New eBay EULA Prohibits Class Action Lawsuits 234
First time accepted submitter dangthill writes "On August 21, eBay updated its end-user agreement by adding a binding arbritration clause. By accepting the new agreement, users forfeit their right to join class action lawsuits and instead must submit to arbitration. However, users may opt-out by mailing eBay a signed notice. eBay joins Microsoft, Sony, Electronic Arts, Valve and other companies attempting to prevent class actions after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled such tactics valid."
Ah, the good old days... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anybody else remember when kangaroo courts were something we associated with the commies?
Sour Kangaroo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect that your next mandatory binding arbitration session will make that outcome look generous...
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that...and will someone tell me again how these agreements don't violate the 7th Amendment [wikipedia.org]???
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, I can't imagine how they wouldn't.
In practice? "While the amount mentioned in the amendment ($20) has not been indexed or adjusted for inflation, Congress has never extended federal diversity jurisdiction to amounts that small, and the amendment is one of the few portions of the Bill of Rights never to have been incorporated by the Supreme Court of the United States. Under the current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C. 1332), the amount in dispute in diversity cases must exceed $75,000 U
Re:Ah, the good old days... (Score:5, Informative)
That sounds simple enough (opt out) until you realize that Ebay owns Paypal which was prosecuted by the U.S. DOJ for stealing customer funds.
Under "arbitration" Paypal/ebay had decided that the customers don't deserve to get their money back. Why? Because Paypal was losing money through buyer fraud (credit card chargebacks mostly) and they had a right to take, not just the money lost but ALL the buyers' money, and never return it. They also took money from sellers. (You can read the thousands of stories at paypalsucks.com)
Under the old rules Paypal/ebay was sued under a class-action lawsuit and forced to refund all the money to their customers. Under the new rules of forced arbitration & no lawsuits..... I guess you're out of luck. Paypal/ebay gets to take your money and keep it.
Re:Ah, the good old days... (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>forced to refund all the money to their customers.
P.S. Most people including me sued as "Class 3" and got back $80. Class 2 victims received $500. The smallest was Class 1 which were refunded thousands of dollars (equal to the exact-dollar amount paypal had taken from them, plus their legal fees). I'm sorry you think Paypal/ebay is so fucking wonderful that they never deserve to be sued, but their past history shows otherwise. I fully expect them to go right back to their old ways of "suspending" account and keeping all the buyer's (or seller's) money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ah, the good old days... (Score:5, Informative)
Never leave money in Paypal's hands. Never. They WILL take it eventually. I always use CC transactions for buying and dump out any seller cash immediately.
Re: (Score:3)
Word to the wise is never link a bank account to a paypal account. They can attempt a charge against a CC; but you can chargeback and let Visa/Mastercard's coldblooded lawbeasts fight it out with paypal. Bank account? Yoink! It's theirs now, you have the pleasure of fighting to get it back...
Re: (Score:2)
make a throwaway account, your bank will help (Score:3, Informative)
I had this problem too after many years of buying junk on ebay, unfortunately many otherwise good sellers will only take paypal :(
Solved by:
-Call bank, create new checking account
-(optional) create short name/nickname for account for use on website/apps/etc. (suggestions: "I hate paypal" or "paypal sucks" or "***** paypal")
-Ensure this account is not linked to any other account in any other way at all. No overdraft, no protection, no nuttin'. Triple verify this with your bank, many will "helpfully" set thes
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, there's a choice, but it involves not using PayPal.
A surprising amount of people have opted for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Never link a bank account to paypal, ever. Linking a credit card for payment gives you some small legal recourse in disputing the charges. Your bank is not required to do so. On second thought. Just never use paypal. They are a wretched hive of scum and villainy that blatantly flaunt the law and abuse their customers.
Re:Ah, the good old days... (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely. As a seller you should get your money out of paypal immediately by transferging it to your bank. ALSO when you are a buyer, always use a credit card because sometimes a seller will rip you off, and Paypal gives you a worthless answer like, "We decided to refund your money, but were unable to recover funds." At that point you would normally be screwed, but if you paid with a credit card you can file a chargeback.
To date I have only lost money once (back in 2001) but now that I use a credit card for everything they protect me from dishonest sellers where Paypal does not. (Unfortunately I've lost hundreds due to dishonest buyers. These scam artists have all kinds of methods to pay.... and then reverse payment, to ripoff ebay sellers. THAT'S why I think buyers deserve negative feedback.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If ebay/paypal were to begin stealing money again no contract would validate illegal activity. Does agreeing to a EULA that you will not sue imply ebay/paypal can conduct illegal activities, I'm not a lawyer but I doubt it.
Nah, but if you can't sue, what could you do about it? Convince your local DA to file criminal charges against eBay? Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
in certain states it's impossible for you to sign away your rights. So look into your current state's laws. In those states even if you sign a EULA that says you won't take any legal action against the corporation, the EULA is void.
Not anymore. The supreme court decision said that the federal law allowing forced arbitration (Federal Arbitration Act of 1925) overrides state laws prohibiting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, the states have the right to overrule most Federal laws within their borders. That is why you can buy certain guns in Arizona that would normally be illegal at the Federal level. The caveat is that the guns have to be manufactured in Arizona, sold to a Arizona citizen, and never leave Arizona.
Thankfully, this no longer applies [google.com] in order to protect us from the pothead menace...
Re:Ah, the good old days... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Congress, and the US, have an interest in not clogging courts.
The whole point of not clogging courts is so that people can have access to them. If you deny them access outright, what's the point of having a court system?
If you have an issue with the law, talk to your Congresscritter.
When money speaks louder than words, what good is that going to do? Why would my congressman piss off his numerous corporate donors and represent me instead?
Re: (Score:2)
I love how we've gotten to the point where the assumption is that doing something "for the good of the business" is always the right thing.
What is wrong is wrong, whether you're doing it behind the shield of "it's only business!" or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way if contested will not survive in court.
Contracts are void if found to be illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
Either way if contested will not survive in court. Contracts are void if found to be illegal.
Dude. They even linked to it in the summary. This crap has been upheld by SCOTUS. The argument is over. Even worse than allowing companies to force you into arbitration, they also allow the company to choose the arbiter as well. Under those rulings they can now get away with all kinds of illegal crap so long as they aren't flagrant enough about it to draw the ire of the DoJ or one of the states. Even then, because you can't be part of the complaint (unless you are the "lucky" one that they feel has enough m
Re: (Score:2)
They have an interest in reserving the courts for the benefit of the elite.
If they really wanted to unclog them, they'd put a stop to bullshit lawsuits in the first place, instead of allowing the playing field to simply tilt in favor of big business.
And by bullshit lawsuit, I especially include any legal threat backed by nothing more than the plaintiff's superior legal budget. Yes, MAFIAA, that means you. Ditto for patent trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
2. eBay does something it doesn't have to -- lets you opt out.
Yeah, you just have to go down to the basement, the one where all the lights are out, and fill out a form found in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, the US has always operated a multi-tier justice system; but we've typically also operated substantial self-congratulatory hypocrisy about it. My intended point is that we seem to be getting to the point where we can't even be bothered to pretend to hold the moral high ground...
Re: (Score:2)
so? (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't like every other EULA out there do this as well?
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, but still not sure how this is news...
Every other EULA out there, has these same terms.
It'd be like having service suspended for not paying your bill.
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be like having service suspended for not paying your bill.
Except with eBay/PayPal, it's more along the lines of having your service suspended and the funds forcibly removed from your bank account (as well as taking anything that was still sitting in your PayPal account) without direct consent all because someone said you were a bad person and they didn't bother to get your side of the story. Sadly that isn't make believe and has actually happened. Many times.
So it may not be news that a big company does this, but it is news that eBay is paving the way to abuse mor
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point.
Even if it's unenforceable, eBay is still doing the same thing everyone else is.
Re: (Score:3)
They do now. It's stylish now. Even Valve did this less than a month ago. There is an NPR Diane Rehm show about this topic where one of the legal experts she's interviewing from George Washington University says that 93% of employer/employee contracts now have this in it too with the argument being "if you don't like it don't work there" ...
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Al Franken has been trying to get the Fairness in Arbitration Act enacted by Congress for years now. It was filibustered the last time it went up for vote iirc.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you RTFA, it notes several other giants who do this same thing.
it's actually pretty common anytime you sign something.
Go look at the TOS with your bank, loans, electric company.
If there is a dispute you agree to resolve it with arbitration. Granted it may unenforceable but that does not mean it's news when eBay follows an industry standard.
Re: (Score:2)
No, only a few. And in a great deal of countries, those sort of clauses have no value; the right to a class action suit (or any lawsuit) is something you cannot forfeit, so that clause's existance makes no difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Please RTFA, it specifically notes several other giants who do the same damn thing.
Real question is will they drop you? (Score:2)
More importantly, can you 'agree', participate in an auction, then drop out and then join a class action suit for the one auction you participated in before you dropped out?
Plague (Score:5, Insightful)
I imagine it's already appearing on many more transitory agreements. Corporations now have an out, thanks to Scalia and his buddies, that protects them from the possibility that they'll ever get hit with a lawsuit big enough to actually threaten them. It puts each and every person that they fuck over out on their own and arbitration biases everything in their favor.
I await the inclusion of anti-class action language in virtually all individual-facing contracts. It's virtually guaranteed to happen as there's no downside whatsoever for the corporations.
Re:Plague (Score:5, Interesting)
I await the inclusion of anti-class action language in virtually all individual-facing contracts. It's virtually guaranteed to happen as there's no downside whatsoever for the corporations.
The last time I checked, just about every contract or agreement I enter into has this clause already. This includes companies where I have no alternative due to a government-granted monopoly (my gas company and my electric company have both done this). So much for saying "no thanks" and finding an alternative...
The really sad part is since corporations got away with this, I've actually started seeing companies slipping in waiving your right to any legal action, class action or individual lawsuit. I would say I'm waiting for the day that gets struck down in court, but knowing the current state of things, I'm not optimistic about it going our way (by 'our,' I mean us consumers and citizens).
Re: (Score:2)
And thanks to the Supreme Court, it actually has teeth. That's why every company out there is adding it to their consumer-facing agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>government-granted monopoly (my gas company and my electric company have both done this). So much for saying "no thanks" and finding an alternative...
(1) Tear down your house and build a PassivHaus. It requires no heating and only moderate A/C so you can screw the gas/electric company of thousands of dollars each year. (2) Move to a state that has gas/electric choice. You can switch to a company that doesn't block lawsuits.
Re:Plague (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The point made was: They get to pick the arbiter, and said arbiters prefer to rule in favor of those who will lead to continued work (ie the company being arbitrated against.)
Hence it's basically the equivalent of a judge on the payroll. Sure they MIGHT rule against the big guy, but if so the damages will be so small that it's considered worthwhile in the company's case to provide proof that they're not being biased against the little guy (when it's obvious they are.)
Re:Plague (Score:4, Informative)
Virtually all of these agreements explicitly specify the company that will handle the arbitration and from the ones that I've seen have the company being challenged paying for it. Thus, it's in the arbitrator's interests to find for the defendant so that they keep coming back. They'll be dropped in a heartbeat if they find for the plaintiff.
And you'd have to prove that well enough to get the Federal Government to pursue the case.
Re: (Score:2)
difference between theory and practice (Score:5, Informative)
the big problem is since the arbitration company is paid for by the company they will automatically be biased in favor of KEEPING THE CONTRACT.
so yes you could in theory sue over the arbitration not being fair but you agreed that the arbitration was BINDING.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Plague (Score:4, Informative)
This look [citizen.org] at credit-card related MBA doesn't look good. It also isn't a good sign that even the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com], not exactly known for its The Daily Worker editorial slant, has observed the problem.
So, yeah, the available statistics don't look good, and the structure under which company/consumer arbitration is operated(Company requires many arbitrations/year, gets to select arbiters, results of past arbitrations are obviously available to the company; but typically not available to the consumer, arbiters know that future business can depend on past 'results') it'd be a fucking miracle if any impartiality existed...
Re: (Score:2)
It is biased towards the corporation by definition. Number 1, the corporation has people on payroll who handle lawsuits and arbitration requests. As a result, an arbitration request is a wash for the corporation, but it still is a huge inconvenience for the individual. Number 2, arbitration is on average much, much cheaper for a corporation than a lawsuit. So cheap that it amounts to change found in the couch. However, arbitration is still a significant cost for all but the top 20% of the population.
So who
Re: (Score:2)
The terms specify that eBay will pay the costs of the arbitration (so long as the judgment is under $10,000 dollars) unless it is deemed as frivolous by the arbitrator, so it won't cost the individual a dime in legitimate cases. Also they allow arbitration by telephone for under a certain amount (don't recall the exact figure), so it isn't even a terrible inconvenience.
There is also the fact that if eBay really does start fucking over customers (more than they do already), people will find out and stop usi
Re: (Score:2)
By cost, I meant that people going into arbitration have to take PTO, they have to travel to the place of arbitration and actually study up on what is going on. And arbitration by telephone? That works only if it is something braindead that doesn't require any discussion of evidence. And it's funny that the arbitration costs only come into play for very small sums, which would indicate that the arbitration will be short and sweet. For anything more significant, you're on the hook for everything yourself.
There is also the fact that if eBay really does start fucking over customers (more than they do already), people will find out and stop using eBay. The Internet is quite good at that.
Ah,
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to your telling me how this is invalid evidence, though.
Well first of all, the site proudly proclaims it is run by lawyers. As others have noted, lawyers make millions of dollars off of class action lawsuits while the injured parties are lucky to make a few dollars, which makes me inclined to be highly suspicious of anything they claim right off the bat (I'm actually suspicious of anything lawyers claim period: many of them make a living by saying things that are not technically false, but which any reasonable person would call a lie). Oh and
Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of froced arbitration (81 percent) when presented with all the facts.
(emphasis mine, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Nice...but no. You can't be forced to arbitrate in cases of criminal complaints - although you file the complaint, you are not the plaintiff in such cases. The government with its resources are - as they will NOT waive jurisprudence for arbitration when criminal law has been broken; it would be a case for instant appeal if they even tried it. It's the reason it's always the State of vs. Mr or Mrs Scumbag - and not Joe Blow vs. Mr or Mrs Scumbag. Companies can make you sign it - but the police aren't go
Re: (Score:2)
Class Action Everyone looses except for the lawyer (Score:3, Informative)
Class actions are less about justice but revenge.
If you win a big case you usually get like 100 bucks out of the deal (A lunch for two at a 2 star restaurant). The company need to pay the $100 * 1,000,000 plus legal fee. So they loose a lot of money, the victims let little if any (because they will appeal it over and over or just refuse to pay).
You you loose, the company looses. The only one getting big money are the lawyers, unless you happen to get a movie deal out of it.
Re:Class Action Everyone looses except for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be right about only the lawyers winning but the consumer has already lost if it gets to class action. In a system with forced arbitration the Corporation never loses and never has an incentive to fix a problem, at least with a class-action suit the corporation stands some small chance of losing and may attempt to fix the problem.
Re:Class Action Everyone looses except for the law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Class actions are less about justice but revenge.
I would agree that legal fees, as a percentage of settlement, do tend to be excessively high in class action cases; but some perspective is in order:
Because, as you note, the payoff for individual class members is fairly poor, consider why the class would participate: Because the alternative is nothing.
If all litigation is on an individual basis, simply ensuring that you commit only malfeasance too petty to be worth court costs is de-facto legal; because who would go after you?
Should a greater cut of the c
Re: (Score:2)
"Class actions are less about justice but revenge."
Justice, punishment and revenge are nearly impossible to tell apart.. especially in the US judicial system.
Re:Class Action Everyone looses except for the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but part of the point is the scummy company loses. Sometimes tort law isn't about recouping losses, but preventing unethical behavior in the first place. Frequently the classes of wronged people don't suffer much, but LOTS of people suffer. To me, it seems like a valid course for redress of grievances, and you shouldn't be legally allowed to sign away your rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry we cheated, used, and/or sickened thousands, but nya_nyaa you can't touch us.
If you're not bent over yet, get ready for the rape. Don't worry, thete is plenty of TMZ and Fox News to distract you from the pain.
Re: (Score:2)
You you loose, the company looses. The only one getting big money are the lawyers, unless you happen to get a movie deal out of it.
I can understand your point about lawyers, but part of the whole idea of class action suits are to bring an offending company to task.
Without class action, how else can that be done? Individual lawsuits? That has the burden of being able to afford to do such a thing in the first place, and the awards will never be large enough to act as a deterrent. Companies would just pay out and carry on. Prosecution by the state? That doesn't sound entirely appealing either, especially considering how cozy the governme
Re: (Score:2)
So without class action, what exactly is the reason a company won't try this:
1. Overcharge all customers by $30.
2. Refuse to refund the money.
3. If anybody goes to the time and expense of suing them in small claims court, concede and refund the money and the 1 hours' worth of the attorney's time ($300 or so).
This strategy is profitable so long as less than 10% of the customers affected don't go after them. And because it's not in fact worth my time to haggle over a $30 overcharge, chances are I won't. With
Re:Class Action Everyone looses except for the law (Score:4, Insightful)
If you get $100 bucks you're lucky, my impression is that most are much lower. But as far as I understand, that's sort of the point of class action. Each person hasn't been harmed much and doesn't deserve a huge award, but if the company scams 1000000 people for $100 each they make a cool $100 million so the point is to punish the corporation. The problems are twofold:
1) The class action lawyers don't act in their clients' best interest. They want to rack up as huge a legal bill as they possibly can, knowing each client is again too small to complain about it since s/he's 1/1000000th of their case. Either by spending time in court or more commonly by settling in a way that's favorable to the lawyers and unfavorable to everyone else. Class actions should be done on commission, if you want to get paid more you have to settle for more. That'd put the incentive back in the right place trying to extract as much money as possible for your clients.
2) Extremely often the settlement doesn't actually involve cash, in involves a voucher or a discount for your next purchase even if you don't ever want to do business with them again. Not to mention people often never get around to spending them because they can't find anything they want to buy - even with the discount and it is forgotten or lost. Particularly for software the value is simply the sales value, it costs them nothing to churn out more copies. This could also be solved by requiring the payout be in cold hard cash.
Re: (Score:2)
which gives incentives to the company not to do shit that will get them involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Class actions are less about justice but revenge.
Punishment is not revenge. The point of class actions is to deter future bad behavior. I don't care if a class action suit makes the lawyer a hundred million dollars and I get nothing. If it stops the behavior in the future it's done its job.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea behind "the company loosing" is to de-motivate it and other companies to do the same.
For example, if paypal takes everybody's money away to a total of 50M, and looses 100M in a class action lawsuit, they'll certainly think twice about doing it again. And so will other similar companies.
In many cases, justice is about setting an example and de-motivating others from doing the same (bad) thing.
As it should be (Score:2)
People complain about this all the time.
Just don't use the site.
Inalienable Rights? (Score:2)
What ever happened to those? Or were they traded away at some point?
Companies can put whatever they like in a EULA. Whether it will actually stand up to scrutiny is another matter.
There's a reason why eBay is allowing people to 'opt-out' -- TBH, if there _was_ a problem, and you sent them a letter threatening to attempt a class-action anyway (and could prove the means to fight it), you'd probably get a personal settlement offer straight away. Nobody's going to want to risk an adverse ruling on a challenge,
Re: (Score:2)
Class action lawsuits are not an inalienable right. They exist due to rules created by the states and the Federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a good deal on wall street, so we had sold it. Strangely, we can not buy it anymore. Where is the factory that produce those?
Re: (Score:2)
What world are you living in? Seriously. Corporations have much more power than the individual and they dictate terms all the time, especially in granted monopolies and in natural monopolies like ebay. And, yes, ebay is a natural monopoly to the extent that it wouldn't even occur to many non-geeks that they have competition.
What about the law? (Score:2)
Class action suits =! regular lawsuit (Score:2)
While they can force you into arbitration rather then a class action suit, you still have the right to sue them as an individual, that right has not been taken away.
Of course, the costs involved are high, going up against a corporation with an entire team of lawyers is going to be very expensive, and they would most likely bankrupt an individual before anything ever makes it to trial. I also do not see to many lawyers taking this case on contingency as the potential to win is very very low.
Re: (Score:2)
German Situation (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the situation for Germans:
As long as you are a CONSUMER, i.e. a private buyer or seller, that clause is invalid, since law requires such an arbritration clause to be settled in an entirely separate contract, and to be signed in person OR digitally as defined in BGB and SigG (there is almost no way to satisfy those requirements for a company like ebay or Valve at the moment).
If you are a COMMERCIAL seller (indication: you must accept returns), then the clause is indeed binding.
There is NO customer protection AT ALL in EU regulations in that regard.
The situation WILL differ depending on your country.
Pharmaceutical's (Score:2)
PayPal has done this before and lost (Score:5, Informative)
In August 2002, Craig Comb and two others filed a class action against PayPal in, Craig Comb, et al. v. PayPal, Inc.. They sued, alleging illegal misappropriation of customer accounts and detailed ghastly customer service experiences. Allegations included freezing deposited funds for up to 180 days until disputes were resolved by PayPal, and forcing customers to arbitrate their disputes under the American Arbitration Association's guidelines (a costly procedure). The court ruled against PayPal, stating that "the User Agreement and arbitration clause are substantively unconscionable under California law," noting their unjustifiable one-sidedness and explicit prohibition of class actions produces results that "shock the conscience" and indicate PayPal was "attempting to insulate itself contractually from any meaningful challenge to its alleged practices"
Issues are more nuanced (Score:3, Informative)
This is a subject on which I have experience. I am an arbitrator. I occasionally am asked to decide consumer cases, but that is not my primary area. I have nothing to do with ebay arbitrations. I know a good bit about the American Arbitration Association.
The issues here are not simple, and there are rational arguments both ways. I'll leave PayPal out of this discussion, since they may be a different case. But, I think there are good things about arbitration from the consumer's end of things.
First, arbitration as structured under the ebay user agreement is straight up, no funny business. The arbitration process is administered by the American Arbitration Association, which is pretty widely respected as being thoughtful and above-board in their management of the arbitration process. AAA does a good job of training arbitrators. AAA does not direct or control the outcome. Think of them as the clerks office at the courthouse. They manage the process, keep records, recruit and train arbitrators, but do not get involved in deciding the case.
Keep in mind that an ebay transactions are likely to be small. A few dollars to a few hundred dollars. I'd guess that larger transactions are less common. How likely are you to hire a lawyer to file suit against eBay over their mishandling of a few hundred dollars? Would you really want to travel across the country for a day long trial over a $500 claim? Over a $100 claim?
By providing for disputes to be resolved by arbitration the following happens:
- The parties have a direct say in choosing the arbitrator. You can ding anyone on the list that you don't like the looks of.
- The proceedings are informal and expedited. This reduces the cost of getting to trial, a trade-off which seems appropriate to me for a case of modest size.
- The final hearing (i.e. the trial) takes place by telephone or is decided by written submissions. Again, would it be worth it to fly across the country to a trial over $500?
AAA does not decide the case. The arbitrator decides the case. This distinction is important. Most arbitrators are experienced, and widely respected, lawyers who have a practice focused on the area of the law in which they hear cases. Many arbitrators are practicing lawyers, who do a small number of arbitrations. Some arbitrators are full time neutrals. An arbitrator obtains future work as an arbitrator only being acceptable to BOTH sides of a case. In my experience lawyers talk to each other. An arbitrator who gets a reputation for making bone-headed decisions on a case will quickly find him/herself out of work. An arbitrator who gets a reputation for being the pawn of one side or the other is done, end of career as an arbitrator. Similarly, an arbitrator who simply "splits the baby" and not really making the hard call of who wins/who loses under the law is also likely to find that he/she has not future assignments as an arbitrator. It is not unusual for me to be selected to serve as an arbitrator by a lawfirm where I have previously ruled against one of their clients in an earlier case.
Yes arbitration does not provide the exact same trial process as a jury trial at the courthouse. But very few cases filed at the courthouse go to trial. Say, 5% or so. My experience in arbitration cases is that the vast majority of consumer arbitration cases do get to trial. There is genuine concern that we have created a litigation process so expensive that almost no one can afford it. Consumer arbitration under the AAA rules provides a way to get a small claim heard quickly, and at modest cost. I think this has real value.
Some will say that the restriction of class actions means that big companies are free to lie, cheat and steal. I've seen a big company facing scores of consumer arbitration cases under rules very similar to those set by ebay. The company's cost of trying those cases is much higher than it would be under a class action. Plus, under a class action one trial and you are done with every one. In this process, the company has to try or set
p r i v a c y (Score:2)
I called Ebay Support and complained. They informed me that I could make my purchases semi-private, but it would disab
eBay's opt-out address is a house in Utah. (Score:3)
Ebay insists you opt-out by paper mail:
You must mail the Opt-Out Notice to eBay Inc., c/o National Registered Agents, Inc., 2778 W. Shady Bend Lane, Lehi, UT 84043.
This appears to be somebody's house. [google.com]
Re: (Score:3)
that would certainly be nice. The rights granted by any "consumer protection laws" in general should not be waivable. Not just class action suit. Because companies are known to be coercive about trying to force their customers to waive those rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Do you want to pay the $50 mil to the congresscritter or shall I?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but they risk nothing adding it everywhere. At best its an effective protection for company, at worst its just unenforceable and ignored. Only negative aspect is bad press in the internet, but since many other major players already did it, it will be pretty minor (and quickly forgotten).
Not really true (Score:2)
If a contract has an invalid clause, it can be ruled to be null and void in in its entirety, this is done PRECISELY to avoid what you said, try crap in your contract to see if you can get away with it and the judge will just award the case to the other side. It rarely goes this far because by that time a lawyer will advise the offending party to settle or risk getting their ass chewed out and usually companies listen.
Re: (Score:2)
If a contract has an invalid clause, it can be ruled to be null and void in in its entirety, this is done PRECISELY to avoid what you said, try crap in your contract to see if you can get away with it and the judge will just award the case to the other side. It rarely goes this far because by that time a lawyer will advise the offending party to settle or risk getting their ass chewed out and usually companies listen.;
Most contracts have a "severability clause" that says that if any clause in the contract is invalid, the rest of the contract stands without it. And guess what, eBay does too. That might not be valid everywhere, but it's standard in the USA.
Severability
With the exception of any of the provisions in Section 1 of this Agreement to Arbitrate ("Prohibition of Class and Representative Actions and Non-Individualized Relief"), if a court decides that any part of this Agreement to Arbitrate is invalid or unenforceable, the other parts of this Agreement to Arbitrate shall still apply. If a court decides that any of the provisions in Section 1 of this Agreement to Arbitrate ("Prohibition of Class and Representative Actions and Non-Individualized Relief") is invalid or unenforceable, then the entirety of this Agreement to Arbitrate shall be null and void. The remainder of the User Agreement and its Legal Disputes Section will continue to apply.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't invalidate the parent's point. Once you are in court and a judge has the ability to decide in favor of either party, if he thinks the contract is bogus he can decide at any time for the other side, ignoring anything else in the contract regardless of such a clause. Judges are supposed to be fair and impartial, but screw with one in his/her court and he/she is supposed to bring down the hammer.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically the SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction in the U.S. either. They rule on *individual* cases not all cases in perpetuity. Just because they made a ruling that "user contracts can block class-action suits" does not mean any of the lower-level judges have to abide by it.
For example I might sue Ebay in the state of Maryland, win a class-wide lawsuit for all state residents, and on appeal by Ebay the Supreme Court of Maryland upholds the lower court's decision..... in direct opposition to the U.S. Sup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can folks from other countries join in a US class action? If not, the point is moot.
Re:U$A legal system... (Score:4, Insightful)
is a freaking fat joke.
Not quite - jokes are funny.
This sort of shit is anything but.
Re: (Score:2)
What little is left of American mythology is reflected in the good intentions of those who participate but do not have the same agency, full force of legal standing nor full constitutional rights on the field of play. Arbitration is the legal free-waiving of your constitutional rights granted all American citizens to enter into another domain of statutory law in exchange for the privilege of performing a transaction in a business domain with agreed-in-advance inconsequential outcomes.
The one arbitration I'
Re: (Score:3)
I never used paypal. I used ebay once then canceled my account (after arguing with the rep that I didn't care if this messed up my once-only buyer reputation). I will never use ebay if I must also use paypal or some other faux bank or internet payment service. Also there's not much reason to use them anymore, they have ceased to become merely a go-between for non-commercial sellers to find customers but have become a marketplace primarily for commercial sellers. I'd rather head to Amazon or something li