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. afavour · 1790003230 · focus · HN ↗

            Arbitration is fine. Forced arbitration is not.

            1. 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.

               1. 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.

                  1. eru · 1790043206 · focus · HN ↗

                     How are they forcing anything?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.