Slashdot Mirror
Like Comcast, Google Fiber Now Forces Customers Into Arbitration (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In Google Fiber's updated terms, the company now says they "require the use of binding arbitration to resolve disputes rather than jury trials or class actions." Ars Technica reports: "While the clause allows cases in small claims court, it otherwise forces customers to waive the right to bring legal actions against the ISP. Arbitration must be sought on an individual basis, as the clause also prevents class arbitration. The previous terms of service did not have the binding arbitration clause, though they did limit Google Fiber's liability to the amount customers pay to use the services." The good news: customers can opt out of the change. The bad news: they have 30 days. "According to the terms, the new agreement kicks in within 30 days of accepting the new language. Customers can, however, during that time period use this online form (you must be logged in to your Fiber account to access it) to opt out of this change and future changes to the arbitration agreement," writes The Consumerist. Ars Technica reports that Google told them customers have 60 days to opt out. "An e-mail sent to customers on June 14 says the new terms of service will apply unless they call to cancel service within 30 days. If customers do nothing, they will have "accepted" the terms at that 30-day mark. After that, customers who remain with Google Fiber have another 30 days to opt out of the new terms using the online form," writes Ars.
"Don't be evil"
The legal system is too expensive and difficult to use for just about everyone. Toss in the fact that the outcomes are potentially unbounded and class actions are more often than not. (Lawyers get millions, victims get coupons).
It just points out the need to simplify civil disputes, and reduce the costs. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to go about your life.
Bein' kept down by the man!
Courts are a PITA. I don't mind at all having arbitration clauses. Google's is quite a bit better than Comcast's - Google gives up the right to sue you, too, subjecting themselves to binding arbitration. Also, Google pays the fees. (Except claims over $75,000 have a fee up to $200 in some states).
Obviously this doesn't effect your main recourse, filing complaints with the FCC and FTC, or canceling the service.
Love that these folks came up with this and have it running in the U.S.:
http://arstechnica.com/informa...
Two-thirds of customers who challenge credit card fraud, improper fees or late charges lose in binding arbitration. All of this arose when the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act was extended to consumers and employees in 1985.
By the way, Google and Comcast force their employees to sign binding arbitration agreements. Now you know who you're dealing with.
My understanding is that some states forbid binding arbitration since people have an absolute right to a jury trial.
Seriously, what happens if both parties cannot agree on an arbitrator?
> Courts are a PITA. I don't mind at all having arbitration clauses.
Agreements with binding arbitration clauses are strictly more limiting than those without. Without such clauses, both parties can either agree to take their grievance to an arbiter and agree that his decision is binding, or take their grievances before a court. With such clauses, both parties can *only* use an arbiter and are *barred* from taking their grievance before a court.
Given that the results of arbitration proceedings are almost always kept secret, that arbitration proceedings are almost always one-on-one, and that a decision reached by arbitration panels has no bearing whatsoever on any future decisions reached by any other panel (including the one that reached the decision), this *greatly* weakens our ability to publicise, punish, and (eventually) legally bar systematic corporate misbehavior.
Help a clueless foreigner understand this. Is there no consumer protection in the USA? If that kind of clause were enforceable, wouldn't that be the privatization of law? Settling out of court as the only option? That can't be it. Surely you can, if you so choose, still sue if the other side violates the contract, right?
I vaguely wonder how this legally impacts my original reason for hating Google Fiber's terms of service...
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/google-neutrality/
You left out a MAJOR point.... The arbitrator is picked by the company. No arbitrator is going to bite the hand that feeds them.
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.
"Courts are a PITA" is exactly what all large corporations say, in large part because it is sometimes possible for a customer to win in a court case.
In binding arbitration, however, the customer almost never wins, because it is tremendously easier for the corporation to "control the variables" in binding arbitration than it is in a court case. In addition, since the results of arbitrations are almost always kept secret and as such cannot establish precedent, on the rare occasion that the corporation loses, they don't have to let it have any effect on their future conduct!
Binding arbitration has literally no benefit over legal proceedings for actual humans. Only large organizations can possibly benefit. They're trying to skirt around the legal system for a reason.
Courts are a PITA. I don't mind at all having arbitration clauses.
There are various problems with arbitration clauses in cases like this, but the biggest one is that most arbitrations are not public record. That's a BIG problem for combating systemic abuses, since future plaintiffs won't be able to determine what wrongdoing may have come up in previous actions.
There are problems with courts and class action suits, too, of course. (And in many settlements for court cases, some details are private too -- though at least a record of an action will often exist in public documents.) But forcing people to settle claims "behind closed doors" is just a recipe for abuse of power in companies. It completely blows up the basic standards for legal accountability.
You left out a MAJOR point.... The arbitrator is picked by the company. No arbitrator is going to bite the hand that feeds them.
This is an excellent point. If Google gets to pick the arbitrator, do I have veto power? Can I ask the arbitrator for references? Can I ask the arbitrator for a list of all the people they ruled against in the last two years, so I can pick say three of them and ask if they felt they got a fair shake? I think all of these things are fair asks.
We have no reason to assume that most of those people were right regarding anything.
If you want to fix this, let the customer choose the arbiter, then it reverses the bad incentive.
True, by choosing arbitration when you enter a contract, you are limiting certain things. Importantly, you're limiting the expense and the time that a dispute can eat up.
The last significant contract I did, it took nearly a year to negotiate the exact words of the contract, mostly because the other guy is a PITA. That cost tens of thousands of dollars. I darn sure wouldn't want to fight a law suit about it with that guy. Winning would probably cost me $100,000 and three years.
Yes, it's certainly possible for both parties to agree to arbitration after a dispute arises, but that's unlikely in the situations and with the kind of people you worry about. If the other guy is pissed off and determined to beat you no matter what, he's not going to agree to arbitration - unless he already agreed to it beforehand, when feelings were friendly.
Arbitration only means if they cant come to a settlement then it heads to court. its just a cost and time saver for everyone as most cases will probably not need to go any further. they do the same thing at the government level for things like disability clames etc.
If I send an email to Google regarding their fiber service, and they don't challenge my proposed changes to our contract in 30 days, are they bound by whatever I put in the email?
> The arbitrator is picked by the company.
Uhm, no. The arbitrator is assigned by the American Arbitration Association. https://www.adr.org/
Nobody would ever use arbitration if the other party got to choose the arbitrator.
If you'd like to see the terms rather than making wild guesses, you can read them here:
https://fiber.google.com/legal...
The arbitrator is assigned by the American Arbitration Association. You can read all the details at https://www.adr.org/ . Basically, AAA assigns at arbitrator in your geographical area (not Google's) with knowledge of the subject matter, and an administrator to handle the initial paperwork such as listing the points on which both parties agree. A different arbitrator can be assigned by agreement of both parties - neither party gets to unilaterally choose who the arbitrator will be.
How can an individual sign away a basic right like that? Has this kind of thing been held up in court?
Forever and always, my odd little friend.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
First I don't oppose arbitration ( BTW often the arbnitrators are ex-judges ) but I think some safeguards have to be added. The way it is now is too abusive. Maybe states could require licensing of arbitrators.
As for Google, I don't particularly like it. but every other company does it. In particular there are people willing to put severed fingers in their chili so they can sue and companies do need a protection from that. If google didn't do it, then a judge would force them to if the shareholders decided to sue.
What am I missing here? If the customer gets the same service, whether or not they agree to the new terms, how can the new terms justify a contract? Is it true that there has to be something in it for both parties for a contract to be legal?
Who cares! Yes, obviously, this is crap. But these arbitration clauses are becoming OMNIPRESENT. The faster this happens, the faster we can fix it through judicial or legislative means. Right now the belief seems to be that arbitration clauses are present to prevent malicious legal nonsense, but it is becoming more and more clear that they are a way to get away with bad behavior without the courts being able to help. I seriously doubt that, long term, the legal system will be ok with a set of private laws that exist solely to fuck customers. So sure, dive in, go ahead, make everything have it. It just hastens the inevitable point when this kind of shit hits a tipping point of nonsense.
In the first case, corporations don't get to choose which laws are enforced. In the USA, arbitration can be used to avoid a civil court; not so in most other countries. In the second case, arbitration is binding on whom? Since it is a civil contract, arbitration must be enforced by the courts; which benefits corporations. A smart customer will hire an arbiter and demand Google attend his arbitration panel.
Isn't judicial recourse a right that cannot be taken away by random contracts? This is the same as signing a contract saying you will be killed and you waive your family's rights to sue me. Null and void.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Essentially, what happens here is to take a key power out of the government's hand. I don't know a single government on the planet that would allow you to tell it to keep its nose out of your business.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...is objectively a punishment making a statement such as yours ("I have no idea how anyone could say it's about punishing the company.") takes an extraordinary level of cognitive dissonance. You are quite amazing.
It's more than a mockery of "don't be evil." Rather than just going to the Arbitration Rules for general disputes, I bet they're going to the arbitration rules of the Communications Industry. Industries literally write their own rules now for disputes with customers.
Real lawyers write in C++
In what Universe does one party in a dispute get to choose an arbitrator? You're just flat out wrong here.
> What's the incentive to NOT opt out?
Google is bound by the arbitration, and they have to pay the American Arbitration Association to cover the costs. If you think Google Fiber owes you $400, you can have the case heard by a professional arbitrator at no cost to you.
Without an arbitration clause, figure about $5,000 in legal fees and court costs just to get started.
> arbitration is binding on whom?
It's binding on both parties.
> A smart customer will hire an arbiter
Neither side hires one. They are assigned by the American Arbitration Association. Google's terms are that the association should choose an arbitrator in the consumer's local area.
The moderator is assigned by the American Arbitration Association. Google's terms specify that the moderator be in the consumer's local area.
If I had the power to change things, this is what I would do:
1. Arbitration takes away our 7th amendment rights to access the courts for low to middle income persons. Arbitration should be optional, not mandatory, and only used when both parties agree. Encourage the use of small claims court system over arbitration.
2. Lawyers should not be able to take court cases on contingency. They should be required to take payment up-front. This will reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits filed in the court system.
3. We need to strengthen consumer protection agencies in this country. The Consumer Protection Financial Bureau is a good start, but we have a lot of toothless agencies which should either be reformed or replaced by agencies having the power to sanction businesses.
Yes... i know we can opt out of arbitration by NOT signing a contract or agreement and/or not signing up for the service.
But, an agreement/contract has to be willfully engaged by both parties. In many cases, there may only be 1,2, or 3 ISPs which all suck. A consumer may not really have a choice if they want (need) Internet access. For me, Internet access is not a choice since I do business and it is a requirement of my business. But, these agreements are bad business for me because it takes away my right to use the court system and get a fair trial for my grievances against them. Yeah, I know arbitration lowers costs but if rarely results in an actual fix. A court ruling against a company forces them to play fair instead of maximizing their shittiness since it max performs their profit. A local car dealership wants you to sign an arbitration clause in an agreement that forces you to arbitrate using someone in a city that is 3 hrs away (and probably on their payroll in some way).
My solution so far has been not to sign service contracts (e.g. getting repair work done at the dealership). I also scratch out the parts of the agreement that I don't like (e.g. I scratch out the arbitration clause).
What is our legal alternative? (lawyers)
I would love to have countercontracts which forbid arbitration.