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. bickfordb · 1790002350 · focus · HN ↗

            Arbitration can be more efficient, but both parties should have an option to choose it, a direct settlement or public court. The average consumer is denied the choice by using these everyday services that have non-negotiable contracts.

            1. PunchyHamster · 1790002614 · focus · HN ↗

               None of the parties should have option to choose it, it should be within govt. justice system, just have arbitration court

               1. nickff · 1790004517 · focus · HN ↗

                  Many places have a ‘small claims court’, which is very similar to arbitration. The issue is that class action lawsuits are very profitable for plaintiff lawyers working on contingency, so those are the cases that get brought.

                  1. pixl97 · 1790005051 · focus · HN ↗

                     They are very profitable when they win, what is the win rate of class action cases. Also what is the win rate of chosen class action cases versus all potential class action cases.

                     Measurement matters here.

                     1. nickff · 1790009882 · focus · HN ↗

                        The 'tipping point' for class actions is usually the class certification, not a final judgement by the court. Class actions are absurdly expensive for defendants, largely due to the scope of discovery, and they also cause problems for public companies (for reporting and other reasons), so public companies almost always settle them after the class is certified. On the other side, these settlements often don't offer much benefit to the class, because the plaintiff counsel take a massive fee off the top, pay off the lead plaintiff, and don't have much incentive to do anything for the remainder of the class.

                        1. pixl97 · 1790011088 · focus · HN ↗

                           Eh, class action lawsuits are more about altering the large companies behavior in bulk because the individual harm to any plaintiff is rather small and nearly impossible to justify the expense and complexity of the suit. The plaintiff themselves would not profit off of it.

                           1. nickff · 1790011324 · focus · HN ↗

                              You're describing the 'private attorney general' theory/idea, which I'd believe if class-action lawyers were taking less remunerative cases that offered more public benefit.

                              <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Private_attorney_general" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Private_attorney_general

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.