Slashdot Mirror
Paypal Slips 'No Class Action' Clause Into Policy Update
First time accepted submitter Guru80 writes "PayPal recently posted a new Policy Update which includes changes to the PayPal User Agreement. The update to the User Agreement is effective November 1, 2012 and contains several changes, including changes that affect how claims you and PayPal have against each other are resolved. You will, with limited exception, be required to submit claims you have against PayPal to binding and final arbitration, unless you opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate (Section 14.3) by December 1, 2012. Unless you opt out: (1) you will only be permitted to pursue claims against PayPal on an individual basis, not as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action or proceeding and (2) you will only be permitted to seek relief (including monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief) on an individual basis. With so many privacy policies changing to include such wording, does it really hold any weight if some obscure and buried opt-out option isn't checked?"
Class Action Lawsuits are often a big scam by the lawyers for them to make millions of dollars. While the "victims" (A mix of people who were actually a victim, and people who seem to meet the criteria but never really had a problem, but wants a few bucks) get their check for ten bucks.
The point is not to give victims money, but to force company to change its illegal practices. And as usual with companies, best incentive is money and lots of it.
Yes there are some good Class Actions out there, but most of them are just lawyers grabbing for money. After all is said and done. The company lost a lot of money, which could have gone to making things better earlier, and new jobs. And the real victims get joke change.
Well, if things reached the point where class action is needed, then obviously company did not make things better earlier.
Non-Class actions where each victim has a separate suite can be more profitable to the victim, and causes the company to change before such suits become more common.
Very funny. Almost nobody will sue separately, because bankrupting yourself on lawyer fees is not exactly rational thing to do when company cheated you out of $100.
The whole libertarian notion of mutual consent has become a complete farce. How could we have known 6 years ago when we bought this thing how much to pay for it, based on changes they would make far in the future, churned out by a team of lawyers so productive we'd never even have time to read it, even if we had the legal background to do so? Again, this is a legal sham.
It's interesting that PayPal can change the agreement unilaterally without a signed statement but the user must provide a signed statement to get out of their unilateral change.
So since the courts have already decided that corporations can unilaterally change these agreements does that same reasoning extend to users changing them unilaterally? So if I don't agree to section 1.4 I can simply rewrite it to suit me and send a notice to the company stating they can opt out of this change only in the next month in signed statement. Cool!
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.