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. skybrian · 1790004812 · focus · HN ↗

         In this case, that doesn't seem to be what happened? The judge ruled against them.

         1. itopaloglu83 · 1790009841 · focus · HN ↗

            In general, most issues are being redirected to forced arbitration and not enough people can or effort to sue these companies, so in actual effect, they’re immune one might say.

            1. skybrian · 1790013043 · focus · HN ↗

               From the consumer's point of view, which is easier and gets better results, the arbitration or a regular lawsuit?

               Seems like that's an empirical question.

               1. itopaloglu83 · 1790016523 · focus · HN ↗

                  Unjust justice delivered fast is not justice, it’s systematic injustice.

                  Companies are not doing this for faster problem resolution, they’re doing this to shield themselves from the consequences of their own actions.

                  1. skybrian · 1790021223 · focus · HN ↗

                     Maybe, but in this case, it seems like they got a favorable ruling, too?

                     1. itopaloglu83 · 1790030795 · focus · HN ↗

                        Yes, of course. I just don’t like “forced” arbitration, it erodes some fundamental principles in my opinion.

                        The Uber case is extremely sad, people lost their lives and nothing brings them back, regardless of which justice system we use.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.