Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Terms of Service Invalidates Your Right To Sue

Posted by timothy on from the but-you-agreed-didn't-you dept.

New submitter ebombme writes "Netflix has decided to go the route of AT&T and others by trying to take away the rights of their users to form class action lawsuits against them. A copy of the new terms of use states 'These Terms of Use provide that all disputes between you and Netflix will be resolved by BINDING ARBITRATION. YOU AGREE TO GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO GO TO COURT to assert or defend your rights under this contract (except for matters that may be taken to small claims court). Your rights will be determined by a NEUTRAL ARBITRATOR and NOT a judge or jury and your claims cannot be brought as a class action. Please review the Arbitration Agreement below for the details regarding your agreement to arbitrate any disputes with Netflix.'"

4 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Not legal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Next question.

  2. Re:yep by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right, because the law explicitly makes arbitration legal. (See "Federal Arbitration Act"). The courts don't want to have to deal with actually providing justice (or even injustice) to pissants like us; better to fob us off on a "neutral" arbitrator hired by the other party who can deal out injustice without bothering the judges.

  3. Re:yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So... is anyone going to provide a citation instead of just shouting that the other person is wrong?

  4. Re:yep by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're forgetting that the decision on an arbitrator has to be agreed by both parties. If you feel you're getting the short end of the stick, simply don't agree to him and another one needs to be found.

    How, as a consumer, am I to know anything about the arbitrator? I don't have a legal department to research these things. And in any case, all arbitrator are similarly situated -- they all hear a lot of cases where the plaintiff is J. Random Consumer who they'll never see again, and a few massive companies who they'll see again and again and again.

    Your assumption that every arbitrator in the country will be corrupt is the reason why there is no progress and the courts are jammed.

    It's not that every arbitrator in the country is corrupt. It's that the process is such that the arbitrator's interests naturally favor the corporation. If an arbitrator gets the reputation of being too consumer-friendly, the corporations (who can research these things) will stop agreeing to him and he's out of a job. If an arbitrator gets the reputation of always agreeing with the corporation, most consumers won't even know about it, and those few who do find out aren't significant enough to matter.

    In any case, deciding disputes is the civil courts' JOB. If they can't do it, why the heck do we even have them?