Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Accepting credit cards is difficult. Accepting Paypal (or Amazon payments) is very easy.
The question becomes, what do we do to fix this so that consumers are truly protected?"
Congresss needs to step in and clarify. Either just git rid of the class action (and replace it with what?) or confirm that all consumers have a class action right, no matter the language of the contract.
Even more far out, would be arbitration reform. Instead of arbitrators being hired by the companies that have a stake in the outcome, make the companies pay into a pool for each instance of arbitration they are called to. The arbitrator for a specific dispute would be pulled randomly from a pool of trained arbitrators. The could be industry specific pools, or just train the arbitrators in contract law. Of course if I were such an arbitrator, I'd throw out any contract over N pages. (Unless both parties had actual input into the contract)
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Exactly. The idea behind a class action is that if a company is wronging a lot of people in a way that's too small to be worth going after by any one person, it can be punished by them as a group. The problem is two-fold. First, they're frequently allowed to pay in goods/services (especially discounts) that will make them money rather than cost them money. Second, they settle for a fraction of the harm they caused, leaving no reason not to do it again. Those two things need to be fixed- the penalty needs to be made cash only, and the minimum penalty applied needs to be the total harm done. Preferably total harm done plus a puntitive fine
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
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.
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.
Which will hold for only so long, corporations are going to be applying this to everything. Eventually you will be unable to buy from anywhere or use anything without being forced to give up your rights to the courts.
According to the Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the term to ban class actions in a EULA or other non-negotiated agreement is actually valid. As such the term is getting added into every EULA during the re-writing process since the benefits are overwhelming (basically preventing a normal consumer from every suing you for fault since they could never recover enough to make it worth while) and the costs are nothing.
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
Jesus was a liberal
(basically preventing a normal consumer from every suing you for fault since they could never recover enough to make it worth while)
In the UK, where there isn't really such a thing as a class action, what is done is that the plaintiffs get together, select a case, or a few cases which are good examples of the group and then everybody supports those people to sue. Once they win, the others can point to the first win as evidence in their own cases and so are pretty much guaranteed a cheap win. This means companies are almost forced to settle and certainly end up with huge costs if they don't.
Why doesn't the same thing work in the US?
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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.
(IANAL). The UK uses the English rule loser-pays costs system. Thus, if you're sure that you're going to win, you don't need to worry too much about attorneys' fees. If you have a case that will clearly result in a judgement of £10,000 and will cost £50,000 per side to litigate, then the defendant is going to end up out £110,000, and you'll end up getting £10,000.
The US, unlike almost every other country in the world, uses the American rule, where each party pays their own attorneys' fees regardless of outcome. Thus, if you have a case that will clearly result in a judgement of $10,000 and will cost $50,000 per side to litigate, the defendant will end up paying $60,000, but you'll end up losing $40,000. To make matters more difficult, this means that a defendant under threat of numerous small suits can intentionally make the litigation as expensive as possible for both sides: while it makes it more expensive for them, it makes it so that the plaintiffs will end up losing money on the case even if successful.
Small claims can help somewhat, as it doesn't allow attorneys, but even so, there are costs involved for the plaintiff. Thus, if a company cheats a few hundred thousand people out of $50 each, none of those people have any recourse in the courts that won't cost them much more than they'll gain.