Thread

1. enahs-sf · 1790000581 · focus · HN ↗

   So Uber ToS requires you to accept arbitration, then, when they are found responsible for damages, they still don’t want to pay. Seems pretty shitty for the consumer.

   1. itopaloglu83 · 1790001322 · focus · HN ↗

      Forced arbitration is creating a parallel legal system where certain companies are excluded from the consequences of their own actions. One might even say they’re becoming a protected class even.

      1. mchusma · 1790001660 · focus · HN ↗

         I have been on both sides of arbitration, winning and losing. It’s much better. Basically legislation done right (for civil matters).

         The only people who really win from traditional legislation are lawyers (and plaintiffs counsel who use the long expensive process to blackmail people - which is 90% of civil cases)

         1. bearjaws · 1790003935 · focus · HN ↗

            This is simply untrue, and honestly anyone who thinks our legal system does not provide justice needs to go travel the world to see how it really works for 80% of the global population.

            All we really need in the US is for arbitration to be optional, you can start with arbitration but if you believe on good merits you have a case and fail arbitration you should have the right to your day in court.

            Throwing out our whole legal system because sometimes the lawyers make the most money is reductionist at best.

            1. mgfist · 1790004888 · focus · HN ↗

               I don't think you really read the comment. They specifically mentioned it for civil matters

               1. alistairSH · 1790006280 · focus · HN ↗

                  That's 75%+ of all legal cases.

                  1. mgfist · 1790014411 · focus · HN ↗

                     and?
            2. BeetleB · 1790004913 · focus · HN ↗

               I believe what he's referring to is the cost of the legal system. Lawyers cost money, and if the other party has a lot more money, they can play all kinds of tactics to keep the case going (filing pointless motions, drowning your lawyer with huge amounts of documents, etc).

               With arbitration, the arbiter can put an end to those shenanigans really quickly, because they're not legally obligated to allow for that kind of crap.

               There are ups and downs to both systems. The benefits are there for parties of roughly equal size. The down side is there is no recourse if the arbiter makes a completely unfair judgement (e.g. because he thinks some law should not apply, etc).

               > All we really need in the US is for arbitration to be optional, you can start with arbitration but if you believe on good merits you have a case and fail arbitration you should have the right to your day in court.

               That just makes it the worst of both worlds! The whole point of arbitration is not to have a war of attrition, and to make the process efficient. Your solution doesn't take care of it. If I'm a business getting into a contract with another business, knowing that you can't outspend me in court is important, and lets both of us make a deal. If I know you still want the option to go to court, it's as if arbitration wasn't on the table.

               A better system would be to change the law such that for certain, predefined offenses, you can't waive your right to go through the legal system (e.g. sexual harassment).

               And of course, both parties should have say on who the arbiter is.

               Finally, you are talking to someone who's had experience with arbitration. You might want to tone things down in your rhetoric if you don't have your own experience to bring to the table. Things might sound fine in theory, but can be really, really bad in practice. As an example, on How I Built This, whenever he's interviewing a founder that went to court to enforce a patent they owned, he asks if it was worth it. The answer almost always is "It was a bad idea and we shouldn't have filed a case." This is coming from those who won in court.

            3. eru · 1790006773 · focus · HN ↗

               > This is simply untrue, and honestly anyone who thinks our legal system does not provide justice needs to go travel the world to see how it really works for 80% of the global population.

               That's weird. Two things can be true at once: arbitrary is better than the American legal system, and the American legal system is better than what 80% of the global population live under.

               > All we really need in the US is for arbitration to be optional, [...]

               It is! You explicitly have to opt in, that's why Uber needs have it in their ToS that you accept. They can't just force it on you, when you have no contractual relationship with them.

               1. bearjaws · 1790009479 · focus · HN ↗

                  > It is! You explicitly have to opt in, that's why Uber needs have it in their ToS that you accept.

                  "opt in" - as part of a 300 page TOS that you never read, that is modified 4 times annually and you are told to read all 300 pages again.

                  1. eru · 1790043386 · focus · HN ↗

                     If it's too long for you to read, yet alone understand, don't agree to it.

                     Just like when a Pull Request is way too long, the rational response is to close it and ask the author to make it more readable.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.