Difference between revisions of "User:GregG/Mainstream media attacks on arbitration"
From Conservapedia
(+link from cnn) |
(+pcworld from Andy's talk page) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/opinion/stuck-in-arbitration.html?_r=1] | *[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/opinion/stuck-in-arbitration.html?_r=1] | ||
*[http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/tech/gaming-gadgets/sony-psn-terms/] -- misleading statement that "Arbiters are typically retired judges who fetch an hourly rate of $300 or more, a fee that's generally split between the two parties" | *[http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/21/tech/gaming-gadgets/sony-psn-terms/] -- misleading statement that "Arbiters are typically retired judges who fetch an hourly rate of $300 or more, a fee that's generally split between the two parties" | ||
| + | *[http://www.pcworld.com/article/252026/atandt_wont_appeal_decision_in_throttling_suit.html] -- "[Suing in small claims court] also doesn't require parties in the proceeding to keep their mouths shut after a decision is rendered, as arbitration does." -- which is false with respect to the AT&T Mobility agreement | ||
Revision as of 07:38, April 15, 2012
Work in progress. Collecting links and quotes for future article on this subject.
- [1]: "If you don't want to give up your right to personally sue them in a court of law and be forced into a kangaroo court overseen by a judge whose fees are paid for by the company you're suing, Cablevision will let you."
- [2]
- [3]
- [4] -- misleading statement that "Arbiters are typically retired judges who fetch an hourly rate of $300 or more, a fee that's generally split between the two parties"
- [5] -- "[Suing in small claims court] also doesn't require parties in the proceeding to keep their mouths shut after a decision is rendered, as arbitration does." -- which is false with respect to the AT&T Mobility agreement
