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.
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.
> 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.
There are protections but they are very weak. It is privatization of law. And companies love it. They get to pick the arbitration company and funnel thousands of cases thus giving them incentive to rule in their favor. On top of that, they can ask for a different arbitrator if they don't like the one the company assigns to the case.
Not surprisingly they always win. And if you don't like the outcome of the arbitration, you can't go to court, the arbitration is usually binding and final.
Arbitration is evil, because arbitrator more often than not rule in favor of the side paying his invoices; that is almost never the "little people."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
> 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.