![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-49567-100x100.png\")
What is this guy talking about, if we eliminate arbitration people won't be able to get lawyers?? And then the only people who would make out if arbitration were eliminated are the lawyers? Who buys that kind of BS?
What is this guy talking about, if we eliminate arbitration people won't be able to get lawyers?? And then the only people who would make out if arbitration were eliminated are the lawyers? Who buys that kind of BS?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@VAMPKISS1 WRONG.
Consumers will make it out of this if this law passes. Mandatory arbitration is made to make the consumer lose as state 98.4% of the time. If you read on this site you'll see the horror stories of how homes built with mandatory arbitration wreck lives. This law needs to be passed there should be no way to force people to give up their right to be able to a jury.
what they need to pass is a system were the arbitrator is unbiased and not getting a paycheque from the company that they are arbitrating
@darkened: Reading comprehension 101: I was responding to the things that were being said in the hearing, by the witness who was speaking in favor of arbitration at the time. I'm not wrong, that guy is full of shit, and his list of crap about people not being able to get lawyers if arbitration was done away with is a bunch of bullshit. Don't you know how to read question marks?
Which large capital letters should I throw at you for being, hmm.... WRONG.
@chartrule: In theory, haven't you just described the standard judicial system?
Having read about arbitration I come to the conlcusion that this is what happens when Law is privatized. Further, there appears to be no benefit in this privatizaion for your average citizen.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-194215-100x100.png\")
[i]The data are angry[/i]
Priceless. It should be obvious to anybody that no reasonable person would choose arbitration against billionaire corporations who will eat them for breakfast.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-76955-100x100.png\")
If arbitration really saves companies big bucks then they should be required to pass those savings along to consumers. Let's say Joe Blow wants to buy a new cell phone, if he picks the plan that doesn't require arbitration, then the plan is $40 a month. If Jane buys goes with the cell contract that requires arbitration then the plan is $35 a month. What will Joe and Jane do? Most will go with the lover cost plan b/c the stakes are lower. But let's take it up a notch and Joe is buying a new home and he wants to be able to sue the contractor if his home is full of mold, how much is that worth? Perhaps $10,000? What will most people do? I have no idea, but if people had a choice to pay more and have the option of litigating claims at least they had the option.
Maybe I should start an arbitration protection insurance company. This insurance company would reimburse you if you get screwed by arbitration or would cover the costs of doing arbitration. I wonder if that is a service people would buy.
I rarely click on these liveblog posts b/c I thought they might be droll, but this was awesome. If it wasn't also so freakin' sad, it would approach hilarious territory.
Nice work, Carey.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-185231-100x100.png\")
\"10:36: Going back to the revolution, colonists complained that King George selected judges and who were dependent on him for their salary. Their decisions were decried as horrifically unfair. Sound familiar?\"
I have always believed that history offers a precedent, in one way or another, for pretty much any issue.
It's unbelievable that there are no neutral arbitrators. How is it remotely fair that the accused party can use an arbitrator who is paid by them? Why is this even being debated?
If people knew how biased arbitration was, or that it effectively hid complaints from other consumers doing research, they might have refused it in contracts back in the days when they still had the ability to do that. But, because so few knew what it was, they agreed to it, and it became \"standard.\" Then, none of us had a choice but to accept it or do without phones, medical care, houses, computers, warranties, and so on. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better I guess.
Would also add that some of the arbitration clauses are not in anything you can read or sign before purchase. They are in something you get AFTER. Home warranty policies that are purchased by builders, sellers, and real estate agents, are in this category, as is anything you automatically activate by turning on or using electronics like computers or software. When you pay admission to some events it's on the back of your ticket. A huge problem with this is that the courts aren't saying these extremely unfair situations are unenforceable anymore. And who really has the money to go to court just to get out of arbitration anyway? It's unrealistic.
Oh, Consumerist. Your liveblogging makes my day!