Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Courts Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New eBay EULA Prohibits Class Action Lawsuits

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Plague (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Moof ( 859402 ) on Thursday August 23, 2012 @11:10AM (#41095895)

    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:Plague (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 23, 2012 @11:16AM (#41095989)

    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.)

  • by cpu6502 ( 1960974 ) on Thursday August 23, 2012 @11:22AM (#41096107)

    >>>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:so? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by waspleg ( 316038 ) on Thursday August 23, 2012 @12:15PM (#41097001) Journal

    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.

Space is to place as eternity is to time. -- Joseph Joubert