Comment on Steam does the opposite of forcing Arbitration on its users
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 day agoUsually 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 1 day ago
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 day ago
I’ve literally never seen any person argue that forced arbitration is a good thing for consumers…
It’s always corporations
moody@lemmings.world 1 day ago
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 1 day ago
Oh, I’m fully aware it sucks, just not sure why that person is defending it
hannesh93@feddit.org 1 day 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 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