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. anyonecancode · 1790003773 · focus · HN ↗

            Doesn't arbitration avoid setting binding precedent? So even if the consumer wins a case, it's still overall better for the company.

            1. itopaloglu83 · 1790017114 · focus · HN ↗

               It’s also not public record either. So, when an individual wins a case, others in the similar situation are not notified or can be made aware of it.

               Make it a public record with other bindings like one ruling applies to all customers etc. then at least it’s a system with transparency.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.