Hacker News Reader

I think the idea is that "force" sounds like Uber is doing it without a prior arbitration agreement. "Enforce" sounds like Uber is doing it after an agreement with drivers. The latter is what is actually happening.

It's a small difference but it matters. The power difference is a separate issue between employers and employees is a separate (important) issue, though.

View on HN

Some arbitration agreements make arbitration mandatory by default, according to their wording; others simply give either side the right to choose arbitration.

The de facto effect is the same except in the rare case where a court sees the wording of the first kind of contract and dismisses the case on its own initiative, since otherwise the arbitration clause would only be enforced on the motion of a party, without which the right would be waived.

But it's not formalistically wrong to use the verb "force" to describe "exercising a contractual election" as opposed to merely "not waiving a default provision of the contract."

The arbitration agreement is a "forced arbitration" agreement. It's a small difference but it matters. The law enforced the validity of the contract, the contract forces the arbitration outside of a court of law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com