09-15-2011, 05:07 PM | #1 | ||
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
So PSN's new terms of service include...
...a waiver of class action status and binding arbitration for dispute resolution in order to continue using the service.
How in the world does that *not* violate the 9th Amendment? How can you be compelled to give up your right to a trial by jury in the matter of a financial dispute pursuant to even being granted the right to enter into a fiscal relationship to begin with? Can one of our local lawyers straighten me out here? |
||
09-15-2011, 05:12 PM | #2 |
General Manager
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
I get the impression from some discussions on other boards that it won't stick in court.
|
09-15-2011, 05:14 PM | #3 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The State of Rutgers
|
It won't.
__________________
Boise Stampede Continental Football League Jacksonville Jaguars GM North American Football League Nebraska Coach FOFC-BBCF Rutgers & Washington coach Bowl Bound-BBCF |
09-15-2011, 06:41 PM | #4 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
Many of the contracts companies try to make you sign are completely unenforceable. Like anything that claims they are free of liability when they sell you a product (they are not) which is what this is very similar to. I almost think they should be charged for fraud for even putting this bullshit on paper.
|
09-15-2011, 06:46 PM | #5 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego
|
Credit card companies do this all the time.
__________________
I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4 |
09-15-2011, 06:50 PM | #6 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Appleton, WI
|
Thought #1: They are hoping at least some people are dumb enough to not challenge the contract and they will save some money on lawsuits.
Thought #2: Their lawyers found someone in the company dumb enough to approve this language which will ensure more business for the lawyers when people do challenge the contract in court. |
09-15-2011, 06:50 PM | #7 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Quote:
Wrong. In general, arbitration clauses waiving class action for consumer suits are lawful by the U.S. Supreme Court. Quote:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...73Q4N520110427 Last edited by RedKingGold : 09-15-2011 at 06:58 PM. |
||
09-15-2011, 07:05 PM | #8 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Troy, NY
|
Quote:
Note: I am not a lawyer and am not offering any legal advice. The 9th Amendment has nothing to do with trial by jury. Further, what RedKingGold said. To the extent that there is a problem with the deal, it is that the contract provision does not apply because it is unconscionable. Nothing in the 7th Amendment precludes you from contracting away your right to a trial by jury. To draw an analogy, you can waive - without even getting anything in consideration (unlike the deal questioned here) - your Fourth Amendment rights. It happens ALL the time. I have even heard some experienced cops claim that they have literally never seen a suspect refuse to consent to a search. I imagine that those claims are a bit fanciful, boastful, or ignorant (or some combination thereof), but the basic point stands. Additionally, the 7th Amendment right to trial by jury does not even apply to state courts in the first place.
__________________
Quis custodiets ipsos custodes? Last edited by RPI-Fan : 09-15-2011 at 07:07 PM. |
|
09-15-2011, 08:01 PM | #9 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
I will say that there is something unique about the 7th Amendment compared to other rights that we contract away all the time. The 7th Amendment applies to suits between two private parties. (Which gives you a sense of how afraid the founders were of oligarchy. Two private folks getting to resolve their dispute before a jury of their peers (as opposed to an upper-class judge) is right in there with Free Speech and the rest.)
So, I can see an argument that two private parties cannot contract away a right designed to maintain fairness between two private parties. There is something to that, I think. However, RKG's case seems on point. And I really don't know much, at all, about the 7th Amendment. |
09-15-2011, 09:27 PM | #10 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2001
|
I stand corrected, I forgot how recently the Supreme Court is full of fucktards.
That is still a young case though, and I'm unsure how it will hold up if arbitration abuse goes rampant. In lower courts arbitration clauses have been thrown out in a variety of consumer and at-will employment cases, so I think this precedent needs some more exercise before one can predict how it will play out on a case by case basis. Also the cost of arbitration hearings can be quite high, they advertise it as saving everyone money, but have you actually fought one (no I haven't, I just read a bit). If you want a chance you probably need a lawyer, not to mention the corporation picks the arbitrator so they get a sort of home court advantage. I think these clauses suck, but they are littered all over the place. Along with EULAs and other evil clauses in contracts maybe this means in a decade or so there is an anti-bullshit movement and people refuse en masse to buy these products. That is the only way it is going to disappear entirely. |
09-15-2011, 10:08 PM | #11 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
But since you can't see the TOS until you purchase the PS3 and try to sign on isn't that going to get tossed out in court (unless they're forced to give you a full refund on an open-box one)?
Such bullshit. |
09-15-2011, 10:14 PM | #12 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Troy, NY
|
Quote:
(I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.) In a word - no. Well, not for the reason that you say anyways. Cf. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
__________________
Quis custodiets ipsos custodes? Last edited by RPI-Fan : 09-15-2011 at 10:15 PM. |
|
09-15-2011, 10:17 PM | #13 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Massachusetts
|
Oh...well that blows.
Fuck them. |
09-15-2011, 10:18 PM | #14 | ||
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
|
Quote:
At its heart, I think the AT&T case cited above is more about preemption than anything, basically federal law > state law like rock > scissors. I believe these types of arbitration clauses can still be challenged under state law, however, that's going to depend on the state/locality/jurisdiction to find that specific state law for the hook. Quote:
Absolutely 100% not true. The cost of preparing for litigation is much, much more costly than preparing for an arbitration. Also, while arbitration forums vary, arbitrators are often selected completely at random or at the mutual choice of both parties. Lastly, from what I've seen, pro se plaintiffs are given much more leeway in presenting their case in an arbitration forum as the rules of evidence are much more relaxed. FWIW, I've served as a county arbitrator on various consumer matters (credit card default, bankruptcy, etc.), so I feel I have some experience to speak on this issue. Last edited by RedKingGold : 09-15-2011 at 10:19 PM. |
||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|