The motions and countersuits were disclosed, plaintiff's law firm asked their client for a six-figure retainer, client couldn't afford it and the issue went away. In most cases, it doesn't even advance that far. They'll file for extraneous motions, launch counter-discovery: anything to rack up the legal bills. If you don't have six+ figures of liquidity lying around, however, and your opponent does-and they know it-you're toast. You have a chance at setting precedent, get to make a PR splash and generally troll and embarass your opponent. If you have cash, public suits are great. Have you participated in a lawsuit or arbitration proceeding? I have, from both corporate and individual sides, and the one thing I can say is I'm glad I've never been named in a lawsuit. That is (and I'm taking that comment with appropriate grain of salt) it does sound like companies add the opt out provision specifically to help these clauses stand up in court, so you should just always opt out. I was searching because I was curious, and I thought this Reddit comment has some good context. What kind of contract law allows one party to change substantive terms in the contract at any time? I'd be very curious to know if that (specifically a change to forced arbitration after initial sign up) has ever been tested in court. > Unfortunately, interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act by the US Supreme Court in recent decades have made it very clear that what they're doing is legal nationwide under US law, with or without an opportunity to opt out.ĭo you have sources for that? The reason I ask is because I am aware that forced arbitration clauses have been upheld at the point of purchase, but changing Ts and Cs after the fact, where many people may not even read them, seems like it should be a gross violation. And even that wouldn't help usage that doesn't fall within the scope of the applicable consumer protection law, such as a product or service which you primarily use in a professional context. For example, many European countries or certain Canadian provinces like Quebec. The only real way to get out from this right now, beyond leveraging any opt-out procedures you have the energy to follow to the letter, is to move to places outside the US where consumer protection laws make this illegal in the consumer context. But Roku seems to have crafted their terms to close that workaround. Sometimes there is a way to fight back by having a single law firm file a lot of individual arbitrations based on similar facts and circumstances, yielding an approximation of a class action lawsuit that's more annoying and potentially more expensive for the company. And it's gotten so widespread that I don't think there's a good fix short of changing the law - it's not like enough alternative vendors exist for many of the products and services that now require arbitration, so one can't just pick alternatives. Unfortunately, interpretations of the Federal Arbitration Act by the US Supreme Court in recent decades have made it very clear that what they're doing is legal nationwide under US law, with or without an opportunity to opt out.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |