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. xrd · 1790003712 · focus · HN ↗

            I always thought arbitration was forcing weaker parties out of the fairer legal system. Now I wonder if that's a planted idea by the legal industry? It made sense to me that arbitration was paid for by the company, and there would be incentives for the judge to side with their long term meal ticket. But perhaps all that is wrong? I really wish you could elaborate on why it is better, I'm very interested in challenging my assumptions here.

            1. lostdog · 1790006220 · focus · HN ↗

               Arbitration is secret. There's no way to determine if it's fair.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.