Thread

Uber arbitration award over Emily Normandin-Parker’s death

159 points · 192 comments · dataflow

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)
    afavour · 1790003230 · focus · HN ↗
    Arbitration is fine. Forced arbitration is not.
    eru · 1790006936 · focus · HN ↗
    They can't force arbitration on you.
    If eg Uber runs you over or bumps your car, you have no contractual relationship with them, and thus they can't force arbitration on you.
    That's why they have to write the arbitrary clause into their ToS that they need you to agree on. No forced arbitration.
    Of course, if you don't agree with the ToS, Uber is also not forced to transport you. But that's fair enough.
    account42 · 1790008725 · focus · HN ↗
    No, that's not fair enough. It's a very one sided contract where one party has all the power.
    eru · 1790043326 · focus · HN ↗
    See <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(law)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(law)
    If you don't like the contract, don't enter it.
    account42 · 1790062643 · focus · HN ↗
    That attitude is exactly how we got into the current situation where every company only offers unreasonably one-sided contracts so no you can't actually get a better contract by not accepting the shitty one. As a society we don't have to tolerate that and can set different rules for large corporations dealing with individuals.
    eru · 1790069291 · focus · HN ↗
    > That attitude is exactly how we got into the current situation where every company only offers unreasonably one-sided contracts so no you can't actually get a better contract by not accepting the shitty one.
    Sounds like a great opportunity to start a new company that offers slightly less bad contracts and take all their customers.
    afavour · 1790008725 · focus · HN ↗
    > Of course, if you don't agree with the ToS, Uber is also not forced to transport you. But that's fair enough.
    IMO, no it is not. It should not be legal to force arbitration via ToS.
    eru · 1790043206 · focus · HN ↗
    How are they forcing anything?
    dataflow · 1790008814 · focus · HN ↗
    > Of course, if you don't agree with the ToS, Uber is also not forced to transport you. But that's fair enough.
    Letting entities that hold the vast majority of the leverage and financial/legal/political power in a contract opt out of the legal system and pick an alternative with a financial incentive to side with them is perhaps "fair" to you, but a lot of people would disagree on the "enough" part.
    eru · 1790043151 · focus · HN ↗
    Huh? You can only hold leverage in a contract, if the other guys agree to enter into the contract.
    If the contract party A proposes gives too much advantage to party A for party B's liking, party B can make up their mind before they enter the contract.
    Btw, if Uber is so powerful as you say, why do they bother with the tinkering around the margin and only force arbitration? Surely the bigger deal would be to jack up prices to thousand dollar per ride?
    dataflow · 1790086805 · focus · HN ↗
    If what I'm saying isn't already blindingly obvious then more HN comments aren't going to change anything, sorry.
    eru · 1790124500 · focus · HN ↗
    It's blindingly obviously false.
    lux-lux-lux · 1790009179 · focus · HN ↗
    Have you ever ridden an Uber? Then yes, they absolutely can. You agreed to it when you installed the app.
    eru · 1790043286 · focus · HN ↗
    > You agreed to it when you installed the app.
    How's that being forced? (Though I would assume that in most jurisdictions you actually have to book a car and ride in it, to be bound by the more wide-ranging clauses in the ToS.)
    itopaloglu83 · 1790016918 · focus · HN ↗
    Disney+ case showed us that companies are using arbitration to erode basic rights, even in unrelated matters.
    It’s one thing to say the legal system is expensive and slow, let’s resolve our issues by a third party, and another thing to where there’s no further action you can take and the arbitration authority is being paid by the company.
    Its simply becoming a parallel legal system for a different class.
    eru · 1790043192 · focus · HN ↗
    > Disney+ case showed us that companies are using arbitration to erode basic rights, even in unrelated matters.
    Could you please tell me more? I am not aware of that case.
    I assume the affected people can't just cancel their subscription?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.