Difference between revisions of "User:GregG/Mainstream media attacks on arbitration"
From Conservapedia
(+1) |
(+1) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*[http://consumerist.com/2012/12/21/heres-how-to-opt-out-of-instagrams-new-arbitration-clause/] with respect to being able to recover from an AG action | *[http://consumerist.com/2012/12/21/heres-how-to-opt-out-of-instagrams-new-arbitration-clause/] with respect to being able to recover from an AG action | ||
*[http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2013/01/07/16355738-new-rules-for-disputes-with-american-express-and-instagram] -- problems with arbitrator neutrality, ability to order injunctive relief, secrecy, etc. that are not reflected in the two agreements highlighted | *[http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2013/01/07/16355738-new-rules-for-disputes-with-american-express-and-instagram] -- problems with arbitrator neutrality, ability to order injunctive relief, secrecy, etc. that are not reflected in the two agreements highlighted | ||
| + | *[http://centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-mandatory-binding-arbitration-corporate-end-run-around-civil-justice-system] | ||
Revision as of 12:09, March 11, 2013
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
- [6] -- Consumerist again, citing the trial lawyer advocacy group Public Citizen and their report on post-Concepcion arbitration law
- [7]
- [8] -- "Arbitration, however, requires consumers to surrender their right to sue, and many consumer advocates say the process as used in financial products is biased toward banks." without further comment or elaboration.
- [9] -- "an arbitration procedure in which there is not a judge or jury—but rather, a private arbitrator often chosen by the corporation being sued."
- [10] -- another article which intones that the company chooses the arbitrator, also misstates that parties are generally required to keep results confidential
- [11] -- "Generally speaking, businesses prefer arbitration because settlements are limited and because professional arbitrators, whose fees are typically paid by the company in a dispute, tend to favor businesses. It's a classic example of not biting the hand that feeds", also quotes without comment Public Citizen's dubious 94% figure
- [12] -- "Of course, because Valve will be hiring the arbitrator in question, one can expect that the person dealing with disputes will not be completely impartial either"
- [13]
- [14] -- from Fox Business, which is flat out wrong about discovery in arbitration
- [15] with respect to being able to recover from an AG action
- [16] -- problems with arbitrator neutrality, ability to order injunctive relief, secrecy, etc. that are not reflected in the two agreements highlighted
- [17]
