this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
887 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
60076 readers
4315 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It kind of blows my mind that forced arbitration is legal at all.
I think in the case of forced agreements (both Roku not having a way to select disagree and disabling all hardware functionality until you agree, and blizzard not allowing login to existing games including non-live service ones) no reasonable court should be viewing this as freely accepting the new conditions.
If you buy a new game with those conditions, sure you should be able to get a full refund though, and you could argue it for ongoing live service games where you pay monthly that it's acceptable to change the conditions with some notice ahead of time. If you don't accept you can no longer use the ongoing paid for features, I expect a court would allow that. But there's no real justification for disabling hardware you already own or disabling single player games you already paid for in full.
It'll be interesting to see any test cases that come from these examples.
I see 1 class action where the consumers get screwed and the company gets a slap on the wrist
Right?
Amazes me how many people cheer on these class action suits, and when I remark that class action screws the consumer and benefits the company, lemmites downvote to oblivion.
I got my first class action reimbursement at age 19...for perhaps $5.
Today I see one about twice a year, again for about $5 each. I don't even bother replying to get my check - it's simply not worth the effort.
The class-action system is a scam to benefit the wrong-doers, not to give strength to a class. What company would prefer 2 million court cases vs a single case? They want to prevent that first individual case from happening, at all, let alone from winning. If one case wins, the ambulance chasing lawyers would crawl out of the wood work and line up for their payout. The legal fees alone would be 10x+ any class-action settlement.
Correct.
The problem here is "reasonable court." One party in the US has spent decades stacking the courts with unreasonable judges who will agree to anything a corporation hands them.
My brother in christ, both parties have been doing this for ages. You aren't looking at the right lines. This one is about wealth, not about party affiliation.
If you had the money to put safeguards in place to protect you and your stuff in the event something went wrong, you probably would. It would be a mistake not to.
A simple example is keeping some money set aside as a savings or emergency fund. For rich people, lobbying for more favorable laws, and helping more friendly judges rise up the ranks is a similar thing. Some have went on to make and plan apocalypse bunkers too.
When you have enough money that you don't have to worry about spending a certain amount, you just go and do it. Like people not worrying about spending on Starbucks every morning because it's equivalent to 30 minutes of their time or less.
look at all the lefties down voting you. when are people going to learn?
I think you are correct. A contract requires "consideration." You got nothing for agreeing to the new contract, so I don't think it is legal.
Somone said that it isn't and isn't enforceable to but no-one has the time money or will to fuck around with that.
Depends on the country. This wiki article goes over a bunch of countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_clause
The governments all around the world are probably in favor of it, because their big “donors” want it and it lowers costs for the judicial system for them. It’s a win-win from their perspective.
The real reason for arbitration is that it usually costs hundreds to initiate and the rules can be murky. In comparison most places in America you can file a small claims suit for $20 and are given help by the court/government.
It also creates no precedent. You lose, you pay out one angry customer, but the next one who tries, you get a fresh attempt to convince the arbitrators you were right.
In a real court, the first loss woukd be leveraged against you by everyone else in similar straits, even if it wasn't a class action.
NAL and stare decisis is definitely not as strict in arbitration but arbitration generally has to follow state court rules or it will get invalidated including use of precedent. Most court decisions never get published anyway so its essentially the same loss.
I hadn't considered small claims (though I've filed, and won, several small claims cases myself).
It would be great to teach people how to use the small-claims system - Imagine these companies having to deal with these courts in every state.
They'd probably default (not show up), and have judgements against them, then the complainant would be stuck trying to enforce the claim (it's not automatic). In the end, Corp would see this as a win... Until it became a news story that "Corp X has hundreds of unresolved judgements"
I am sure everybody’s situation is different but luckily for me as a New York Resident, between long arm statues and the interconnectedness of banks/Wall st everybody has to pay or forfeit their bank access 🤣
Corporations are people and they have so much more money and time to fund their interests than individuals do.
It’s just a term of a contract. It’s only “forced” insofar as both parties agree to require it in order to settle disputes.
Which shouldn't be allowed in relation to consumer goods and services.
Meh, arbitration is cheaper and faster than actual litigation. I see clear advantages for both parties.
But also obvious disadvantages to the customer in cases like this. Why should the customer not have a right to refuse?