undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbityard3y ago0 comments

Who chooses the arbitor? If the company chooses the arbitor, that's a clear conflict of interest. That's my issue with mandatory arbitration. After the fact that the arbitors' decision is legally binding in court.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

hansvm3y ago· 2 in thread

Minor nitpick, the judge can usually decide to override an arbiter, but they almost never do. It's rarely actually legally binding.

oblio3y ago

> Minor nitpick, the judge can usually decide to override an arbiter, but they almost never do. It's rarely actually legally binding.

Your second phrase does not follow from the first one, at least I can't follow it.

If the judge doesn't override the arbiter most of the times, doesn't that implicitly make arbitration... legally binding?

hansvm3y ago

In my opinion, no. Practically speaking it's binding, and the judge's decision is legally binding, but the arbitration itself is not _legally_ binding in that subsequent judges in many jurisdictions can choose to ignore the arbiter with zero repercussions in law or precedent.

snapetom3y ago

They are specified in the clause. True, if it was a private company I would hesitate. However, there's at least a couple of 501c3 non-profit arbitration associations. The majority of clauses I've read uses one of them.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse