DoorDash drivers use arbitration clause to force DoorDash into arbitration
theverge.com
theverge.com
I wonder if consumers could use forced arbitration in the same way.
That's not actually true. He'd been coding since 1985 [1].
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...
> “I couldn't have told you the first thing about Java before this trial,” said the judge
Reading any past there sheds light on the judge.
They can. Patreon is about to be hit really hard for playing thought policeman.
> “You’re going to pay that money,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said [to DoorDash] in court. “You don’t want to pay millions of dollars, but that’s what you bargained to do and you’re going to do it.”
There really isn't much room for interpretation, is there? Patreon is a tiny company, $5 million is ~1% of their value. If nothing else it would cause trouble with the liquidity.
1. The claim in the link that Patreon banning someone from using them to receive funding is tortious interference with a business relationship giving the people who wanted to donate that person a cause of action is extremely tenuous at best.
For an act to be tortious interference there has to be something wrong about that act other than just that it impacted the relationship between two other parties.
For example, if Patreon decided to kick off all black creators, that would be wrong regardless of whether or not it impacted any business relationships between those creators and others. A claim for tortious interference might be viable.
The bannings being complained about don't fall into any such protected category as far as I know.
2. The link is to a site that is generally unreliable. The author is a major pusher of conspiracy theories, pedophilia accusations, and the like which almost never stand up to scrutiny. For those rare things he publishes that are not those kind of things, there should always be a better source you can link to.
No one has time to fact check every article they read, so you want to get your articles from places that are mostly right with at most a rare goof, not places that are the other way around. Many people down vote for linking to the later kind of site, even if the particular article is one of their rare reasonable ones, because it makes more work for the reader than linking to a better site would have.
An act can be wrong for the purposes of tortuous interference if it is done to appropriate the benefits of the plaintiff's contract, is an independent or illegal wrong, or if the conduct was done for the sole purpose of injuring the plaintiff.
In this case it will be extremely difficult to proof that Patreon acted solely to injure the defendants.
> In summary, such a claim is made out when interference resulting in injury to another is wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. Defendant's liability may arise from improper motives or from the use of improper means. They may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other regulation, or a recognized rule of common law, or perhaps an established standard of a trade or profession
which I came across in this article on the elements of tortuous interference claims under California law [3].
[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1978/283-o...
[2] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/11...
[3] https://www.businessjustice.com/what-are-the-elements-for-a-...
"Defendant's liability may arise from improper motives or from the use of improper means." Given this quote from your source the description you presented of what is required to meet the standard is still inaccurate. Based upon the quote the action taken doesn't have to be improper. Only the motivation for the action has to be improper.
I counter your ad hominem with a substantive appeal to authority and evidence to the contrary: the author is not only a lawyer, but the one who broke open the Epstein case (pedophilia accusation conspiracy theory that stood up to scrutiny) with a Florida filing alongside the Miami Herald.
this is a gratuitous and useless slur.
The sad part is that they're not alone. Most of these new "disruptive" startups are equally nasty.
You're not forced to work for DoorDash in the first place, so it's not really forcing anyone. In theory.
> 5. How much does arbitration cost?
> If the court orders a case to arbitration (following a stipulation or at the Case Management Conference), and the parties elect to use an arbitrator on the court's Arbitration Panel, the court pays the arbitrator ($150 for up to four hours and a maximum of $300 regardless of the number of arbitration sessions).
> If the parties choose a private arbitrator, they will be required to pay the arbitrator's regular hourly rate and other charges. The market rates for private arbitrators can range from $200-$1,000 per hour.
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1555406&_da...
If it's not by court order, but in the clause of a contract, then the company just never bothers to schedule the arbitration at all. That's actually going on with some companies.
So no law suit and no arbitration. Win-win for the company.