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.'"

8 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Not irrelevant at all by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is more motivation than getting paid back in a lawsuit; there is also the goal of causing a company to change its behavior. And the threat of a lawsuit tends to mitigate their bad behavior preemptively; it's obviously not guaranteed to work, but it probably does help.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Re:Not legal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Next question.

    In the EU for sure.
    In the US who the hell knows. And to find out it would cost you millions. So you bend 90 degrees and take it up like a man.

  3. Re:Irrelevant for the normal consumer by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The values i a Netflix subscription is just too small for a normal person to engage in a lawsuit.

    What if Netflix leaked your private information, including credit card, and decided to hide the fact for months until you are the victim of identity theft that takes years of aggravation to clean up? Is that enough value to seek a legal remedy?

  4. Re:USA, by Spiked_Three · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Mod him up. I live here (the US) and I agree. The US is becoming a joke to me too.

    Another fine example, DirecTV has over 30,000 consumer complaints AND had an injunction filed against them in 2009 for deceptive business practices. And they have changed absolutely nothing in their business model. They still lie, bait and switch, refuse to allow you to cancel, then claim on TV they have the highest customer satisfaction rating.

    Life in the US is about dodging ripoffs from large corporations, co-sponsored by the government that encourages it. There used to be a certain amount of good faith expected in business, that is gone completely. Investors demand more profit, and don't care who gets ripped off to get it. That is the entire problem. The founders of capitalism warned if the rich got too powerful the system would fail - and it is, but the rich will not let you know that.

    Look at it another way (if it is not obvious); You are being required to give up the Constitution in order to watch a movie in a way that is convenient to you. Are you living in the United States of america or some warlord run African tribe? Sure we have choice in America, paper or plastic? George Carlin said it in the 90s. Other than our grocery bags, little else is left up to us (In Seattle, plastic grocery bags become illegal starting in June :| )

    --
    slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
  5. Re:yep by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Arbitration doesn't work like this (at least where I come from). There are 3 arbitrators, one yours, one from them and one neutral, as in, agreed by both parties. So the "neutral" should be neutral. And even if it is only one, it should still be agreed by both.

    You might go to an arbitrator once or twice in your lifetime. These companies deal with them all the time. That means every arbitrator has no incentive to keep you happy and every incentive to keep the other side -- their repeat customers -- happy.

    Unlike most people, I do believe that most claims should be decided like this. Decisions would be speedier, there would be no legal system to abuse because you have more money and power than the common joe...

    Yes, decisions would be speedier all right.

    Most people don't know what arbitration is... That's why they complain. It is actually a common clause in contracts between giant companies - and believe me, none of them want to lose money.

    Giant companies can use arbitration effectively because they're already similarly situated.

  6. Re:yep by errandum · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    Your assumption that every arbitrator in the country will be corrupt is the reason why there is no progress and the courts are jammed. The man is not always out to get you. You can get a fair judgment.

  7. Re:IAAL and it IS unenforceable by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just out of curiosity, what's your take of the wording of:

    These Terms of Use provide that all disputes between you and Netflix will be resolved by BINDING ARBITRATION.

    Does this not also mean Netflix can't sue its customers in court either?

  8. Re:yep by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tossing $20 and 1789 into an inflation calculator (which only goes back to 1800) comes out to about $250 in 2010. Most people's annual Netflix subscriptions fall below that, and one could argue that it's the monthly fee which has to fall below $250 since you can cancel the service any month if you're unhappy with it.