Hacker News Reader

Comment by user5994461 | Hacker News Reader

Abusive ToS won't stand up in court.

I feel like comments like this only serve to further downplay how abusive selective enforcement is. It can't be so bad if there's in theory a legal remedy available, right?

But whether you prevail in court or not, if you try to go through with that the whole thing is probably going to lose you a lot of time and cause you a shitton of stress, all at the whim of an arbitrary decision made by a company with, relatively speaking, no skin in the game. The power differential is immense. Realistically there's no legal recourse that can ward off the damage to your life that getting into that kind of one-sided slapfight could cause.

Unless you have $10MM, I doubt you can afford to fight that without settling.

Without judgements, this bullshit will continue.

Not many people are big enough to sue PayPal, and if they are, they probably aren't using it.

Small claims court?

Srsly. This is the UK so it's well within the limits of small claims. IANAL but the U.K. also has less tolerance of "fine print".

If PayPal closed his account because it was created before he was 18, did they do so because they believe that he didn't have capacity when he signed up? If that is the case then it makes you wonder if any of the TOS apply

well in the UK and other Parts in Europe I'm not sure if this ToS is even legal. You don't need to full-aged to open an account at a bank. you only need to be legally competent in Europe and as far as I know Paypal is a recognized bank, so they can't just make their own rules via AGB/ToS.

I have heard of people doing something similar in the US with Google, who doesn't bother even contesting but just pays up because it's cheaper than sending a real lawyer. Which is no guarantee for PayPal and the U.K., but still, worth a try.

PayPal added a forced arbitration clause in 2012[0]. It seems likely that most PayPal users did not opt out and are now unable to sue PayPal.

[0] http://www.citizenvox.org/2012/10/15/opt-out-of-paypal%E2%80...

Edited for minor formatting.

Doesn't matter. That clause is invalid in most countries.

That may well be the case but forced arbitration clauses are legal in the US. There have been several recent Supreme Court cases that upheld mandatory arbitration clauses.

Here are some citations:

"American Express Co., et al. v. Italian Colors Restaurant." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-133. Accessed 29 Apr. 2017.

"AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/09-893. Accessed 29 Apr. 2017.

"The End of Class Actions?" Arizona Law Review, http://arizonalawreview.org/fitzpatrick/

Gilles, Myriam and Friedman, Gary (2012) "After Class: Aggregate Litigation in the Wake of "AT&T Mobility v Concepcion"," University of Chicago Law Review: Vol. 79 : Iss. 2 , Article 3. Available at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol79/iss2/3

Edited to add the third and fourth citations.

IIUC, those are cases of companies who put arbitration into a contract. That's a bit different then an average Joe hitting "ok" to an email that says the ToS of a website has changed. Arbitration can work for businesses which can negotiate and review contracts they agree too. No one reads or negotiates EULAs.

There is a difference between B2B and B2C contracts.

In most countries, arbitration clauses are prohibited in B2C contracts. You can't prohibit consumer from suing you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com