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. bearjaws · 1790003935 · focus · HN ↗

            This is simply untrue, and honestly anyone who thinks our legal system does not provide justice needs to go travel the world to see how it really works for 80% of the global population.

            All we really need in the US is for arbitration to be optional, you can start with arbitration but if you believe on good merits you have a case and fail arbitration you should have the right to your day in court.

            Throwing out our whole legal system because sometimes the lawyers make the most money is reductionist at best.

            1. mgfist · 1790004888 · focus · HN ↗

               I don't think you really read the comment. They specifically mentioned it for civil matters

               1. alistairSH · 1790006280 · focus · HN ↗

                  That's 75%+ of all legal cases.

                  1. mgfist · 1790014411 · focus · HN ↗

                     and?

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.