Slashdot Mirror
New eBay EULA Prohibits Class Action Lawsuits
First time accepted submitter dangthill writes "On August 21, eBay updated its end-user agreement by adding a binding arbritration clause. By accepting the new agreement, users forfeit their right to join class action lawsuits and instead must submit to arbitration. However, users may opt-out by mailing eBay a signed notice. eBay joins Microsoft, Sony, Electronic Arts, Valve and other companies attempting to prevent class actions after the Supreme Court of the United States ruled such tactics valid."
Doesn't like every other EULA out there do this as well?
That sounds simple enough (opt out) until you realize that Ebay owns Paypal which was prosecuted by the U.S. DOJ for stealing customer funds.
Under "arbitration" Paypal/ebay had decided that the customers don't deserve to get their money back. Why? Because Paypal was losing money through buyer fraud (credit card chargebacks mostly) and they had a right to take, not just the money lost but ALL the buyers' money, and never return it. They also took money from sellers. (You can read the thousands of stories at paypalsucks.com)
Under the old rules Paypal/ebay was sued under a class-action lawsuit and forced to refund all the money to their customers. Under the new rules of forced arbitration & no lawsuits..... I guess you're out of luck. Paypal/ebay gets to take your money and keep it.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Here is the situation for Germans:
As long as you are a CONSUMER, i.e. a private buyer or seller, that clause is invalid, since law requires such an arbritration clause to be settled in an entirely separate contract, and to be signed in person OR digitally as defined in BGB and SigG (there is almost no way to satisfy those requirements for a company like ebay or Valve at the moment).
If you are a COMMERCIAL seller (indication: you must accept returns), then the clause is indeed binding.
There is NO customer protection AT ALL in EU regulations in that regard.
The situation WILL differ depending on your country.
the big problem is since the arbitration company is paid for by the company they will automatically be biased in favor of KEEPING THE CONTRACT.
so yes you could in theory sue over the arbitration not being fair but you agreed that the arbitration was BINDING.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Never leave money in Paypal's hands. Never. They WILL take it eventually. I always use CC transactions for buying and dump out any seller cash immediately.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
In August 2002, Craig Comb and two others filed a class action against PayPal in, Craig Comb, et al. v. PayPal, Inc.. They sued, alleging illegal misappropriation of customer accounts and detailed ghastly customer service experiences. Allegations included freezing deposited funds for up to 180 days until disputes were resolved by PayPal, and forcing customers to arbitrate their disputes under the American Arbitration Association's guidelines (a costly procedure). The court ruled against PayPal, stating that "the User Agreement and arbitration clause are substantively unconscionable under California law," noting their unjustifiable one-sidedness and explicit prohibition of class actions produces results that "shock the conscience" and indicate PayPal was "attempting to insulate itself contractually from any meaningful challenge to its alleged practices"