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. 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.

                  1. 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?

                     1. 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.

                        1. eru · 1790124500 · focus · HN ↗

                           It's blindingly obviously false.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.