Signing Up With Amazon, Wal-Mart, Or Uber Forfeits Your Right To Sue Them (cnn.com) 58
Long-time Slashdot reader DogDude shared this article from CNN:
Tucked into the sign-up process for many popular e-commerce sites and apps are dense terms-of-service agreements that legal experts say are changing the nature of consumer transactions, creating a veil of secrecy around how these companies function. The small print in these documents requires all signatories to agree to binding arbitration and to clauses that ban class actions. Just by signing up for these services, consumers give up their rights to sue companies like Amazon, Uber and Walmart before a jury of their peers, agreeing instead to undertake a private process overseen by a paid arbitrator...
The proliferation of apps and e-commerce means that such clauses now cover millions of everyday commercial transactions, from buying groceries to getting to the airport... Consumers are "losing access to the courthouse," said Imre Szalai, a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans.
The proliferation of apps and e-commerce means that such clauses now cover millions of everyday commercial transactions, from buying groceries to getting to the airport... Consumers are "losing access to the courthouse," said Imre Szalai, a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans.
Can you sign away your firstborn? (Score:2)
Is everything in a shrinkwrap license binding, including signing away your access to courts?
Re: Can you sign away your firstborn? (Score:1)
Logic [can] goes a long way...
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily true. Read ALL of the fine print. Many of these contracts have terms that last forever, even after you have ended the relationship, including the arbitration requirement. And in the US at least ALL of those provisions are enforceable against you. Nothing is enforceable (by a court) against the company.
Re: (Score:3)
Besides, a "one-sided" contract is legally no contract at all.
Partly correct. Technically, a contract is an agreement that is negotiated by all parties involved. If you can't negotiate, then it's not a "real" contract.
These "take it or leave it" contracts are known as "contracts of adhesion". When they are disputed, courts are generally inclined to side with the disputant, rather than the corporation that wrote the damned thing. But there are no guarantees. So while it might not be a "contract" according to old common contr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can right them done, does not mean they will stick. You have a constitutional right to access a court of law to resolve your disputes, it is hard to sign that away because you can take it back at any time. This would breach the contract but then to resolve that breach, you are back in court. It just costs more to get there but in a class action of course it depends upon how much those lawyers can invest. It is a bluff clause that only really get upheld in a somewhat corrupt court but once it gets past
Re: (Score:2)
You have a constitutional right to access a court of law to resolve your disputes, it is hard to sign that away because you can take it back at any time.
You can't be more wrong. The Supreme Court has declared that binding arbitration clauses are entirely legal, even including class action lawsuits. So in the US you can (and will) sign away your right for a fair court trial if you want to: get a mobile phone, a mortgage or even buy a fridge.
if you can forfeit it... (Score:1)
If you can forfeit it, it's a privilege not a right.
News in 1974 (Score:3, Informative)
This was news for nerds in 1974. Consumer arbitration agreements were a hot topic back then. Slashdot covered them extensively in the context of cell phone service in the 1990s.
Although the Federal Arbitration Act was passed in 1925, it was in 1983 that SCOTUS ruled Section 2 of the Act demonstrated "declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements" and courts began upholding most of them. ( Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Construction Co.).
Most things you sign up for include arbitration by an arbitrator named by the me the American Arbitration Association, often with each party having the right to veto an selection of arbitrator.
Anyway, not news, not for the last few decades.
No it doesn't. (Score:2)
Contracts cannot override law! Otherwise they wouls *be* law.
You can still sue them, just loke before. What are they gonna do? Make demands? To be ignored. Sue you?? To be laughed out of the court room by the judge?
In any case, your lawsuit will proceed, no matter if theirs does.
Judges don't look favorably upon contracts that want to override their laws and power and tell them how to judge.
OK, unless they are corporate puppet judges in a corporate legal system. But then, you can still leave to a place not u
Re: (Score:1)
the whole point is that the companies try to get away from being even considered to have broken the law. it all just goes into possible private settlement.
which is kind of ***king stupid if you accuse them of having you know broken the law against you by knowingly selling you illegal pirated products for example from nintendo, products you cannot legally sell forth again on ebay, just as examples.
Re: (Score:3)
You must be in Canada.
In the US, those clauses have been upheld.
Re:No it doesn't. (Score:4, Informative)
You must be in Canada.
In the US, those clauses have been upheld.
Or the other CA [justia.com]. California's courts have concluded that if a binding arbitration clause has the effect of preventing injunctive relief (which basically includes anything that a class action lawsuit could reasonably cover), the binding arbitration clause is invalid.
Re: (Score:3)
Those California cases have not yet been through a full federal court review. With the present federal courts, the California rule's survival is not guaranteed should some case proceed to the federal level.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's purpose is to make sure law firms profit tens of millions while you get a free coupon for fries at your next visit.
That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
Your TDS is showing.
You are a brainless Trump flunkie. QED.
Why? The Democratic House actually passed a law that would have prohibited binding arbitration clauses in regular contracts (H.R. 1423). The law died in the Senate, because of Moscow Mitch.
Roberts ran Congress in 1925? (Score:2)
The Federal Arbitration Act was passed in 1925
It was in 1983 that SCOTUS ruled Section 2 of the Act demonstrated "declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements" and courts began upholding most of them. ( Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Construction Co.).
For the math-challenged, that's 20 and 78 years before Roberts became a judge of any kind.
Break the contract? (Score:4, Interesting)
So I sign a contract saying I won't sue. Does that actually stop me from suing? Sure, I'd be in breach of contract but that's a separate matter with it's own penalties, the lawsuit itself should still be able to proceed yes? Curious to know how that would play out.
What are they going to do if I breach that EULA? Terminate my Amazon account? if I'm suing them I probably don't want to keep it anyway.
And what if I want to sue because I think they're in breach of contract and therefor the arbitration clause is already invalid? Seems like a competent lawyer should be able to find an angle to bypass this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but...
They will spin up and sue you for breaking the contract, use that as a defense and, just like the courts didn't ignore your suit, you will be there with your lawyer, paying by the hour, to fight them.
Good luck, I hope you have a pile of money.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to invalidate the arbitration clause is to directly attack the clause itself, or in the alternative, to invalidate the contract entirely such that the clause effectively never comes into force.
Breaching a contract does not actually make it invalid. On the contrary, the validity of the contract is often a prerequisite for having a breach be actionable, for example in the case of liquidated damages where the contract itself spells out penalties for breach.
In theory, as long as the arbitration cl
OK, serious question here... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's been arguments for years considering tort reform for things like malpractice. Usually breathing these words brings the lawyers out of the woodwork and they get nowhere as they pull out all the stops fighting the proposed law from ever seeing the light of day.
These forced arbitration laws are essentially a private form of tort reform - eliminates class actions, arbitration stacked against plaintiff, limited payouts, etc.
Why are the lawyers taking this sitting down? Sure, a case pops up now and then challenging forced arbitration, but we should be seeing a much more active campaign to end the practice of companies having customers sign away their right to sue. Lawyers like money, right?
Re: (Score:1)
You can't sign away your right to sue. You still use lawyers in arbitration.
Re: (Score:2)
The first part of your point is wrong in the US. You can give up your right to sue. That's what it's all about, and it's perfectly legal which is why everybody does it. It's practically impossible to find a product or service, other than government-related things, where you're not forced into arbitration for any conflict.
The second part of your point is very true, and is likely why the lawyers as a whole have accepted it. In fact, it's better for them because they are going to get paid regardless. You have
Re: (Score:1)
The first part of your point is wrong in the US. You can give up your right to sue.
Can this be true? Has the USA gone mad? Has it finally turned into a libertarian dystopia? How can even a possibility to give up your fundamental rights be constitutional? What is next? The possibility to give up your right to freedom and sell yourself to chattel slavery?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the loss to the lawyer is far outweighed by the gain to the company foisting these clauses onto their users, and said companies would be the ones keeping those lawyers on the payroll.
Re: (Score:2)
There's been arguments for years considering tort reform for things like malpractice. Usually breathing these words brings the lawyers out of the woodwork and they get nowhere as they pull out all the stops fighting the proposed law from ever seeing the light of day.
These forced arbitration laws are essentially a private form of tort reform - eliminates class actions, arbitration stacked against plaintiff, limited payouts, etc.
Why are the lawyers taking this sitting down? Sure, a case pops up now and then challenging forced arbitration, but we should be seeing a much more active campaign to end the practice of companies having customers sign away their right to sue. Lawyers like money, right?
Because lawyers won't get out of their chair unless they are motivated to do so by a sum of money.
Some history of agreeing to software licensing (Score:2)
2010: https://boingboing.net/2010/04... [boingboing.net]
2012: https://www.cracked.com/articl... [cracked.com]
2016: https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
I'd guess without an opt out checkbox in some of these agreements, there is a lot of money to be made (by lawyers) in some ground-breaking lawsuits.
I usually just hand software I've purchased (well I don't buy software anymore so there is that) to someone else to open and install
so I'm probably not subject to any of this nonsense anyway.
Re: Some history of agreeing to software licensing (Score:1)
Itâ(TM)s not even that tricky. All of the standard load at work - Adobe, MS, Oracle, etc. - Iâ(TM)m subject to my workplace rules but not to their licenses.
Nothing new (Score:2)
Lots of companies have done that forever.
Just one example, many transport companies in many countries do it, if you buy a single train/bus ticket you can sue for compensation for missed trains, delays etc but a weekly or monthly ticket gives you a cheaper price by resigning your rights for compensation.
It's a win-win, if you don't like it pay the higher price.
Why not, it's legal (Score:2)
make it invalid (Score:1)
Cross out the arbitration clause and initial it. If the other party doesn't like it they can terminate the entire agreement. I doubt Wal-Mart will ready the marked up PDFs you send them.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the agreement is on a website and no-one posts in agreements, I expect they would either read it and bin it or just bin the altered copy.
Re: (Score:1)
Right. and because both parties couldn't agree to terms the court is supposed to rule on which parts of the contract are valid or if the entire contract is invalid.
Essentially I'm saying that if you make it clear in writing that you do not consent to forced arbitration, and make it part of the agreement, you should have some standing in a court to dispute it. I am neither a lawyer or a psychic, so I don't know if it would be successful. But I think it's an interesting thought experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't agree to arbitration, the sale is off. No soup for you. That's the way it works.
Re: (Score:1)
without a contract it becomes a regular sale under universal commercial code. or there is no sale at all. if I gave them a reasonable opportunity to decline or amend further that is satisfactory and they can choose to withdraw from the transaction or continue with it as amended.
East Texas will save us (Score:1)
Infuriating as the patent trolls are, when the companies abuse the justice system, only the most evil lawyers have the wherewithal to fight them. In the end, the lawyers make money from both sides, and the consumers lose.
Re: (Score:2)
East Texas, the Mecca for the patent trolls, have the best judges money can buy. Patent shakedown mafia is not the only one with money. Ambulance Chasers Association of America, and other assorted personal injury lawyers will buy some ruling in favor of consumers there.
Infuriating as the patent trolls are, when the companies abuse the justice system, only the most evil lawyers have the wherewithal to fight them. In the end, the lawyers make money from both sides, and the consumers lose.
Was there an article about patents I missed?
It doesn't. (Score:2)
I'm in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
That statement does not match with your .sig.
what about 3rd party's say you uber hit's an other (Score:2)
what about 3rd party's say your uber hit's an other car and then they use this EULA to make you the one that takes the blame?
Re: (Score:2)
under my EULA you now own me $200 for pointing that out.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points to mod this comment up, as the comment referred to really irritated me due to the want'on us'e of apost'rophe's.
self driving cars laws will need to be place befor (Score:2)
self driving cars laws will need to be place before an EULA makes the passenger the one faceing the fines / tickets if the software messes up. Hell if things go really bad they can be facing hardtime with only an PD to help them unless they pay out pocket for an good criminal defense lawyer
Consumers are "losing access ... (Score:1)
.. to the courthouse," ...
Consumers are waiving their rights to the courthouse.
This isn't news.... (Score:3)
Most large companies in practically every sector from banking to phone providers have been putting these clauses in their contracts for decades. I'm all for rendering the practice illegal but why the focus on "popular e-commerce sites and apps".
priorities ? (Score:2)
Uh, a contract can disclaim a law? I don't think that's how it works. At least here in Europe, where I got some basic legal education, there is a clear order of legal texts. Lower laws cannot break higher laws, only detail them. And contracts cannot break laws. If the law says that I have a right to X, then no contract I sign can take away that right because it's guaranteed by a higher priority legal text.
Can't believe the US legal system would be so different that you can sign away rights you have.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, here in Australia I understand that you can NOT waive your rights.
I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.