SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
chromas
on Friday November 02 2018, @04:16PM
from the click-here-to-not-lose-your-rights dept.
from the click-here-to-not-lose-your-rights dept.
If you have a Pixel 3 phone, you should be aware that you can opt out of the built-in binding arbitration agreement. Boing Boing has a screen shot of the new Pixel phone's binding arbitration opt-out form. Pixel phone owners, insofar as they actually own the phone, are given a chance to avoid Google's attempt to get them to sign away your right to sue even if the company hurts, cheats, or kills them.
Earlier on SN: Google Avoids Talking About Android at Pixel 3 Event.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The New Pixel Phone Has a Bizarre, Obscure "opt-out" Arbitration Waiver
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 26 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Everything is worth precisely as much as a belch, the difference being
that a belch is more satisfying.
-- Ingmar Bergman
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 02 2018, @09:07PM (2 children)
Exactly. The problem is one of informed consent and fair execution. Most consumers are unaware they did it, so first reform is a separate one-page acknowledgement, in large type, that expressly states that they are agreeing to arbitration. Then arbitration is explained. It could be a form letter provided by government, listed as addendum A in the contract, with simple links provided for additional consumer information :)
That, and the corruption is so fucking apparent. In most cases we need to get rid of the corruption, and the process itself is fine.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday November 02 2018, @09:14PM (1 child)
No, not agreeing up front. You only need any kind of adjudication when one side has failed to hold their end of the deal. That means we're already out of the bounds of any kind of up front expectations. There can be no blind arbitration without law and justice.
Information asymmetry is only part the equation. Bargaining asymmetry is another. So is picking when to cut and run from a deal based on the ability to depend on arbitration, which may be super asymmetric. The only time it makes any sense is when the particular dispute can be agreed is beneath needing a judge and jury, or the potential costs are very small.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Friday November 02 2018, @09:31PM
Yes, which is why I saw arbitration is eliminated for all products and services under $5,000. Which is incidentally, the limit of small claims court. That is not onerous either, and the costs are usually less than $100 to file for up to $5,000 in relief. Also eliminated for all financial products (loans, cds, minor investments, small crowd-sourcing) under $100,000.
Leave arbitration to those who want it, namely, accredited and super-accredited investors that the government recognizes as not needing protection. In those cases, and those investments, the investors *cannot* go to the SEC and complain. They will be told, "You're so rich that you asked to be treated special, and here are the consequences... *hangs up phone*". Those investors are left with the courts (civil case) or arbitration (privately decided civil case), and denied all formal protections for consumers (AFAIK).
Like you said, only the smallest issues, but also the very large ones. As for the really small issues? Arbitration will be more expensive than simply filling out a form, paying $75, and then explaining it to a judge. It doesn't make sense to provide arbitration for cases less than $500. No lawyers will show up :)
On another note, as part of the reforms, make class action lawsuits easier for the people, not harder.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.