How To Opt Out Of Mandatory Arbitration

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Mandatory arbitration isn't something most folks give a lot of thought to but, as this article points out, if you received a tech gadget for Christmas, you could be stuck with no recourse if something goes wrong with it unless you opt out within a certain time frame.

You need to opt out of Fitbit’s mandatory binding arbitration within 30 days, and can do it just by sending an email. As we publish this on January 3, you still have time to opt out if you registered your Fitbit on or after December 3, 2016. That leaves the many fitness trackers given as Christmas gifts well within the window to opt out, which you can do by e-mailing legal@fitbit. Simply write, “I, [your first and last name], decline Fitbit’s arbitration agreement.”
 
I have often wondered about the legality of this trick.

By NOT responding, you are agreeing to the terms of something.

Mail order scams have worked like this for a long time. I have seen it with magazines in particular.
 
westrock2000 said:
I have often wondered about the legality of this trick.

By NOT responding, you are agreeing to the terms of something.

Mail order scams have worked like this for a long time. I have seen it with magazines in particular.
Click to expand...

It's called the "negative option". Unfortunately for arbitration it seems to be the norm and will take an act of Congress to stop it.

Interestingly enough, the CFPB just fined Transunion and Equifax for doing that option for monthly charges to view your credit report. You know, the whole, "It's FREE"...for 7 days and you have to put your credit card number in, but then we charge you monthly forever unless you call us, wait on hold, and cancel, because we don't make cancelling online an option.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/abou...-marketing-credit-scores-and-credit-products/
 
You can only opt out if they give you the option. They don't necessarily have to give that option either. Many big companies do in consumer contracts because courts view otherwise one sided agreements more favorably when they provide these options, even though the vast majority of consumers have no idea what they are agreeing to.

This is also a huge problem in employment, where companies bind employees to mandatory confidential arbitration with little to no rights of appeal. You rarely if ever see opt outs in employment agreements.
 
I really don't see how using a device can allow me to waive my legal rights. If your device starts on fire and burns me, you better damn well believe I'm not going to an arbitrator without you showing my signature confirming I received those terms.

ToS/Arbitration is so far out of hand, they really need to consider fixing it.

It should be by law that arbitration can be offered as an OPTION, one the consumer can waive at any time up until the beginning of legal proceedings. But not electing to take that option could make you on the hook for legal fees if you lose.
 
Generally speaking if you register your product you're agreeing to the EULA, but unless you actually sign or click something the simple act of buying a product does not remove your rights to due process. What happens very often is that the company will act like you don't have a choice when you actually do, as it's your responsibility to know your rights in that situation. In the case of the FitBit, you agree to the EULA when you activate your account online, whereas if you buy a curling iron you aren't bound unless you fill out and sign the warranty card. Some products exploit you more easily than others.
 
what most people don't know is that agreeing to binding arbitration is not an end but simply agreeing to attempt to resolve the issue through moderation basically. It is called binding arbitration because if you come to an agreement it is the same as a jury reaching a verdict. If you fail to come to an agreement then the panel or moderator can simply say it has to be resolved in a court of law, and all the costs involved in that. Meaning that in arbitration the costs are small but there is no guarantee both parties will come to an agreement. Remember if you file charges or attempt to litigate against a large company they can pay several people to make sure to show up in court and do research on precedents that might be construed as applicable in front of a jury. Most juries do not get swayed by emotional appeal but by the facts presented before them. In Arbitration you are trying for a peaceful solution. If a company tries to force you to accept their terms you can always chose not to except the settlement but a contract can not remove your right to redress a crime. It can say that you got an accepted settlement, it you were present and mentally competent. In the United States of America no one can legally speak for you if you don't want them but if you do that it is much harder to deal with legal issues. If you can ask yourself if you are sane and think about it to question what is sanity you can not ever be considered mentally incompetent. But it usually means that you have taken psychology and philosophy classes or are a priest of some kind.

But the point is before you opt out of binding arbitration remember that means you have to hire an attorney and file far more expensive paperwork which if the device is a twenty dollar device and it costs fifty dollars to submit evidence to the court... that might not be the most sound finical advice since if you win the case the court may award you costs and it may not. It may also throw out the case as groundless.
 
drakken said:
what most people don't know is that agreeing to binding arbitration is not an end but simply agreeing to attempt to resolve the issue through moderation basically. It is called binding arbitration because if you come to an agreement it is the same as a jury reaching a verdict. If you fail to come to an agreement then the panel or moderator can simply say it has to be resolved in a court of law, and all the costs involved in that. Meaning that in arbitration the costs are small but there is no guarantee both parties will come to an agreement. Remember if you file charges or attempt to litigate against a large company they can pay several people to make sure to show up in court and do research on precedents that might be construed as applicable in front of a jury. Most juries do not get swayed by emotional appeal but by the facts presented before them. In Arbitration you are trying for a peaceful solution. If a company tries to force you to accept their terms you can always chose not to except the settlement but a contract can not remove your right to redress a crime. It can say that you got an accepted settlement, it you were present and mentally competent. In the United States of America no one can legally speak for you if you don't want them but if you do that it is much harder to deal with legal issues. If you can ask yourself if you are sane and think about it to question what is sanity you can not ever be considered mentally incompetent. But it usually means that you have taken psychology and philosophy classes or are a priest of some kind.

But the point is before you opt out of binding arbitration remember that means you have to hire an attorney and file far more expensive paperwork which if the device is a twenty dollar device and it costs fifty dollars to submit evidence to the court... that might not be the most sound finical advice since if you win the case the court may award you costs and it may not. It may also throw out the case as groundless.
Click to expand...

None of that is correct. Arbitration is a private court proceeding and it replaces the public court room. You are waiving your right to a jury trial in an arbitration agreement. The case proceeds similar to how a lawsuit proceeds in court, but with some important differences that, in most people's opinions, favor the institutional defendant (i.e., the big corp or the employer that made you sign the agreement.) The arbitrator is the judge and the jury and you need a lawyer in an arbitration hearing, just as much as you need a lawyer in a court room.

And you have it backwards as to juries. Jurors will respond to emotional appeal, arbitrators will not. Arbitrators award up to 70% less than juries do in employment arbitrations, for example, which is a big reason companies favor arbitration agreements.
 
I don't think I'm going to really care about a <$200 fitness device.
 
Ruoh said:
I don't think I'm going to really care about a <$200 fitness device.
Click to expand...
It's less the specific product than the fact that everybody is trying to do this now, and it runs directly against public interest to allow it. Arbitration heavily favors the company over the individual, and it requires you to give up any claims as a member of a class. If a defect causes damages to many people they all have to go to arbitration as individuals rather than file a class action in court, so the ability of an individual to be adequately represented is limited.

What's at issue here is that they're basically trying to treat arbitration as the default, rather than something you'd have to opt into. In essence they're trying to make it so just buying a product abridges your rights as a consumer whether you like it or not.
 
sirnephilim said:
What's at issue here is that they're basically trying to treat arbitration as the default, rather than something you'd have to opt into. In essence they're trying to make it so just buying a product abridges your rights as a consumer whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

I pretty much assume I'm screwed if something breaks/malfunctions. I'm pleasantly surprised when something actually goes my way.
 
illram said:
None of that is correct. Arbitration is a private court proceeding and it replaces the public court room. You are waiving your right to a jury trial in an arbitration agreement. The case proceeds similar to how a lawsuit proceeds in court, but with some important differences that, in most people's opinions, favor the institutional defendant (i.e., the big corp or the employer that made you sign the agreement.) The arbitrator is the judge and the jury and you need a lawyer in an arbitration hearing, just as much as you need a lawyer in a court room.

And you have it backwards as to juries. Jurors will respond to emotional appeal, arbitrators will not. Arbitrators award up to 70% less than juries do in employment arbitrations, for example, which is a big reason companies favor arbitration agreements.
Click to expand...

You are quoting the "Buckets to 11" guy. It is best to just let him go on with his unintelligible nonsense and not engage him.
 
Oooooh boy I just googled that thread. *backs away slowly*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top