Difference between revisions of "User:GregG/Mainstream media attacks on arbitration"
From Conservapedia
(+link) |
(+link from cnn) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
*[http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/annual-meeting-today-starbucks-touts-social-responsibility-while-stiffling-consumer] | *[http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/annual-meeting-today-starbucks-touts-social-responsibility-while-stiffling-consumer] | ||
*[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" | ||
Revision as of 07:31, 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"
