying is that you will usually lose. This is a really, really bad thing for consumer rights, and it allows businesses to engage in flagrant unlawful and fraudulent activity with no fear that they will ever have to answer for it out of their wallets. The solution to this problem is not to cover your eyes and ears, ignore the doctrine, and insist that you can beat these clauses in court. You can't. The answer is to get Congress to crack down on predatory arbitration clauses so that businesses have to answer for their wrongdoing in courts like the rest of us do. Maybe that's just as lofty a goal, but at least it recognizes that there is a problem, and it needs to be fixed.

hodag 12y ago

I don't believe I'm changing the target. I'm trying to explain that the way that you see the 7th Amendment -- as giving you an ultimate right to a jury trial in all civil cases over $20 -- is simply not what the 7th Amendment does. You can make this argument, that you've asserted $20 in damages and you want your jury, but you will lose. If you would like to see your argument addressed specifically by a court, in the context of arbitration, have a look at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8425065483034750666 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=842506548303475.... As far as your deposition goes, you don't get to ask any questions. It will last all day, all you get to do is answer questions. You get to ask questions when you take depositions, and you can ask all of the questions that you mentioned, but it won't get you far. After all the discovery is done, they're going to have pretty good circumstantial evidence that you checked the checkbox by virtue of signing up for the account, and you're going to have literally no evidence showing that you didn't. This is not going to make the judge believe you. Look, at the end of the day, here's what you're up against: 1) a strong policy in favor of arbitration agreements (courts use those exact words in their decisions), 2) a judge who wants cases of her docket, 3) big business with limitless lawyering resources who want to make absolutely sure that the arbitration clause will be enforced. I'm not saying that you can't beat it. It's possible, and sometimes companies do lose on their motions to compel arbitration. But what I am saying is that you will usually lose. This is a really, really bad thing for consumer rights, and it allows businesses to engage in flagrant unlawful and fraudulent activity with no fear that they will ever have to answer for it out of their wallets. The solution to this problem is not to cover your eyes and ears, ignore the doctrine, and insist that you can beat these clauses in court. You can't. The answer is to get Congress to crack down on predatory arbitration clauses so that businesses have to answer for their wrongdoing in courts like the rest of us do. Maybe that's just as lofty a goal, but at least it recognizes that there is a problem, and it needs to be fixed.