Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "They Can’t Sue Uber for Accident Injuries Because of App’s Terms of Service" video.

You can blame the incompetent justices being put on various courts for that. Only a great fool would consider that anybody is actually entering into these contracts with a real understanding of what they're agreeing to or opportunity to have their questions answered. And in many cases, there may not even be a viable opportunity to not sign the contract. If you have to fly for a funeral or similar, you're stuck agreeing to whatever terms there are from the airline, and there's no guarantee that an abusive term isn't going to be shared between all the available airlines.
2
@crypticnomad It should never exist. If parties want to agree to arbitration once there is a dispute, that's one thing, but there should never be any of these forced arbitration provisions in these sorts of take it or leave it contracts when the party agreeing to accept the offer has no way of knowing what the actual disputes might eventually entail.
2
@Hero_Puddle Yes, if the parties want to agree to arbitration after some dispute comes up, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But, the constitution does give people the right to a jury trial for most civil disputes, so why are we allowing people to waive their right without even knowing what the ultimate dispute might be? If the remedy is a refund on the fare paid, that's one thing, but in some of these cases people are dead or seriously injured, but it's arbitration anyways?
2
And fortunately for these corporate types, the judiciary has been stocked with people that are too stupid to see the connection in any of this. As long as they don't hire arbitrators that explicitly promise to side with them, they'll ignore the inherent bias of arbitrators that are dong a lot of business with one party and only one case with the other. As if there isn't a significant incentive to not find the "wrong" way too many times. Arbitration should always be negotiated after there's a dispute and the company shouldn't be allowed to use the same arbitrators for their cases. It should be anybody that the parties can agree with off whatever list of licensed arbitrators is available in that area.
2
@unbreakable7633 Yes, that's because appeals are done on the basis of their being something wrong with the legal process, not the result being wrong. So, unless there's something so wrong with the process as to warrant it being retried or overturned, it's probably not going to happen. And, there are rules about what kinds of things are even possible to be appealed in the first place.
1
@paritybit7830 That's part of the point. Historically there had to actually be a proper signature that you could verify or in the case of something like an X, there would be an expectation of their being a witness to the signing. At this point, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of evidence of people agreeing to things because it's done through shady means like clickwrap licenses and ToS that are clearly not going to be expected to be worth enough to justify paying an attorney to review it for things of this nature so that the people agreeing to things have informed consent. So, you've got people that are allegedly agreeing to things that they may not understand and that's somehow enforceable wiith a binding arbitration even for things that would normally have a constitutional right to a jury trial.
1