Ah yes. Binding arbitration clauses, just as the forefathers intended.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
195 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
17 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We promise we won't do anything illegal and worth suing us over, so just waive your right to sue us!
This is a massive oversight in a country's code of law.
One should not be able to waive one’s rights.
I'm not even at all sure that they promised that
Preventing others from bringing you to justice via lawsuits implies to me they intend to do something illegal.
You could be charitable and say arbitration is a cost saving mechanism for lawsuits you successfully defend yourself from (the loser doesn't pay your legal fees in some countries).
Time for another court to finally set the precedent the EULAs and Terms & Conditions are bullshit because it's expected that no one will read them, and therefore no one has actually agreed to anything
Reminds me of a recent Disney case:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jl0ekjr0go
It bothers me that we as a society continue to surrender our agency, our rights, and even our well-being to whatever restrictions a corporation makes up to benefit itself, just because they're in a (practically unavoidable) terms & conditions document.
It's getting so bad that people sometimes mistake corporate policies for law, crying "that's illegal" if someone steps outside the bounds of a software license.
Adding insult to injury, enforcement of these things is paid for by us, through taxes.
This would be the exact same type deal if it was an Uber driver that ran into a pedestrian that happened to have a Uber account and they said the victim can't sue because they were an Uber user at one time. I think it's time we all stop singing up for any service that has that clause. I know I plan to read the T&C for everything now.
It the governments job to uphold the constitution and protect our right, they are failing by allowing corporations bypass the highest laws of the land with a fucking nonnegotiable hundred page terms & conditions document.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
- every United States President
Caveat Emptor... The burden is on the buyer to know what they are getting into. And the government should stay out of all of this. This is what republicans mean when they say small government.
Small government for civilians means no protections from large corporations.
Small government for corporations means they get to do what they want and regulate themselves.
It is the American dream.
No the government should not stay out of it.
How does this make any sense "if you, or anyone you know, has ever bought our taxi, you can not sue when our driver hits you"?
"Buyer beware" is not an argument when this shit is buried in pages of dence leagle documents or in some case never presented to the end user (in the case of a things like appliance delivery, where the buyer never sees the documents included). Do you expect me to hire a lawyer to buy a washer machine, or to sign up for a free Disney+ trail? Speaking of Disney, how about that "allergy friendly" restuant that killed someone with allergies. Theae forced arbitration clauses are letting ~~companies~~ people get away with wrongful deaths.
implied warranty of merchantability If the restaurant says their food does not contain an ingredient and they say the food prep is craefully done to ensure no cords contamination and someone dies because the ingredient was in the food - there's a problem and justice needs to be upheld.
Being a rebublicans or wanting "small goverment" has nothing to do with this. Yes too much gov intervention is bad, but with out it we'd still be eating rats in our hamburgers.
Don't bring abritarty sides into a problem when people are dying and no one is getting held accountable.
I'm like 80% sure they were being sarcastic in that comment. I hope so anyways.
Me too...but just to be safe I spent too much of my free time typing up a response.
Imagine hiring a taxi without having your lawyer review the terms and conditions, lol
Seventh Amendment - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, [snip]
I'm surprised arbitration holds up. I can believe the court say it comes first and the reasoning of arbitration should be given to the jury along with instructions that they can disbar a lawyer who tries to reverse something the arbitration decides when arbitration was correct, but ultimately the right to a jury trial is required.
Where are the /c/fuckcars people? Certainly there would be no terms and conditions clauses deployed against riders in the event of a carriage crash.
when the Uber they were riding in crashed into another car
I'm not a fan of Uber but why go after Uber (who's entire MO is we don't hire drivers or own cars but profits are welcome) when this should be an insurance dispute between both drivers?
UBER EATS terms and conditions.