Venmo forces binding arbitration unless you opt out by mail before June 22
help.venmo.com
help.venmo.com
P.S.: At least can venmo be compelled to act or confirm our choice if we are forced to mail in their form? Can they claim they never received it, that it was printed incorrectly (since the form isn’t a PDF and can be easily rendered differently by various browsers) or missing some specific info?
You get a receipt showing they received it
In an ethical world they would need a receipt that you agreed
I don't think they'd have a leg to stand on in claiming that your version of the form was incorrectly rendered, as long as you provided all the requested information.
If you failed to include every piece of information the form asks for, perhaps they'd have an argument to reject your opt-out; the contract does specifically say that every piece of info must be included and it must be signed.
It seems like Venmo and PayPal can get away with murder by us not opting out of it if it's written in their terms.
Replacing the system wholesale is... an incredibly naïve solution, to say the least.
I think even Alexander Solzhenitsyn hints at these issues in his essay: https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/a-world-split-apart
I really wish HN didn't have this tradition of fake references into academia, and recognized why citations have to be specific
You are claiming that he said the exact opposite of what he actually said
I would emphasize that last sentence. I didnt even say that Solzhenitsyn advocates for my view I said he hints at these issues in this essay.
That just says "neckbeards constantly test limits, Westerners are lawsuit happy because it lets them emotionally avoid compromise, and sometimes people should choose not to take everything to court when they could just be nice."
I have the strong impression that you have never read this book and are trying to argue from a search engine
Large parts of this book rail against what you're saying as villainy, and that it is oppressors who argue for the removal of the law in the faked hope of finding something better
I dont think he nor I think of it as "neckbeards constantly testing limits" but as the whole of society; specifically the area that matters here is corporations.
I am not into Crypto blah blah solutions. I am simply arguing that yet another random specific law doesnt seem to fix the issue.
Using legal mechanisms to solve these kind of issues is ineffective, inefficient, and inegalitarian.
which is weird because he's being held up as support of removing the law in favor of (handwavey nothing)
.
> Using legal mechanisms to solve these kind of issues is ineffective, inefficient, and inegalitarian.
No evidence supports these claims and no replacement is offered.
Criticism without evidence or replacement is facile.
I never made this claim.
The evidence is the subject of the original post itself. This is part of a thread. Click on parent...
What a disappointing conversation.
Good luck to you.
Making abusive behavior illegal isn't about numerical representation
To cut the Gordian knot means to ignore the problem as irrelevant by discarding previous requirements. You seem to be suggesting that we should not require large corporations to get our consent before binding us to things
I find that the heavy use of imagery can make falling backwards sound like progress
But no, we shouldn't throw out the law just because a new scam emerged
Also if I do mail this form why do they want to know where I live? I do want to opt out of shitty terms if that be the case but I don't wish to tell them and any potential stalkers where I live
Edit:
I guess similar to the one that got a math degree just to write dark patterns.
Or the programmer who finishes a top CS course only to go directly into undermining the democratic process by working for the likes of Cambridge Analytica, or the programmer giving teenagers depression through aggressive adtech. We're really in no position to be criticising lawyers for sending their industry's top minds to do morally questionable things!
You may not be. I’m just helping people replace their broken phones.
Also, developers very often confess their misbehaviors on social media and donate their time to OSS and money to charity or the social warrior politician du jour, while lawyers are infidels. This basically clears the bad record for developers, so they can continue working for Facebook et. al. with no remorse.
This is perfectly reasonable, logical way of thinking in the year 1022. I mean, 2022.
If you think of downvoting, be careful, as you may end up being sued for intolerance.
I'm dead serious. Or lively joking. Your choice.
And which is about as funny as this other snippet you just wrote:
"Math plays no role in them beyond being able to understand an A/B test (i.e. to be able to understand math)"
Anyway the commenter's point wasn't that writing software with dark patterns requires super-heavy math (or even a math degree specifically). But how ironic it is that people with (sometimes highly prestigious) STEM degrees -- and who are in fact objectively quite smart otherwise, sometimes almost intimidatingly so -- end up at allegedly prestigious companies that we don't need to name doing ... basically mindless and socially harmful work like this.
And getting paid quite handsomely for it.
The phrase "liberal education" does not have a valid real world meaning
All the rules seem different for arb: no consistent rules of evidence, tons of decisions just left up to each individual arbitrator. One could say, I guess, that this is a marketplace freedom, like shopping around for the patent court friendly to original inventors, etc. In this marketplace, you can find an arb closest to how you hope your case will go, who will do things the way you want to, perhaps. But it's a forced marketplace, not one that I get to opt into or out of for so many interactions these days.
Forced arb was supposed to make things better. Do we have any evidence that it does, and for whom?
Was it, though? It was supposed to make things better for the party that is forcing the arb, and it does. Everything that I force anyone but my kids to do is going to be for my own advantage. If is weren't better for them, they'd probably stop doing it, rather than doing it more and lobbying against restrictions on it.
The purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act was not to make things better for end customers like you and I.
The law was passed because judges at the time (in 1926, for what it's worth) were reluctant to enforce decisions reached through arbitration in courts because judges saw arbitration as either a reduction of judicial authority or less fair and open than a judicial proceeding. Both views were held at the time, take your pick for which one you prefer.
Arbitration was originally supposed to be about two parties of roughly equal negotiation and information-acquisition power being able to work out arguments between themselves. Inherently, this meant business-to-business complaints with each other.
You and I are not on equal footing and with the overwhelming majority of entities with which we contract, nor can we easily negotiate the terms of those contracts, both of which were features of the entities who originally wanted to use binding arbitration. But over the years, businesses that provide services to individual customers figured out that getting sued was expensive and decades of "ambulance-chasing class action lawyers are unfair!" turned the tide against using courts as neutral forums. Supreme Court decisions relating to the arbitration act over the past thirty years or so have effectively slammed the door on using courts and some members of Congress don't seem motivated to change this.
(Note that I am biased against binding arbitration agreements. I think them unconscionable, and I laugh endlessly when "well-intentioned" companies that do a Show HN here have them in their terms.)
The primary goal is for businesses to escape accountability under the legal system, and I'm sure it does or they would stop pushing this nonsensical crap. And like always, if only individuals could similarly limit their liability in such ways, we would need a lot less insurance!
The only thing that would redeem arbitration is getting rid of mandatory arbitration. There is no problem with the possibility of being able to assent to binding arbitration once you've got a dispute, if both parties think it's beneficial. The problem is companies forcing these terms onto us ahead of time via the fallacy of contract, allowing to arbitration industry to function with perverse incentives.
1. In the Venmo app, go to the You tab by selecting the single person icon 2. Tap the Settings gear in the top right 3. Select “Account” under “Preferences” 4. Tap “Close Venmo Account”
Section 26 https://www.zellepay.com/legal/user-service-agreement
https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1500993875627761666 (patio11 on Zelle and Reg E, for example)
https://www.zellepay.com/faq/someone-sent-me-money-zelle-how...
> The clause required Uber drivers to pay a large up-front administrative and legal filing fee of US$14,500, and to travel to the Netherlands to arbitrate their claims.
It's amazing Uber thought this would hold up to judicial scrutiny. It's basically a "you can't do anything if we screw you over" clause for most of the population. Good thing the Canadian courts agreed:
> The majority of the Supreme Court found that the arbitration clause was invalid under the doctrine of unconscionability as there was: (a) proof of unequal bargaining power between the parties; and (b) proof of an improvident bargain (i.e., gross unfairness).
[1] https://www.mondaq.com/canada/arbitration-dispute-resolution...
Or, if there’s an explanation for this that I don’t understand, please explain.
I cannot find it somehow, maybe I am misremembering.
https://qz.com/work/1801652/doordash-is-learning-just-how-bi...
"provides that you will only be permitted to pursue claims against PayPal on an individual basis, not as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action or proceeding;
provides that you will only be permitted to seek relief (including monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief) on an individual basis"
I'm wondering if this language is to try to prevent that tactic?
But they can be forced to do business under particular terms, or can be forced to do business with everyone under the same terms. If they don't want to, they can walk away from the business, but society has to have standards.
...of course, no-one is using HN to transfer money, so it's not really a fair comparison (but just wait until YC introduces crypto/NFTs somehow :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
... well not the comment, but the NFT to the comment.
Sarcasm but I'm sure GPT-3 or similar could be trained from algolia search results and output that.
How is it possible for this to happen automatically without agreeing to it?!
When you initially agreed to the TOS, there was a clause that said Venmo/PayPal can modify the terms whenever they want:
"We may revise this user agreement and any of the policies listed above from time to time. The revised version will be effective at the time we post it, unless otherwise noted. If our changes reduce your rights or increase your responsibilities we will provide notice to you of at least 21 days. We reserve the right to amend this agreement at any time without notice, subject to applicable law. By continuing to use our services after any changes to this user agreement become effective, you agree to abide and be bound by those changes. If you do not agree with any changes to this user agreement, you may close your account."
https://venmo.com/legal/us-user-agreement/
Every TOS you've ever agreed to has a clause like this. These agreements are extremely one-sided.
That is the thing which really should be illegal. It doesn't even make sense. You agree to terms that we can be modified any time they want? What are you even agreeing to with a contract like that?
via contract
> How is it possible for this to happen automatically without agreeing to it?!
by accepting the Terms of Service
Unfortunately, the law treats negotiations between actual peers and large companies "negotiating" with individual customers the same way--it'd be hard to delineate distinct classes of actors that can and cannot enter into arbitration agreements (or contracts in general).
Requiring an explicit opt-in versus "by continuing to use this service with saying otherwise, you consent to this change" for certain classes of contractual changes is probably doable (IANAL this could possibly raise some issue I'm not thinking of), but in practice there's no political will to make that change. Automatic consent is legal currently and will likely remain legal in the future.
And yet we are able to do so in the EU, with just one sentence: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
> (b) ‘consumer’ means any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession;
and that directive prohibits binding arbitration in the annex:
> (q) excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract.
(j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract [1];
And the annex list is not exclusive. In general any term that is not in good faith is considered non binding for consumer contracts if there was not individually negotiated.
[1] There are nuances, for example such a term might be valid as long as the customer has the option of terminating the contract.
We in America really need to do something about our courts. Justice through the legal system is already out of reach for most Americans, even if they have the money and an open and closed case, it's likely they don't have the time to persue something which may take years (delaying tactics are a real thing).
(The basic relevant articles in the directive are Article 3, Article 6 and the Annex here.)
Now that the UK left the EU, and given the "conservative" (i.e. neo-con, market-liberal) government, I wonder if the UK laws concerning this kind of consumer protection will get watered down (or already have been).
> Under EU law, standard contract terms must not: > * be contrary to the requirement of good faith; > * disadvantage consumers (in terms of rights & obligations), in relation to sellers/suppliers.
There might be a more specialized law/regulation though. The EU is pretty bad with their public relations stuff so it's hard to tell.
[1]: https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...
However, with arbitration.. the corporation can remove your right to do so and force this disagreement to be settled through an organization that they pay. It limits your rights, it limits the amount of money you get get back from the situation you encountered, and they do not have to abide by any normal laws sorrounding civil litigation.
But hey, you typically don't pay as much as you would of a lawyer upfront.
This isn't an action that people are consenting to.. it's something they're being forced into.. unless they follow a difficult procedure to do avoid it.
This is a part I've never been quite clear on, do you know what governs venue selection for an arbitration? e.g. why their arbitrator and not my arbitrator?
> The AAA does not itself arbitrate disputes, but provides administrative support to arbitrations before a single arbitrator or a panel of three arbitrators. Under its rules, the AAA may appoint an arbitrator in some circumstances, for example, where the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator or a party fails to exercise its right to appoint an arbitrator.
The AAA has a "National Roster of Arbitrators". The AAA appoints an arbitrator from this roster. https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer_Rules_Web_2... R-15 and R-16.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(alternative_dispute_res... for why that alone doesn't ensure impartiality.
Or at least, you have to pay a lawyer $500/hour to first argue for your right to sue in court, before you can even begin your lawsuit.
They're telling us that we have to physically mail in a form, or else we lose the ability to dispute charges in the future.
Yup, they were an interesting service but I'm done. This is garbage.
It's like Venmo saying: we have a right to take everything you own unless you opt out of this agreement. Nnno you don't, that's literal stealing, like trying to rob people of their right to sue.
It’s cheaper, which renders benign the big-company dickhead move of forcing millions of dollars of legal preparation. It’s quieter, which renders benign the big-company dickhead move of airing embarrassing stuff in public filings. It’s faster; if you’re owed money you’ll get it quicker.
There is concern arbitration may be more biased than the courts, but the evidence for anything systematic is scant, and the extra eyes don’t hurt. (There is even, now, precedent for collective antagonistic action [1].) For most users, considering the sorts of squabbles one is likely to get into with the likes of Venmo, releasing Venmo from binding arbitration may be a net negative move. (If you get screwed for anything less than hundreds of thousands, you’ve given up your right to pursue.)
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-19/trump-law...
Arbitration is secret, so what evidence are you talking about?
Given how companies really want their customers and employees to switch to binding arbitration, I don't trust binding arbitration as being fair.
Consider the following, from https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJCMA-10... :
> Despite the ubiquity of arbitration, consumers rarely use it. Wells Fargo’s near 3.5 million fraudulent accounts is an illuminating example. Using mandatory arbitration in its adhesion contracts, Wells Fargo managed to keep arbitration claims low despite the wide-spread fraudulent scheme. In reality, Wells Fargo only faced 250 consumer arbitration claims between 2009 and the first half of 2017 (Economic Policy Institute, 2017). A similar story exists for AT&T that has the largest consumer base in its sector with more than 150 million wireless subscribers, most, if not all, of whom are subject to arbitration. In the first three months of 2019, only 111 AT&T customers resolved their disputes with the company in arbitration (AAA Consumer Report Q1, American Arbitration Association, 2019).
As to the "airing embarrassing stuff in public filings", we also know companies protect their public image. The customer (or their lawyer) may use the threat of a lawsuit, which will make the issue public, as leverage to get the company to resolve the issue.
A confidential arbitration clause removes this form of leverage.
> forcing millions of dollars of legal preparation
Venmo's terms allow taking an issue to small claims. It's only for larger issues - and class action issues - where binding arbitration is required. So of course these are the ones that are more likely to require "millions of dollars of legal preparation."
Just like how Wells Fargo could engage in widespread fraud without worrying about the millions of dollars it would have cost to lose a class action suit.
> the extra eyes don’t hurt
There are fewer eyes in the mandatory arbitration process than in the public court system. The latter is public (more eyes) and has a more extensive appeals system (more eyes).
Generally speaking b2b arbitration is faster, sometimes cheaper, less reputation damage, better judgements. Judges in arbitration are usually way more experienced.
Arbitration in consumer contracts usually benefits the company. Companies select biased arbitrators, because they have control over the selection of the arbitrator. There is no discovery or depositions. Less details.
Vanishingly few go into a contract seeing themselves starting a lawsuit. The option is there for the exceedingly rare occasions it is needed. That option existing is very relevant to how the parties act in their working relationship. If you remove that option, the incentives promote acting in a way previously hindered by that option existing. It's a self-reinforcing loop.