Comment by kevin_b_er | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevin_b_er | Hacker News Reader

The case is already dead.

If you bought a Tesla, you have no right to a court of law involving Tesla. It will go to arbitration, where the case will be secret, but Tesla will know the arguments and results of of all attempts against it, but not you. It will go to arbitration, where the arbiter may be blacklisted from future cases if it rules against Tesla. It will go to arbitration, where the arbiter's ruling is final and the law does not apply. Capricious? Does not matter.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is superseded and voided by the American Arbitration Act. You, as a citizen owner of a Tesla, are barred from using that law against Tesla. The Sherman Act is superseded and voided by the American Arbitration Act. You, as a citizen owner of a Tesla, are barred from using that law against Tesla. No court of law will ever be permitted to apply those laws against Telsa by a Tesla owner.

This case was already dismissed once in Sept of last year when the motion to compel arbitration was granted. They're trying again with some sort of attempted resurrection, but its just a waste of money, because Tesla owners are barred from courts of law. They will go to a privatized pseudo-court where they will lose and where they can't do class action unless Telsa wants it.

> The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is superseded and voided by the American Arbitration Act.

Poking around, I found this [0] from 2015 that suggests the opposite, unless a certain malign President caused the FTC to switch policies.

> the FTC has taken the position since 1975 that binding arbitration provisions are prohibited in warranties. [...] The FTC specifically rejected the argument that an arbitration proceeding is not an [informal dispute settlement mechanism] because it is binding and therefore outside the [Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act], which permits warrantors to establish [informal dispute settlement mechanism]s for breach of warranty claims and require consumers to use such [informal dispute settlement mechanism]s before bringing a civil suit.

[0] https://casetext.com/analysis/ftc-continues-to-ban-mandatory...

Courts have ruled in the past that arbitration clauses were illegal or unenforceable for various reasons so it not that cut and dry .

Contract law is not simple, just because I signed the contract doesn’t mean it is enforcement is guaranteed.

While I agree with the estimation that this is loosing and courts would either rule that is not a monopoly or enforce the arbitration clause and kick the case out , it is not a given .

Every case is unique, a lot depends on the judge or jury and background of the specific case.

Also filing suit doesn’t mean that trial is always the goal. It could be just a strategic move in the process between plantiffs and defense .

Sometimes companies would settle not because it will loose, but because it is cheaper to settle. Sometimes they don’t want discovery process opening up internal documents that could be damaging. Fox forked over 780M because of this (and also plaintiffs had a slam dunk case ).

This is not necessarily true in matters involving injunctive relief, depending on the wording of the contract, whether arbitration itself may be arbitrated, and whether the judge considers arbitration appropriate for the relief prayed for.

Do you have a source for this? Because it doesn't sound credible.

You can read their Motor Vehicle Order Agreement. Mandatory Binding Arbitration.

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-arbitration-epidemic/ https://centerjd.org/system/files/ArbitrationWhitePaper.pdf

You can even read Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc, where even when the agreement said the courts could review. Where, no, courts of law may not review an arbiter's decision if you both agree it would be able to after arbitration.

You can read Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., where SCOTUS explicitly declared the American Arbitration Act overrides the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

You can read Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, where you find out you have no substantive rights where the AAA is involved.

There's still weak attempts to save it, but the The National Labor Relations Act is also likely superseded by the American Arbitration Act, basically voiding the NLRA from being ever applicable.

Courts of law are barred where arbitration is inserted, anywhere, whether you know it or not. You lose basic rights where arbitration is concerned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com