arbitration pretty much provides zero benefit to the consumer and all benefit to the organization. a big piece is that if you sign off on an arbitration clause, then there's no such thing as class action lawsuit anymore.

some companies make you sign a handwritten letter through snail mail just to opt out, because they don't want anyone filing a lawsuit, and definitely dont' want a lot of them filing together.

this is another case of corporations saying "this option is best!!" while leaving out the "for us" part

this is why it's a big deal that steam said fuck that noise

[–] potentiallynotfelix@lemdro.id 12 points 1 month ago

Forced Arbitration is when a company puts something in their terms of service that forced the user to go through a process of arbitration as opposed to going to court. It is always rigged towards the company who forces it, because they are the people paying the arbitrators.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you have a dispute with Valve you have to hire a lawyer to take them to court. No "third party" mediation

[–] moody@lemmings.world 8 points 1 month ago

Most disputes most likely fall far below the limit for small claims, where a lawyer is not required, or even allowed in many cases.

[–] hannesh93@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Isn't it often in both parties to settle things out of court? For the one that'd sue it's usually more money at less cost and the company gets around possibly having a bad precedent set and the bad publicity to potentially losing in court.

This is probably aimed at people creating issues in the hopes of getting a settlement for something that has a slim (but Nonzero) chance to hold up in court.

It's a company - I think this aims at people only bringing serious claims and reducing the paperwork for them - but since it's Valve people will glorify everything they do

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Usually it's forced arbitration, you can't sue

It really favors the company. Steam is explicitly saying no arbitration which levels the playing field.

Arbitration doesn't save money. You still need lawyers.

What's bigger is this explicitly says it allows class actions. Something that most prevent and require individual arbitration, consumers are better off when they can pool resources for lawyers against a giant corporation, especially since most would require an upfront payment for a large class action.

[–] hannesh93@feddit.org 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Arbitration doesn’t save money. You still need lawyers.

of course - but usually it's way faster than getting a proper court-ruling - and since lawyers are paid per hour that makes a big difference

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I've literally never seen any person argue that forced arbitration is a good thing for consumers...

It's always corporations

[–] moody@lemmings.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's because the arbitrators are hired by the company. Unless it's an egregious situation, who's going to side against the people signing their paycheck?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Oh, I'm fully aware it sucks, just not sure why that person is defending it

[–] hannesh93@feddit.org 1 points 1 month ago

I just saw the Uber case and realized that this in definitely way differently in the US. I was not aware that completely getting around the law was such a common practice. I thought that Disney thing was a rarity

[–] hannesh93@feddit.org 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

How often are you reading about someone suing and then that lawsuit (which is already in court) being dropped because they got a better offer for an arbitration/settlement out of court? For me that's a very common thing to read for bigger cases.

But I agree that forced arbitration with not even a chance to take it to court if you don't like the offer is horrible for the consumer

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 1 month ago

That's not what arbitration is. This doesn't stop valve from reaching a settlement, it stops them from using fake privately funded bench trials

Binding arbitration means the results are legally binding, non-binding arbitration means a judge needs to approve the arbitration results before it's final. Sometimes it's with an off duty judge, sometimes anyone can be the arbiter

Regardless, on one side you have a repeat customer, on the other you have someone who will probably never be back - there's a built in conflict of interest

[–] Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 month ago

I'm not a lawyer: Many companies are updating their terms requiring that disputes are settled through arbitration, usually where a 3rd party selected by the company rules on the disagreement.

It's meant to protect them from excessive lawsuit payments that can happen when you go to court.

Valve went the other way, and is saying that all legal disputes should go to court instead.