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. anyonecancode · 1790003773 · focus · HN ↗

            Doesn't arbitration avoid setting binding precedent? So even if the consumer wins a case, it's still overall better for the company.

            1. ThrustVectoring · 1790004039 · focus · HN ↗

               Companies like arbitration because unlike in a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff cannot compel discovery. Paying for an arbitrator is cheaper than going through discovery, especially if the discovery unearths facts materially damaging to the business.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.