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.

Comments

Google's motto used to be

[samriel]

"Don't be evil"

Re:Google's motto used to be

[Lead Butthead]

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."

Re:Google's motto used to be

[loonycyborg]

I don't see why it shouldn't be left as an option, but forcing it to be the only option is unreasonable.

Re:Google's motto used to be

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"To take advantage of our 'Don't Be Evil' clause, please click the 'I agree to binding arbitration' checkbox."

Its a symptom of a response to a problem

[Crashmarik]

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.

Re:Its a symptom of a response to a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Class actions are about punishing the companies. No matter if lawyers get millions or victims, as long as the company lost more than it gained it was a win for the current and future victims by helping to curb future wrongdoings. It was annoying enough that companies successfully battled to get these binding arbitration claims which are even worse for the victims.

I don't understand why people find that so hard to understand. Crashmarik, why do you think class actions are so wrong? Why do you prefer the method where it costs the victim $50 in court costs for the chance of getting a $5 over-billing fixed (but only for a month) and where the company only pays out $5 to that single person compared to the case where the victim pays nothing, gets a $2 discount for doing nothing, and the company pays millions?

ISPs, mobile, and media services companies constantly incorrectly bill people. That doesn't happen in any other industry. When was the last time your water bill suddenly contained a new water coloring service that you never ordered, never noticed, but apparently has been being auto-payed by you for the last 5 months? I just had a mobile ISP start charging me out of the blue from when I canceled service with them 4 years ago. These companies are completely corrupt or completely mismanaged and the lawsuits against them should be strong enough to put them out of business. But no, too many people like you believe class actions are immoral because I won't get thousands from them, so instead I get nothing because I can't travel to their state for their sham of an arbitration service that relies on their cases to exist. And they rake in almost a million a year of easy money for services they're not even providing.

Crashmarik, do you really think the now 50 companies that are going to start scamming you will cost you less than the threat of a class action handing over their heads? You won't be able to take all of them to arbitration yet you didn't have to do anything for the class actions. Don't think 50 companies are trying to scam you? You'll never know because arbitration proceeding are kept private. You'll never learn that the last 2 month supply of milk had lead in it. The people who do learn will be court ordered to silence. Just look at the recent vitamins scam. That would have never been made public and the fake vitamins never pulled from the stores if opening their seal meant you agreed to a arbitration agreement.

I prefer arbitration, lawsuits suck. Google pays

[raymorris]

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.

Binding arbitration is anti-consumer

[StandardCell]

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.

Re:Binding arbitration is anti-consumer

[Anonymous Coward]

> By the way, Google and Comcast force their employees to sign binding arbitration agreements.

I know and speak regularly with a guy who works as a programmer for Google. Google doesn't require its programmers to sign such agreements.

Re:I prefer arbitration, lawsuits suck. Google pay

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

How can this be any more than an offer?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:How can this be any more than an offer?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That WOULD be stupid, which is that is false

[raymorris]

> 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...

Re: That WOULD be stupid, which is that is false

[Anonymous Coward]

Irrelevant. Arbitrators are also a pool of professionals. With cable companies in particular and their slimy behavior, an arbitrator may deal with dozens or hundreds of cases. One who consistently rules against a constant 'customer' is not going to be employable. This is why arbitrations constantly (well over 90 percent) favor corporate interests.

What? You think quiet words about what companies think of arbitrators don't get exchanged? You think people don't want to please their employers? You must be new to crony capitalism.

Answers to those questions

[raymorris]

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.

Since having to pay a huge fine...

[mha]

...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.

Assigned by American Arbitration Association.

[raymorris]

The moderator is assigned by the American Arbitration Association. Google's terms specify that the moderator be in the consumer's local area.