Comment

Is this actually meaningful in any way or is it just the corporate equivalent of positive manifestation? Surely no court would take seriously an after the fact imposition of you waiving your rights by default unless you send a physical letter to them informing them you disagree with losing your right to sue (for no gain on your part).

source

Sort:hotnew top

Maalus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
Why not? Arbitration clauses work in the US. The funnier things that happen is when something is so bad, thousands of people go in for arbitration and the company cannot afford that. Then it backfires hard on them since you need to get every person to arbitrate and there is tens of thousands of them.

source
- Womble@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
  The whole forced arbitration is bad enough, but retroactively enforcing it on something you already own while deliberately making it difficult to opt out just seems like its begging to fall foul of anti-consumer rules.
  
  source
  - Carrolade@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
    Anti-consumer rules…? What are those? Sounds like communist propaganda to me. All hail the ~~corporate overlords~~ job creators!
    
    source
ulterno@lemmy.kde.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago
I’m guessing you haven’t heard of the Roku television debacle.

source