Amazon Payment Adds "No Class Action" Language To Terms of Service

wbr1 writes "I just received an email from Amazon Payments, the Amazon competitor to PayPal, stating among other things, that they were changing and simplifying their policies. It should be no surprise then, that similar to what PayPal and many others have already done, they have added language removing the right to class action lawsuits. See specifically section 11.3 (edited for brevity): '1.3 Disputes. Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your visit to the Site or Seller Central or to products or services sold or distributed by us or through the Site or Seller Central (including without limitation the Service) will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify. The Federal Arbitration Act and federal arbitration law apply to this agreement... ... You and we each agree that any dispute resolution proceedings will be conducted only on an individual basis and not in a class, consolidated, or representative action. If for any reason a claim proceeds in court rather than in arbitration you and we each waive any right to a jury trial. You and we also both agree that you or we may bring suit in court to enjoin infringement or other misuse of intellectual property rights.' This is becoming more and more common, and while the end user normally doesn't make out well in a class-action suit, large settlements do provide a punishment and deterrent to corporations that abuse their power. The question becomes, what do we do to fix this so that consumers are truly protected?"

Comments

Re:Most class actions are a scam

[Hatta]

So, propose something better instead of simply removing one of the few ways we have to hold a corporation's feet to the fire. If arbitration was better at punishing corporations when they do wrong, they wouldn't be moving to it in large numbers.

Re:These terms should be considered unconscionable

[surmak]

Without class actions, how can a company be punished for, for example, cheating a million people out of $10 each?

I suppose that the government could step in, but a class action has the advantage of providing a market-based solution to the problem. A greedy law firm can determine that the payoff will be profitable, and then invest their own resources to punish the offender. The fear of being on the receiving end of a suit helps keep big corporations in line, and this explains why they hate them so much.

Re:These terms should be considered unconscionable

[Anonymous Coward]

But they do nothing for the consumer. It's a market solution that benefits lawyers and encourages them to pursue frivolous class actions.

They pay-out to the consumer is a $3 off coupon and a pat on the back.

There should be financial punishments for corporations who harm vast swaths of consumers, but I'm not sure class action lawsuits were the solution.

Re:These terms should be considered unconscionable

[scot4875]

But they do nothing for the consumer.

Sure they do. The threat of a class action suit acts as a deterrent for potential abuse. Without the deterrent, corporations are more likely to try to engage in unethical or illegal behavior if they think it'll make them a buck.

--Jeremy

Re:Pre-dispute binding arbitration should be banne

[pavon]

What if I do like the contract, but they break it? Then I go to court to resolve the matter. Oh, wait I can't, I have to go to arbitration, where the result is already determined against me.

If a contract isn't enforceable by law than it isn't a contract anymore. It is a bundle of official looking lies with no weight. Such a thing is unconscionable. It violates the very foundation of market based societies of law, and is tantamount to fraud.