alt Hacker News> The motion says the PlayStation Terms of Service put a binding arbitration agreement and a class action waiver in Section 14, and quotes the opt-out clause: ... > The clause requires a user who does not wish to be bound to notify Sony in writing within 30 days of accepting the agreement.
Binding arbitration on individuals should be illegal, full stop. The only use case is taking away people's rights as consumers and workers. Or dodging responsibility for deadly mistakes like the Disney+ incident.
This "opt out" mechanism is made to let Sony lawyers argue that accepting it was your choice so it can't be struck down as forced, even if 99% of users have no idea it exists, by design. Evil all the way down.
Replies
In my country, many laws state that the consumer (or "weak" part) can not sign away their rights, any contract with stipulations regarding that would void that clause. Feel like that should be the norm. Shouldn't be able to lose your consumer rights just by pressing a button, then the rights are worthless if everyone just have a huge TOS / EULA for any service covering their asses.
This is also one of those scenarios similar to subscription or membership cancellation where we should not allow accepting/signing up for something require using an entirely different method of communication to cancel/opt out.
Requiring written notification while the TOS being accepted entirely via digital means should be illegal.
Not to mention I think its insane that we allow companies to be able to dictate how citizens are allowed to utilize their legal system.
> taking away people's rights as [...] workers
I was recently reviewing a collective bargaining agreement (after being approached by a campaign to add my job category to an existing union at my employer), and was surprised to find that it forced arbitration for all employee disputes, with no opt out. It's not just employers that use binding arbitration to take away workers' rights.
I was once a juror during a very vindictive two day civil trial against what was essentially a hobby business. I left with a newfound respect for binding arbitration.
My feelings are different where there's grave power imbalances like you describe, but there's very little about dealing with a large corporations that is just or dignified these days.
Being able to restrict yourself is exactly what the right to enter contracts is.
Just like being able to commit yourself to showing up to work everyday restricts your freedom. But it's essential to getting the other party to give up something in consideration.
Of course, you can argue that consumers should be treated like legal babies that can't enter into agreements.
Users should not be held to terms they were unaware of. Companies should be required to collect digital signatures and initials for every unusual term.
> Binding arbitration on individuals should be illegal, full stop. The only use case is taking away people's rights as consumers and workers. Or dodging responsibility for deadly mistakes like the Disney+ incident.
Hijacking to link to another website that has good information about how binding arbitration is stacked against the consumer/employee:
And in any circumstances, the ludicrous notion of adding a contract after a purchase is made is unconscionable.
You buy a car. You pay cash. It’s yours. Afterward, the seller says “oh, and you have to agree to these terms before you’re allowed to start it.” Proper response: fuck off, I already paid you. It’s the same here. If you want to apply extra terms and conditions, negotiate them before the conclusion of the purchase. Anything afterward should be utterly laughed out of court.
> deadly mistakes like the Disney+ incident
Well, that led me down a wild rabbithole.
it is, just not in the US
Access to the legal system is a fundamental right. It should not be possible to sign it away, any more than you can sign away your right to life or liberty.
Binding arbitration when there is a significant power imbalance should be illegal. If it's between two similarly abled parties (e.g. two individuals), it should be fine.
I studied a bit of this in a university course. Between a lot of organizations, binding arbitration is more efficient (i.e. cheaper) than the legal system. If your company wants to make a deal with another company, binding arbitration often makes sense.
Ditto for 2 individuals: If they had to go through the legal system, it could end up being a war of attrition - the one who has more money to pay lawyers wins. Binding arbitration is a way to "level" that field.
The down side (at least in many, if not all, states) is that you have little recourse if the arbiter is totally unfair. With the legal system, you can appeal, etc.
But between an individual and a large company - no way!
In my last job, the (very big) company automatically enrolls new employees into a binding arbitration agreement, but they do give a timeline to opt out. I was surprised I had that option. I even paid a lawyer to review the docs. He said "Yep, you can (and should) opt out. I'm surprised they even gave you that option."