General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Mandatory Arbitration Cheats Consumers
A few weeks ago, the topic of arbitration clauses became a contretemps when General Mills tried the remarkably cheeky stunt of trying to assert that consumers who had downloaded coupons or simply liked the company on Facebook had given up their right to sue if they were harmed by using its products and could seek remedy only through informal negotiation via email or arbitration. The firestorm of criticism forced the food giant to back down.
But consumers and other customers, like small businesses, are increasingly being denied access to courts though the use of mandated pre-dispute arbitration clauses and these are often paired with class action waivers. Anyone who is familiar with libertarian ideas or free markets arguments about the virtues of reliance on contracts and markets as the solution to every problem can see how that fantasy simply isnt operative. Consumers (and notice consumers as opposed to citizens) were already at a power disadvantage in doing business with large vendors, which is counter to the libertarian/free market fantasy that individuals can contract freely, as equals, and can rely on the courts to enforce their rights. As anyone who has applied for a credit card or checked a terms of service box on a software license knows, the agreements bear no resemblance to negotiated contracts; tehy are take it or leave it propositions. As a new article in the Nation elaborates:
In addition, individuals and small companies lack the financial firepower to go toe to toe with business behemoths in court. And these contracts are frequently designed to deny users access to the judicial system.
More at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/07/mandatory-arbitration-cheats-consumers.html .
Uncle Joe
(58,297 posts)Thanks for the thread, TexasTowelie.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)A contract where one side has no real ability to bargain can be invalid, and many of these should qualify. Not to say they aren't or wouldn't be upheld, but there is a reason contracts of adhesion are disfavored.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The court system is incredibly overloaded. If two parties who actually have both have bargaining power want to agree to resolve contract issues out of court, they probably have the right. I don't have a problem with two banks agreeing to binding arbitration.
The issue to me is when one side really has no say in the matter.
Did you know, for example, that a lot of mortgages have language in them that purports to have borrowers "waive" Constitutional rights? That really is unenforceable, but it's there all the same. Everyone signs anyway, because they have no real choice.
littlemissmartypants
(22,590 posts)TexasTowelie
(111,951 posts)It always makes sense to read the fine print when signing any agreement.
littlemissmartypants
(22,590 posts)Word salad approach to our lives.
This has got to stop.
Love, Peace and Shelter.