• Ulrich
    link
    fedilink
    English
    259 hours ago

    Unfortunately that’s standard for pretty much every service in existence until the government determines otherwise or the users demand it en masse. No company is going to willingly expose themselves to any more risk than they absolutely have to. There’s zero benefit to them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 hours ago

      I don’t think forced arbitration has really been tried in court. I remember Disney kind of trying, but it was completely unrelated (e.g. argued that arbitration agreement from Disney+ applied to issues on physical Disney properties).

      In order to hold up in court, the contract needs to reasonably benefit both parties instead of only the contract issuer. So there’s a very good chance a court will dismiss the forced arbitration clause, especially if it’s just in a EULA and not a bidirectional contract negotiation.

      That said, I tend to avoid services with binding arbitration statements in their EULA, and if I can’t, I avoid companies that force acceptance of EULA changes to continue use of the service.

    • @Serinus
      link
      English
      76 hours ago

      And we should just accept that?

      • Ulrich
        link
        fedilink
        English
        55 hours ago

        Doesn’t matter if you should or not. Point is you accept it or you don’t use any service whatsoever.

        • @Serinus
          link
          English
          44 hours ago

          Looks like there’s a viable alternative here.

          • Ulrich
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 hours ago

            Really? Who are you going to sue here? And how much money do you think you can sue them for?

            • @Serinus
              link
              English
              23 hours ago

              Oh no, there’s no money or profit motive here. I guess that’s terrible.

    • @tabular
      link
      English
      138 hours ago

      Let’s not call disabling the right to sue a “business risk”. That’s like calling the right to stop paying for the service a “risk” - it’s riskdiculous.

      • Ulrich
        link
        fedilink
        English
        87 hours ago

        Let’s not call disabling the right to sue a “business risk”.

        …and why not?

        That’s like calling the right to stop paying for the service a “risk”

        But…that’s what it is? I promise if they could remove that risk with a few words in the TOS, and it was legal, they’d all be doing that too.

        • @tabular
          link
          English
          57 hours ago

          The right to take legal action for harm done is imperative. It’s importance is diminished if conflated with a legitimate business risk (like research and development). It should be illegal to deny it.

          • Ulrich
            link
            fedilink
            English
            86 hours ago

            I agree. But we weren’t discussing hypotheticals, we were discussing reality.