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?"
You have the right to remain silent.
Could this possibly hold up in court? Isn't it our right to sue?
The supreme court ruled in April 2011 that not only can they require you to agree to not form a class action, but they can also require you to mediate all claims in forced binding arbitration (basically, a parallel court system bought and sold by corporations).
It was a 5-4 decision, and pretty much every agreement is now including this boilerplate legal text. They don't even HAVE to offer an opt-out. AT&T started it, followed up by all cell phone carriers, Sony, Microsoft, Ebay, etc etc etc.
The mere fact that the decision was split shows that even the justices don't know what rights there ought to be, and, unfortunately, the opinion of 5 of them means that corporations now have the right to collude against the consumer. After all, if everyone does it, the consumer has no choice.
Opt-Out Procedure. You can choose to reject this Agreement to Arbitrate ("opt out") by mailing us a written opt-out notice ("Opt-Out Notice"). For new PayPal users, the Opt-Out Notice must be postmarked no later than 30 Days after the date you accept the User Agreement for the first time. If you are already a current PayPal user and previously accepted the User Agreement prior to the introduction of this Agreement to Arbitrate, the Opt-Out Notice must be postmarked no later than December 1, 2012. You must mail the Opt-Out Notice to PayPal, Inc., Attn: Litigation Department, 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131. The Opt-Out Notice must state that you do not agree to this Agreement to Arbitrate and must include your name, address, phone number, and the email address(es) used to log in to the PayPal account(s) to which the opt-out applies. You must sign the Opt-Out Notice for it to be effective. This procedure is the only way you can opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate. If you opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate, all other parts of the User Agreement, including all other provisions of Section 14 (Disputes with PayPal), will continue to apply. Opting out of this Agreement to Arbitrate has no effect on any previous, other, or future arbitration agreements that you may have with us.
Yes, in both AT&T Mobility LLC v. Conception and CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood the court has reinforced that you may enter into a contract which gives away your right to a jury of your peers for civil matters. Only in cases of outright fraud, either in the creation of the agreement or in the arbitration process will the courts intervene.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You Sir have a real problem understanding the rationale for a class action. It is not there to make the victims milionaires. It is there as a way to inflict punitive damages to a corporation.
Without class actions it becomes almost impossible for a single guy to "fight" against the wrong doings of a corporation. Think about the tabacco industry and where we would be without class actions suits against them. Taking away this tool was one of the most brain dead decisions the justice system ever made.
Those who are against class action as a puntive tool against corporations are either idiots (genuine idiots) or bought off by corporations.
That doesn't make it right to ban them though.
Frankly I'm amazed the law in the US even allows them to do this. In the UK contracts cannot take away your legal rights, including the right to take legal action.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
Why do you think it takes 40 hours?
Because I've done it. How many times have you done it?
Learn to love Alaska