Hacker News Reader

Comment by jschwartzi | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty amusing that their use of arbitration to prevent class actions is now being used against them. The nice thing about a class action from the company's perspective is that they only have to deal with one court case against a class being represented by a plaintiff as opposed to cases from every single member of the class. Sending all the members of the class through arbitration one-by-one ends up costing far more than the class action would have.

I think we'll see forced arbitration go away if more classes band together and go through arbitration one-by-one.

View on HN

I'm loving it, too. It's a cheeky strategy, and I hope to see it used at other companies that make workers sign binding arbitration agreements, then screw them over. But then I read this:

> Lawyers who claim to represent more than 12,000 drivers who have filed arbitration demands have sued Uber, arguing the company has refused to pay obligatory filing fees to get the process started.

So apparently Uber can just say "we're not gonna" if they decide that arbitration is no longer working in their favor. Does that open them up to a class action suit on behalf of all the drivers who were denied arbitration? I have no idea, IANAL.

Not necessarily. It depends on why the arbitration agreement was considered binding in the courts. If it's because it's assumed to be a parallel legal process then I could see a class action being undertaken with the argument that Uber is using the arbitration clause to deny the class their due process rights. I am also not a lawyer but I'm assuming that the courts are presided over by reasonable people which is usually the case.

Yes, it does open them to litigation. Failure to pay arbitration fees is now considered wavier of a contractual term to demand arbitration in many jurisdictions.[1][2][3]

The American Arbitration Association has been cracking down on companies which refuse to pay. They send out letters to companies telling them that not only does the AAA reject this arbitration, the company can no longer use AAA services at all. This throws the case back into the judicial system.

"The cost of arbitration is turning out to be real leverage for plaintiffs' lawyers who are smart enough to adapt to the privatization of litigation. It may not be long before companies like Uber start wishing for the good old days of class actions."

[1] http://www.outsourcingjustice.com/11th-circuit-hernandez-aco... [2] https://demlplaw.com/firm-blog/new-decision-failure-pay-arbi... [3] https://www.publicjustice.net/bait-and-switch-many-corporati...

Only for major claims though. If Uber stole $25 from me, it isn't worth taking a day off work to go to the arbitration session.

That depends entirely on what your motivation is.

If your motivation is to get back $25 then you're right -- it isn't worth your time to coordinate with other people to DDOS Uber with mass-arbitration.

But if your goal is to fuck over Uber out of principle for them fucking you over that is something you can't really put a price on.

On top of that knowing that you're using their scummy forced arbitration clause against them is a cherry on top of the schadenfreude sunday.

Most people not making upper 5 or 6 figure salaries don't have the luxury of taking a day off work just to stick it to the man.

The man knows this, and this is why the man gets away with screwing you over.

I anticipated a response like this but I don't think it applies in this situation.

According to the article around 60,000 people have found the time to make this happen.

What we are seeing is a fundamental aspect of human nature and that is that spite is a great motivator.

You're right, most people can't afford to do this, but many can. Enough that it is hitting Uber where it hurts -- the bottom line.

And as someone who favours stronger protections for workers that is most pleasing.

>spite is a great motivator.

This is exactly why spite is a great motivator - it encourages people to do better game theory (in the context of the ancestral evolutionary environment, at least). If you never go after the $25 someone owes you just out of spite, people will repeatedly take advantage of you in ways that aren't worth remedying.

I wouldn't say that spite is the only thing at work here. Humans are incredibly tied to fairness, of which I think spite is a partial sub-set.

Some people will spend more cash to remedy the unfairness of the situation

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/are-human...

In a more just world, there would be a way for common people to avail the benefits of our legal system without sacrificing a day of work, mailing snail-mail letters and faxing forms in triplicate. If a company owes me $25, why can't I just take them to small claims court with a simple E-mail to my county court?

> If Uber stole $25 from me, it isn't worth taking a day off work to go to the arbitration session.

You're sending a pretty strong signal there. Do you know who's listening for it?

I bet that this personal data, that you are giving away money is really valuable to some 3rd party.

Is the signal "is employed?"

Minimum wage workers make $50+ dollars a day. Even part time, most shifts are at least long enough to make $25.

Its not like PTO is a thing or you can ask to be scheduled Monday off instead of Tuesday this way and lose zero money.

Your sarcasm is noted, but not everyone has that flexibility.

Nor is taking PTO to sit in arbitration for a while for $25 an appealing option for many people.

Not being screwed over in the future is pretty appealing.

Let me clarify, the signal is that you can be swindled for $25 and won't be fighting back.

Those same minimum wage workers also couldn't really afford to lose that $25 in the first place

If it’s not worth going to arbitration for $25, then it’s not worth going to court, either, so what’s the difference?

You can play chicken about actually going to court over the matter, too, by writing a professional-looking demand letter stating your claim and mailing it return-receipt requested to the corporation's service agent.

Costs about $10 (not including labor, because IMO it's personally satisfying), and has roughly a one-in-three chance of them simply paying you to avoid the expense of small claims court.

Is it worth sending big lawyers who will get millions? You'll probably only get a coupon for a free ride. You're still not going to get your $25 back, but at least you'll get to sic big lawyers on the company.

It isn't an accident that arbitration clauses come with class action waivers.

You can do a credit card chargeback. I've done that against both Uber and Lyft when they screwed up my ride but still charged me, and refused a refund through-app.

I didn't get banned, American Express handled the negotiation for me, and I got my money back and with a canned apology email from the companies.

I'd take the time to start he arbitration process and then just not show up (for the same reason as you). They likely still incur most of the costs as if you did, minus whatever payout would result.

Society need altruistic punishers of antisocial behaviour. I would probably not do it for 25 usd if I demanded it of them even though it would be good if I did, but surely if someone demanded 25 of me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com