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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.