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."
Does anybody else remember when kangaroo courts were something we associated with the commies?
Doesn't like every other EULA out there do this as well?
I imagine it's already appearing on many more transitory agreements. Corporations now have an out, thanks to Scalia and his buddies, that protects them from the possibility that they'll ever get hit with a lawsuit big enough to actually threaten them. It puts each and every person that they fuck over out on their own and arbitration biases everything in their favor.
I await the inclusion of anti-class action language in virtually all individual-facing contracts. It's virtually guaranteed to happen as there's no downside whatsoever for the corporations.
You might be right about only the lawyers winning but the consumer has already lost if it gets to class action. In a system with forced arbitration the Corporation never loses and never has an incentive to fix a problem, at least with a class-action suit the corporation stands some small chance of losing and may attempt to fix the problem.
Yes, but part of the point is the scummy company loses. Sometimes tort law isn't about recouping losses, but preventing unethical behavior in the first place. Frequently the classes of wronged people don't suffer much, but LOTS of people suffer. To me, it seems like a valid course for redress of grievances, and you shouldn't be legally allowed to sign away your rights.
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
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"