Re: Steam Backs Down From Forced Arbitration

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 09:07:14 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

On 28/09/2024 01:32, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

     [Fortunately, in many civilized --read, outside the USA--
      jurisdictions, forced arbitration is either illegal or
      greatly restricted. So if you're in the UK, Australia
      or many countries of the EU, any EULAs either won't have
      any forced arbitration clauses, or if they do, those
      clauses are unenforceable]

I did read about these rules in relation to Disney trying to claim that
as a husband had signed to to Disney+ many years ago he couldn't take
them to court after she died when they visited Disney World. My first
thought was, that's not a good look you're putting forward there Disney
and my second thought was, heh you can force people to go to
arbitration, how is that even legal.

Yeah, that's a really fascinating case. A woman died due to a severe
allergy reaction at a restaurant on Disney grounds. The restaurant not
only specified that their food was allergen free on their
(Disney-sponsored) website, but assured the woman in person that the
meal she ordered didn't have any of the forbidden foods in it. The
family sued the restaurant (which was actually an independent company
that was providing food services for Disney) for negligence, and
Disney got roped into the case because Disney's website vouched for
the restaurant.

Meanwhile, Disney argued that because the defendants had only found
this information using their Disney account (it's a shared account
that offers access not only to the Disney+ TV and film library, but
also can be used for ticketing and reservations on Disney websites),
the forced arbitration clause of Disney+ bound the people... despite
the fact the actual reservation wasn't made through Disney+.

Elon Musk also tried to use forced arbitration on his (former) Twitter
employees after they sued him for not giving them their severance
payments in a timely manner. But, like Steam, he had to back down when
the sheer number of arbitration claims made the costs skyrocket so it
would have cost more than actually just paying the severance. (Musk is
not the brightest of bulbs).


Forced arbitration is pretty much everywhere in the US contracts these
days. If you work in the US, you're employer has probably forced one
on you. If you have one of those store-loyalty cards, you've agreed to
forced arbitrations (hope you don't slip-n-fall!). Create an account
to buy something online? Odds are very high that you're bound to
forced arbitration. Pretty much everyone in America has signed away
their rights to legal representation, and nobody notices.

In the UK my understanding is that arbitration courts exist* but they
can only be used for a civil offences if both parties agree including
who will be the arbitrator. Overall it seems like a good idea as I think
a lot of reasoning was to stop expensive legal bills being racked up in
the likes of divorce cases or as papers love to print, something about a
house boundary dispute involving hedges.
>

Arbitration _is_ a good idea. It is often faster and less expensive to
use an arbiter than to go through the legal system. The problem is
with _forced_ arbitration, where one of the two parties isn't given a
choice, and the selection of the arbitrator isn't up to them. It gives
one party -usually a corporation which already had an outsized
influence- even more power. It's why many countries have made forced
arbitration clauses illegal, because it is not fair and balanced.

So for Steam, I think it's good that they are going to get rid of that
clause even if it's for the wrong reasons.

It's good for a variety of reasons. First, well... I think you know my
opinion on forced arbitration, so there's that. But also, it brings to
attention the unfair practice of forced arbitration, and the more
people become aware of it, the more likely there will be legal
pushback against it. Thirdly, it also reaffirms how effective it can
be to force mass arbitrations against companies that use forced
arbitration. It gives some power back to the people. As more lawyers
see how powerful this technique is, and use it more, companies may
become less eager to force arbitration on everybody.

That said, I'm not sure the case that actually forced this action on
Steam has merit. I think, if taken to court, Valve would win handily.
But the hurt its causing them is by their own design, so I'm not
feeling particularly sympathetic. ;-)