The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Thank you for posting, Cow451!

It certainly is hard to understand how these companies are demonstrating good faith, when they appear to be deliberately closing off class action lawsuits. I mean, it makes me wonder what they are afraid of? There would be no problem if consumers were getting exactly what they think they are getting, and wouldn't expect to actually PREVAIL in a class action lawsuit. So I have to agree with Cow that IMO it doesn't look good.

Does anyone else want to comment, or perhaps tell us what justification there might be for forcing arbitration, rather than simply offering it? I'm thinking that maybe these companies know that consumers won't WANT it, and that gives me a bad feeling, too...

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I saw this story a week ago, and had it in the back of my mind to add it to this thread:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/08/business/la-fi-lazarus-20120608

Quoting from the link:

....[Microsoft] remains one of the most dominant players in the tech world, empowering a wide range of activities and interactions. But if you have a problem with the company, don't even think about joining a class-action lawsuit.

As far as Microsoft is concerned, that's the one thing you can't do.

The company has announced it's changing many of its customer contracts to prohibit consumers from banding together in addressing grievances that might not be large enough to merit an independent lawsuit.

"When a customer in the United States has a dispute about a Microsoft product or service, many of our new user agreements will require that, if we can't informally resolve the dispute, the customer bring the claim in small claims court or arbitration, but not as part of a class-action lawsuit," Microsoft's assistant general counsel, Tim Fielden, said in a blog post....

But Congress has something in the pipeline that will address the growing problem of less and less recourse for consumers:

....The Dodd-Frank Act signed into law by President Obama in 2010 gives the agency such authority.

But that wouldn't prevent a non-financial company like Microsoft from doing as it pleases, just as most phone and cable companies similarly would continue getting away with arbitration-only provisions. That's where the Arbitration Fairness Act comes in.

The bill was introduced last year by Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and by Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) in the House. It would amend the Federal Arbitration Act to invalidate all arbitration clauses in consumer and employment contracts.

In other words, it would block companies — all companies — from blocking class-action lawsuits....

This would be a good thing, if only it could get passed.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

serious politicians golf -- the more serious, the more rounds of golf! -- have these 3 hit the links or what? -- that'll tell me all i need to know regarding their ability to lead

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... olf-round/

The Washington Times?!

Senator Franken has introduced a lot of good things for consumers, BTW -- they haven't always passed, but Senator Franken has been looking at this arbitration issue for a long time, and it's about time that he had some Republican interest on it. Too many "D's" next to the co-sponsor's names, and not enough "R's." Golf doesn't matter to me.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Having been in real estate in the past and having had to utilize arbitration, I would say its fine as long as the arbitrator is neutral, regardless of who pays for it. It doesn't mean that if the company loses, that it pays less in damages, it means attorneys dont make any money. Every Real estate contract I have ever overseen or approved, had a arbitration/mediation clause in order to keep the attorney fees down, and hopefully settle out of court.
As for forcing arbitration... Try to buy a house through any NAR member Realtor and not agree to it. It's standard contract language in real estate sale agreements. I bet almost any Realtor would decline to represent someone that wouldn't agree to it. Its a big red flag that say's "upcoming lawsuit".
Basically, right now, if you don't like the small print, don't buy their product.
BTW, I didn't have a professional arbitrator, ours was an actual judge, in a court room.

Anyway, don't mean to anger anyone, but I like mediation/arbitration. lot cheaper.

_________________

_____________________________________________________
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Government keeping the lawyers paid.

Microsoft is practicing good business practice in a overly letigious society. Don't like the terms...don't buy the product.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

Contracts are supposed to be agreed to by BOTH PARTIES. I don't like contracts of adhesion, because I see them as inherently abusive.

Here's an interesting link:

http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1877&context=ggulrev&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dcontract%2520of%2520adhesion%2520california%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CFUQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.law.ggu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1877%2526context%253Dggulrev%26ei%3DKo_gT8_TKcOe2wXCg9SSCg%26usg%3DAFQjCNF-aVfUEsMEz1z_HSpHgwaBn3OnHw#search=%22contract%20adhesion%20california%22

It's an Adobe of the Consumer's Guide for Contracts of Adhesion from Golden Gate University Law Review. It makes for interesting reading.

Quoting from the link:

The financial burden of negotiating individual contracts
with each customer makes such a practice unrealistic in
many situations.19 Having an attorney, likely in-house counsel,
draft, on behalf of the company, a standardized contract to
which all consumers will be bound preserves the company's
legal interests in the most economic manner.20 The problem
arises when companies insert provisions unfavorable to the
consumer.21 This is a natural occurrence as companies strive to
draft contracts favoring their own best interests

Yep - that's the problem. And companies won't hesitate to do this, once they have forced arbitration locked in. We've always had contracts of adhesion, but we haven't always had forced arbitration, and class action lawsuits leveled things out. Now that they are gone, it's a real problem IMO. Things are changing for the worst instead of for the better, where consumers are concerned.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

Again,
I disagree. If the consumer does not like the conditions they can choose NOT to buy the product. Enough consumers choose NOT to but the product and the company must make some choices to stay in business. One of those choices would be to remove whatever is driving the majority of consumers away. Or, another company sees the need of consumers who want the product and not the contract conditions and they take a chance and provide the service at a marketable price. Thus taking the business that is not agreeable to the first company.

Contracts are agreed by both parties. You buy the product and use it and you are agreeing to the conditions offered at the sale of the product. It's fairly simple.

It's called a free market.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

The fact that forced arbitration looks attractive is just another sign that government is broken. This time it's the judiciary, and the handling of tort cases.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

As regards Microsoft, wouldn't the right to freely associate and assemble with others, and the right to access the law, override any clause against a party action if it really came to that? Couldn't a "class" of consumers challenge such a restriction being in a contract as being against their basic rights? I would have thought the right to join together as a "class" would be enshrined in your constitutional in some way.

So, having problem with Microsoft? Challenge the "no class action" clause in the contract - hopefully win - then sue Microsoft with a class action. Or perhaps I have misread, and it is already "challenge the clause" before signing it in the first place and that is what the debate is over. In that case - buy a Mac!

Of course, as a Mac user, what Microsoft says or does is beside the point ... I don't even need to walk away from their product, though I do have some foreign software so as to "talk" to pc users more easily. The more they make themselves unattractive, for whatever reason, the more we Apple folk smile.

_________________
Avid Reader

“Lord, in my zeal for love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.” - Thomas Aquinas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

How do you make class action suits more attractive to the wrongdoer than forced arbitration? Whole point of this move towards arbitration is to discourage the people who've been cheated from trying to get what they're owed.

-Dan.

It's really "in your face" bad faith, and I am praying that the Republicans in the Senate will support this legislation. We may have to have a Democratic House get it all the way through, though. But even a President Romney should be willing to sign something like this. I don't get it.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

I disagree. It's to force cheats to go elswhere with their frivolous suits. Those terrible, big bad companies are being so mean. How could they actually cut the huge costs of frivolous suits and actually try to make a profit?

Again, free market.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

reading these political threads it should be clear to everyone why a divided Congress cannot pass anything -- libs see X & conservatives see Y & X<>Y

of course, they're being paid to govern whereas we are not

Did you even read the articles in the OP? This is not just about forcing arbitration in single-plaintiff suits; it's about preventing customers from banding together into classes. How do you have a million people all trying to cheat the same company?



Or, they can cheat a million people out of a few dollars each, knowing that the vast majority will not take the time to go after that $5, which is exactly what happened in the California case referenced in the NY Times article.

It's interesting that you're condemning of the cheats who would launch a frivolous lawsuit, but not the cheats in the boardroom. Why is that? Why are you so upset by poorer people trying to rip off large corporations, but not upset by large corporations trying to rip off poorer people?

-Dan.