Paypal Slips 'No Class Action' Clause Into Policy Update 294
First time accepted submitter Guru80 writes "PayPal recently posted a new Policy Update which includes changes to the PayPal User Agreement. The update to the User Agreement is effective November 1, 2012 and contains several changes, including changes that affect how claims you and PayPal have against each other are resolved. You will, with limited exception, be required to submit claims you have against PayPal to binding and final arbitration, unless you opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate (Section 14.3) by December 1, 2012. Unless you opt out: (1) you will only be permitted to pursue claims against PayPal on an individual basis, not as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action or proceeding and (2) you will only be permitted to seek relief (including monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief) on an individual basis. With so many privacy policies changing to include such wording, does it really hold any weight if some obscure and buried opt-out option isn't checked?"
Furthering the notions EULAs are a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree to use our product.
Re:Furthering the notions EULAs are a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Snarky — adj , snarkier , snarkiest
informal unpleasant and scornful
They basically told off all the lawmakers of the world when they told them their laws don't apply to them.
I don't blame them on this one though because when the Internet was just starting up, most of the
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, being sued is effectively a financial death sentence. If you go to court, you come out bankrupt, whether you win or lose, unless you are a multimillionaire or a big company. When you consider this, EULAs become not only very understandable, but quite fair and proper. IMO, you should not be able to claim anything above refunding the purchase price unless you and the seller explicitly agreed otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
"When you consider this, EULAs become not only very understandable, but quite fair and proper."
Nonsense. People can be, and sometimes are, damaged far beyond just the face value of the transaction. There is nothing "fair" about removing your option to sue should you want to. You have a right to sue for damages, under normal circumstances (i.e., no agreement otherwise), and that right should not be taken away by default.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, being sued is effectively a financial death sentence.
Unless, as is frequently the case, the loser is required to pay attorney's fees. Also common is for individual (as opposed to corporate) plaintiff's attorneys to be paid solely on a contingency basis, which is to say that they get a portion of whatever the winnings are.
If you go to court, you come out bankrupt, whether you win or lose, unless you are a multimillionaire or a big company.
... like eBay / PayPal.
IMO, you should not be able to claim anything above refunding the purchase price unless you and the seller explicitly agreed otherwise.
You sell me a pill that you represent as providing complete treatment for a particular disease for $5000. Because your pill is in fact a placebo laced with cyanide, I instead of getting better end up in the hospital for
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, you shouldn't. If the item's flaw was not intentionally caused by the seller, your burned down house is not his responsibility. Consider the case of you forgetting a lit candle next to the dishwasher. Unattended candles sometimes tip over and burn down houses; that does not mean that the candle maker is in any way liable for such events. You were at fault when you left the dishwasher unattended.
What you should have done, is check reviews of the product before you bought it. Reputation is the best guaran
Re: (Score:2)
You can easily opt out of civilization. Just move to Somalia.
Re: (Score:2)
You can, however, vote for the upper management team, who have to tell you about different price points and available product packages.
But can you opt out. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Click the link in the summary and start reading. Or, look here if you want to be lazy. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect it will not hold up if tested (Score:2)
*IANAL* of course.
Not everything written in an agreement will hold up in court, if/when tested. For example, you can't write an agreement that expressly violates laws. In particular, the purpose of class action suits is exactly to allow group action where individual "wrongs" are not large enough to prosecute, but combined are sufficiently big. Trying to circumvent the law the way PayPal is doing is by itself probably a good ground for a class action suit (but got to wait until some actual harm is done, afai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an out of control supreme court handing new powers to corporations while taking the rights of individuals away.
I am not a lawyer either, but it sure seems like a due process violation to me.
Cue the people that say "due process" only applies to criminal trials.. I know.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's your answer. [wikipedia.org]
Disturbing trend (Score:3)
We need to start pressuring Congress to create a law stating that access to the courts is a fundamental right that cannot be denied as the terms of a contract.
Re:Disturbing trend (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole libertarian notion of mutual consent has become a complete farce. How could we have known 6 years ago when we bought this thing how much to pay for it, based on changes they would make far in the future, churned out by a team of lawyers so productive we'd never even have time to read it, even if we had the legal background to do so? Again, this is a legal sham.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You realize that Congress is wholly owned by the corporations that benefit from these arbitration clauses, right? Congress will be no help.
No, what we really need is people to extract vigilante justice from the executives of the corporations that have wronged them. A few dead CEOs and they'll be begging to allow us access to the courts.
Opt out? Oh yeah (Score:2)
Unless you opt out...
Best option IMHO is to opt out - as in, completely. As in, don't use Paypal, ever, for anything. There are alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no alternative if you want access to ebay. Nothing.
For many small sellers ebay is the only choice. The other auction sites are often too small to be significant.
I guess you could argue Amazon is in the hunt... but they're still small compared to ebay.
Re: (Score:2)
The other auction sites are often too small to be significant.
Well, not that I'm a huge online auction seller (just the odd unused widget cluttering up a closet now and then), but I've actually had a lot better luck with Craigslist and Amazon than I ever had with eBay, at least in the past 5 years or so. I sold my first item on eBay (I think) in 2001, and back then it was great. Now, dealing with the draconian fraud checks, no-pay bidders, offshore bidders, fraudulent complaints, 3-week wait for your money on Paypal (if you're lucky), cancelled bids at the last seco
Re: (Score:3)
In theory, Google Wallet, Moneybookers, Amazon Payments, others. In practice, most online stores support only Paypal.
(Heh. I recall making my first internet purchases around 2004-2005, and it was hell to even get Paypal support back then. Even stores that used it often required you to combine it with a credit card rather than using the account balance or debiting a bank account. Since the idea of Paypal was to avoid credit cards, that was kinda self-defeating.)
Re: (Score:2)
How about this... what are the alternatives for eBay? Oh wait...
"Slipped In?" Didn't you get the memo? (Score:4, Informative)
Not that I am defending it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. My copy of the notice arrived a day earlier, even. As with Valve's change [slashdot.org] and eBay's [slashdot.org], I thought they already had a no-CA clause anyway. All the Cool Kids, EULAs=sign away your first born and their virginity, class actions=free coupons for their service, et cetera.
So meh.
Binding Arbitraton is legalese for (Score:2)
Binding Arbitration is contract legalese for "meet our FOAF, the arbitrator...".
Think about it. Who is the arbitrator and who does he / she want to please / not piss off? Whose circle does he / she run in? Who is in a position to provide work / favors / introductions / etc. for him or her? Who does he or she identify with? The whole science of jury selection that lawyers apply them to so assiduously is based on the answer to those types of questions. And yet in "binding arbitration" you're being "paranoi
Comment removed (Score:3)
How to opt out (Score:5, Informative)
Collective Power vs Paypal (Score:2)
The second side is government. This is where regulation shines! Let's lobby Congress (and hell, local government)
But there *IS* that opt-out exception (Score:4, Insightful)
This is OLD news: the announcement from PayPal went out over a month ago, and I mailed a signed opt-out declaration back to Paypal myself more than four weeks ago.
More important is that fact that Paypal actually had the decency - ??? - to include the opt-out exception in the first place. Do you have any idea how pervasive these clauses are now? ALL the corporate kids are doing it. If it's a business that provides a service and uses one-to-many type contracts - service agreements, terms of service, etc. - to establish the service, then you can bet such a clause is imminent if not already present. Valve added one months ago, AT&T did the same before PayPal, etc. EVERY service agreement will have one by the end of this year.
It's all thanks to yet another corporate-friendly ruling last year from the same Supreme Court that gave us the Citizens United ruling and allowed the upcoming election cycle to be fully bought.
its all downhill from here (Score:2)
Gone are the days when companies invested in bettering their products and protecting their customers.
It's now cheaper to invest in lawyers and better contracts, at which point these companies can continue to provide sub-par products or customer service with no ill consequence.
PayPal .. I use them everyday with no complaints ... heck I even like the product ... but with this latest update it reads like they are preparing for armageddon ... virtually every change leaves the customer worse off than before ...
R
Re: (Score:2)
What choice do we have when they all gang up on us?
Companies love being in bed with each other.
You can actually opt out? Yay! (Score:3)
How is that even considered evil?
Hm, let's check how to do this...
At least you don't have to deliver your opt-out notice in person and wrestle a grizzly to get inside their offices.
Re:You can actually opt out? Yay! (Score:4, Funny)
At least you don't have to deliver your opt-out notice in person and wrestle a grizzly to get inside their offices.
That's a fantastic idea. We'll be back with another contract update soon.
Thanks,
PayPal legal department
Very difficult to opt-out too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it's legal nationwide. The Federal Arbitration Act overrides state laws prohibiting forced arbitration. See the case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.
Why are we still noting these? (Score:2)
The problem is not these EULAs, but the fact that regardless when you go to court, he with the more money wins.
Guess what? The one with the more money is pretty much always going to be paypal.
Why does anyone use PayPal? (Score:2)
They are a third party biller and as such, you can't dispute a billing error with your credit card company or bank. You must go to PayPal. That's why I stopped using them. All this other crap is just irrelevant silliness.
As for eBay, I bid/buy things from sellers that take other forms of payment. However, eBay makes it very hard for vendors to accept other forms of payment.
Who would of thunk that the selling of cute little Pez dispensers could lead to such evil.
.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they do what the did to me, Hey you used your credit card with us to buy some gas at a place near work instead of home and that is suspicious so we are locking your account. Can't dispute, can't close it. It is here forever locked down till your grandkids die (or paypal dies whichever comes first).
At least I didn't actually have any funds in it.
I hope they die soon.
There's an opt-out, but you need to move fast (Score:3)
Ultimate opt-out (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't use PayPal
AT&T vs. Concepcion (Score:2)
AT&T vs. Concepcion is what allowed companies to get away with this crap. The California Supreme Court rightly ruled that such clauses are "unconsionable" where there is disparate baragaining power between the two parties. Even before reading this case, I had the exact same train of logic. When I am negotiating with a peer, it is fine to agree to such clauses. When I have the upper hand, the court should not recognize such abusive clauses.
If the Supreme Court (led by Scalia in a 5-4 decision) won't sho
don't use paypal (Score:2)
You *do* have a choice (Score:2)
After suffering with all of Paypals issues and hearing horror stories from other PayPal customers, this was the final straw.
The best way to make them reform their practices isn't to whine and complain, they figure as long as you put up with it, then no worries. The best way to get them to change their practices is to vote with your feet and let them know why you're leaving.
I closed my PayPal account last week and if it makes getting stuff on EBay harder, so be it. It's on them if they insist on me using it
Xbox Live... (Score:3)
I noticed the same thing when I got a dashboard update. IMHO, the companies should be able to change their legal policies on the fly -- as long as they are willing to refund you for all of the equipment/software/etc you have purchased if you don't find it acceptable.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Funny)
You have the right to remain silent.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Class Action Lawsuits are often a big scam by the lawyers for them to make millions of dollars. While the "victims" (A mix of people who were actually a victim, and people who seem to meet the criteria but never really had a problem, but wants a few bucks) get their check for ten bucks.
Yes there are some good Class Actions out there, but most of them are just lawyers grabbing for money. After all is said and done. The company lost a lot of money, which could have gone to making things better earlier, an
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Class Action Lawsuits are often a big scam by the lawyers for them to make millions of dollars. While the "victims" (A mix of people who were actually a victim, and people who seem to meet the criteria but never really had a problem, but wants a few bucks) get their check for ten bucks.
The point is not to give victims money, but to force company to change its illegal practices. And as usual with companies, best incentive is money and lots of it.
Yes there are some good Class Actions out there, but most of them are just lawyers grabbing for money. After all is said and done. The company lost a lot of money, which could have gone to making things better earlier, and new jobs. And the real victims get joke change.
Well, if things reached the point where class action is needed, then obviously company did not make things better earlier.
Non-Class actions where each victim has a separate suite can be more profitable to the victim, and causes the company to change before such suits become more common.
Very funny. Almost nobody will sue separately, because bankrupting yourself on lawyer fees is not exactly rational thing to do when company cheated you out of $100.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a company cheated you out of $100 just go to small claims court, no lawyer needed and in most states no lawyers allowed. Of course filing fees and your time make small claims court mostly a waste for $100, but for say $500 it's an option.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hi! Welcome to the real world, where people don't have an extra 40 hours of time to pursue a $500 claim.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And... judgements in small claims court are so enforceable, right? Yes, if you're the company, as you have many ways to extract the judgement. If you're the individual? Good luck with that.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
If the company has any physical assets within the jurisdiction of the courts you can petition the court to demand payment and if they fail to respond the judge can and often will send the sheriff to seize those assets to satisfy the judgement. If the company has no presence in your location then the general solution is to turn it over to a collections agency, most companies will settle with a collections agency quickly as they don't want to have their creditors apprised of them not making good on obligations.
Re:Legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
And you'll do that for well under four hours of time?
Oh, not likely eh? Hm...
Seems like there's a case for class action suits after all...
Sure, they don't recover lots of resources for the plaintiff, but the costs are at least likely to cause the defendant to change their behavior. While I'd ideally like to have both come true, I'll opt for the latter if that is the best I can do.
When: ...the only reasonable approach is a class-action.
-an individual plaintiff is out less than several thousands+ of dollars and
-the defendant is a large company with lots of resources
-who refuses to negotiate in good faith to a resolution, and
-where lots of parties are impacted,
IMO, it's simply the only way the plaintiff parties will have any impact on the behavior of the defendant, and perhaps get some resources back. [Much less likely for the latter, but perhaps something.]
(And I'm someone who really has little care for the lawyers - but sometimes it's the only lever that works.)
-Greg
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, pretty much. E-mail it in. Hell you should see me buying this house, I've spent under 8 hours on it. Mostly I sign papers and e-mail the realtor things, I've gone out there twice (once for a 3 hour inspection, the longest I've had to deal with anyone by far!). Most of the stuff has been handled on my smart phone while I'm waiting for an Arby's sandwich or sitting on the light rail.
I got a loan, a housing purchase contract, homeowner's insurance, an inspection (which I eventually had to show up an
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a lawyer with some experience in conveyancing and real estate. I would not recommend doing the legal work yourself to buy a house. I would not do the legal work to buy my own house.
For most people the reason that I wouldn't recommend doing it themselves is that lawyers take time to handle conveyancing for a reason. Yes, some take too long - but even a good lawyer takes some time. Put simply, there are a lot of things that can go wrong when buying a house, and many of them are not obvious. A small defect
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Why do you think it takes 40 hours?
Because I've done it. How many times have you done it?
Re: (Score:2)
So I am curious, who would a company send to small claims court, if not one of their lawyers? It's not like they're going to send the CEO...
Re: (Score:2)
Generally a low level officer, aka store or regional manager for a retail outlet or the equivalent for other business types. The courts will generally be more favorable towards the corporation if the person representing them had some part in the dispute with the customer so they can offer some insight into what the corporation has done to avoid the case taking the courts time.
Re: (Score:3)
If they weren't allowed to send in a bar certified lawyer, they'd likely send in a paralegal, or other trained but not certified legal representative.
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK, you'll have to sue in the same state's/county small claims court.
Also - my experience with a big wig Co in small claims court - their attorneys did not appear, known to Court Clerk, they PHONED IN and settled!
But I never got the court/process cost refunded because the Co. closed their local branch.
Re: (Score:3)
Reality is the NY company will not show up, get a default judgement (IF you know the proper way to ask for it, otherwise the judge will say there is nothing he can do if the defendant doesn't show up) and nothing will happen. Maybe, if you are lucky they will pay an in state lawyer who will show up, and request continuances until you do not show up, the then default g
Re:Legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's true only if you have previously explicitly agreed to the company's choice of venue/forum in a contract. Otherwise, as a rule, IIRC, you can sue in any of A. the court nearest the plaintiff, B. the court nearest the defendant, or C. the court nearest where the injury occurred. And even when the company has a choice-of-forum clause in a contract, the judge has the right to declare it unenforceable if it would pose undue hardship to an individual plaintiff suing a large, multinational corporation or
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Class Action Lawsuits are often a big scam by the lawyers for them to make millions of dollars. While the "victims" (A mix of people who were actually a victim, and people who seem to meet the criteria but never really had a problem, but wants a few bucks) get their check for ten bucks.
Yes there are some good Class Actions out there, but most of them are just lawyers grabbing for money. After all is said and done. The company lost a lot of money, which could have gone to making things better earlier, and new jobs. And the real victims get joke change.
Non-Class actions where each victim has a separate suite can be more profitable to the victim, and causes the company to change before such suits become more common.
You Sir have a real problem understanding the rationale for a class action. It is not there to make the victims milionaires. It is there as a way to inflict punitive damages to a corporation.
Without class actions it becomes almost impossible for a single guy to "fight" against the wrong doings of a corporation. Think about the tabacco industry and where we would be without class actions suits against them. Taking away this tool was one of the most brain dead decisions the justice system ever made.
Those who are against class action as a puntive tool against corporations are either idiots (genuine idiots) or bought off by corporations.
Not quite so .... (Score:3)
I understand the reasoning behind class action suits perfectly well, and don't object to the theory in the least bit.
The problem I have with them is the fact that no matter how small a compensation is eventually awarded the "settlement class", the attorneys who brought the suit get a huge payout for themselves.
In normal court cases, there's a reasonable expectation of the wronged party receiving fair to excellent compensation when their case is won or settled. If the attorney felt he/she couldn't get you ve
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't make it right to ban them though.
Frankly I'm amazed the law in the US even allows them to do this. In the UK contracts cannot take away your legal rights, including the right to take legal action.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the US corporations. Are you really that amazed?
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL but I believe in the US a contract can't take away your legal rights either. But, anyone can put whatever they want in a contract. It doesn't get tested until it goes to court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legal? (Score:4, Informative)
I guess the first step is to call customer service, they give you the run around and basically laugh you off.
Second step is to ask for a manager who you never really get to speak to but maybe get to leave a voice mail or email to some generic mail box that in turn tells you the same thing but more cordially of course.
Now you either just give up because you've spent 10+ hrs time on hold and 2+ hrs on the phone trying to get transferred to the "Right Person(TM)" or you try to take it to the next step, Corporate!
They send you a canned message citing policy and some obscure paragraph in the 100 page agreement you clicked "Agree" to.
Even if you still believe you are right now you file a claim in small claims court. You get sent a library of congress sized package outlining why they believe they are right and you are wrong. You feel over whelmed and retain a lawyer to see the best course of action for a small fee of a couple grand. The lawyer says it will also cost an additional fee to read the mountain of paper sent and no guarantee but the outlook could be good!
2 months to the court date just to find out they need another court date because your TOS has changed (you did agree to the new terms last time you logged back in right?). All said and done 2 years later you may get an agreement of %50 of you original claim or settle out of court for %75 if you sign away all your future claim rights. Mean while the lawyer gets to trump up his fees and gets reimbursed 100% and you get $50 of your $100 claim.
So you think it's more profitable to sue individually? Please explain!
Re: (Score:2)
And that's if you win. If you don't you get to work your entire life to pay off your lawyer (no lawyer is going to take 100$ case on contingency). And if you're really unlucky you get to pay off the corporation's lawyers too.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that the lawyers often take advantage of claimants, but this is due to the victims not really understanding the effect of the suit.
Class action lawsuits are not really designed to compensate the victim in the first place, they just punish the perpetrator. They act as an almost private DoJ.. many of our laws are written in such a way that the police/DoJ/regulators have no authority to actually go after illegal acts, with the only redress being a lawsuit.... I suspect it was supposed to be part of the American 'fate in your own hands' mentality, but really it is a copout of the justice system since really they should be the ones enforcing the laws, not groups of citizens and a team of very hopeful lawyers.
They do however at least provide SOME counterbalance. Individual victims rarely have the resources to take on companies with dedicated legal teams. Many companies are trying to slip this kind of language into their agreements because unlike individual suits or the DoJ, class action lawsuits actually represent potential legal and economic consequences for poor behavior. With that tool taken away, their incentive to behave is significantly decreased.. esp in cases like paypal which have the weight to be a near monopoly in their domain.... and given the sketchy things paypal has been caught doing (such as simply keeping merchant's money for reasons they are not required to explain) I can see why they would want to shut this avenue down. Now all that will be left is criminal fraud or other violations.. which given how agreeable they have been at cutting money off from people the DoJ does not like but doesn't have a legal case against.. well.. I doubt they are going to be charged any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Could this possibly hold up in court? Isn't it our right to sue?
The supreme court ruled in April 2011 that not only can they require you to agree to not form a class action, but they can also require you to mediate all claims in forced binding arbitration (basically, a parallel court system bought and sold by corporations).
It was a 5-4 decision, and pretty much every agreement is now including this boilerplate legal text. They don't even HAVE to offer an opt-out. AT&T started it, followed up by all cell phone carriers, Sony, Microsoft, Ebay, etc etc etc.
The mere fact that the decision was split shows that even the justices don't know what rights there ought to be, and, unfortunately, the opinion of 5 of them means that corporations now have the right to collude against the consumer. After all, if everyone does it, the consumer has no choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Could this possibly hold up in court? Isn't it our right to sue?
The supreme court ruled in April 2011 that not only can they require you to agree to not form a class action, but they can also require you to mediate all claims in forced binding arbitration (basically, a parallel court system bought and sold by corporations).
It was a 5-4 decision, and pretty much every agreement is now including this boilerplate legal text. They don't even HAVE to offer an opt-out. AT&T started it, followed up by all cell phone carriers, Sony, Microsoft, Ebay, etc etc etc.
The mere fact that the decision was split shows that even the justices don't know what rights there ought to be, and, unfortunately, the opinion of 5 of them means that corporations now have the right to collude against the consumer. After all, if everyone does it, the consumer has no choice.
Let me guess... Paypal gets to choose the arbitrator?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if Paypal was the arbitrator.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, in both AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception and CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood the court has reinforced that you may enter into a contract which gives away your right to a jury of your peers for civil matters. Only in cases of outright fraud, either in the creation of the agreement or in the arbitration process will the courts intervene.
Re: (Score:2)
PayPal's time is passing anyway.
Bank Of America had a commercial last night proclaiming they have the same money-passing capabilities. There's also PopMoney [popmoney.com], which has just started up and is signing up banks left, right, and sidewise, so they can integrate the same functionality into their own services (and apparently it allows you to use it even w/o your bank participating).
I'm guessing that eventually, aside from eBay, PayPal will eventually become obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
Obsolete? Probably not, since they are just duplicating it's functionality. Out of business due to competition? Quite possibly, if PayPal's service cannot compete due to their terms.
On the other hand, do we think that these other entities are not also going to have to deal with the same problems that PayPal has? In what way would they deal with the same problems differently?
Re: (Score:2)
Well for one, as banks they're a bit more regulated...
But I do see your point as far as facing similar problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
PayPal's time is passing anyway.
Bank Of America had a commercial last night proclaiming they have the same money-passing capabilities. There's also PopMoney [popmoney.com], which has just started up and is signing up banks left, right, and sidewise, so they can integrate the same functionality into their own services (and apparently it allows you to use it even w/o your bank participating).
I'm guessing that eventually, aside from eBay, PayPal will eventually become obsolete.
Wont happen. Paypal works because of Ebay. If you use Ebay you must use Paypal. We had free effortless one click online payment systems in Europe for years, but we are still forced to using Paypal when we buy crap on Ebay.
Re:Legal? (Score:4, Informative)
Could this possibly hold up in court? Isn't it our right to sue?
This isn't legal in the various provinces/territories of Canada. Each has their own CPA(consumer protection act), but each act pretty much has a section that says you can not be forced to waive any legal right.
Re:Anyone find out how to opt out? (Score:5, Informative)
Opt-Out Procedure.
You can choose to reject this Agreement to Arbitrate ("opt out") by mailing us a written opt-out notice ("Opt-Out Notice"). For new PayPal users, the Opt-Out Notice must be postmarked no later than 30 Days after the date you accept the User Agreement for the first time. If you are already a current PayPal user and previously accepted the User Agreement prior to the introduction of this Agreement to Arbitrate, the Opt-Out Notice must be postmarked no later than December 1, 2012. You must mail the Opt-Out Notice to PayPal, Inc., Attn: Litigation Department, 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131.
The Opt-Out Notice must state that you do not agree to this Agreement to Arbitrate and must include your name, address, phone number, and the email address(es) used to log in to the PayPal account(s) to which the opt-out applies. You must sign the Opt-Out Notice for it to be effective. This procedure is the only way you can opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate. If you opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate, all other parts of the User Agreement, including all other provisions of Section 14 (Disputes with PayPal), will continue to apply. Opting out of this Agreement to Arbitrate has no effect on any previous, other, or future arbitration agreements that you may have with us.
Re:Anyone find out how to opt out? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's interesting that PayPal can change the agreement unilaterally without a signed statement but the user must provide a signed statement to get out of their unilateral change.
So since the courts have already decided that corporations can unilaterally change these agreements does that same reasoning extend to users changing them unilaterally? So if I don't agree to section 1.4 I can simply rewrite it to suit me and send a notice to the company stating they can opt out of this change only in the next month in signed statement. Cool!
Re: (Score:2)
Hey penix! Long time no see! (draeath on BU)
Unfortunately I don't think it works this way. Only if you have an army of lawyers and some rather large coffers.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a recipe to get you to screw it up and mark you opt-out as "invalid."
You should be able go to their web site and check a box. Anything else is shenanigans.
Re: (Score:2)
Curious how opting out is so difficult when opting in is effortless. This seems to me as bordering on self help [wikipedia.org]; and would be done better by sending out a form that required users to choose to give up their rights to a fair trial.
Re:Anyone find out how to opt out? (Score:5, Informative)
The Consumerist [consumerist.com] has links to template letters for eBay [consumerist.com] (by November 9) and PayPal [consumerist.com] (by Dec. 1). You need to fill out, print and mail them by the deadline to opt out. That's physical, actual paper, snail mail. No online forms, no emails, no calls.
More info and speculation on whether you'll be deemed a troublemaker, persona non grata, communist, vegetarian, etc., etc. if you opt-out. [consumerist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. An uphill battle with millions of lobbying dollars coming at you like flak towards a B52.
For laws that are good for people instead of artificial people there has to be a huge change in direction first.
Re: (Score:2)
It already did stand up. See AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement boils down to: "It's legal for an entity that hold massive amounts of power over you and your life to hold your needs for ransom and force you into a contract and for it to be binding."
People wonder why I think corporate rights should be subordinate to the rights of the individual. This is it. This might not be quite as serious as paypal has "competitors" (I disagree with this view... they hold the keys to one of the most important online marketplaces. There is no other way to gain access.