Noticed this update got pushed just now.

Edit: Seems they’re doing this to prevent costs from arbitration. Read comment below.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    66·
    3 months ago

    Seems like a good thing?

    I was wondering if it was related to anything passed recently, because another service had to change privacy rules to opt in over a rule change in Cali. I just assume if it sounds like a good thing for consumers, it probably wasn’t their choice, lol, but I guess in this case it’s just a cost cutting measure.

    I at least appreciate them being pretty clear about what’s different now.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      33·
      3 months ago

      I think there’s a bit of a sea change in business generally where arbitration ended up being worse for corporations if too many customers/employees used that option because it meant paying a bunch of money for each case instead of dealing with one class action suit.

      While the arbitration courts themselves are generally biased to corporate interests, it’s not enough of a thumb on the scale to make up for the huge downside.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        16·
        3 months ago

        I’ve seen some arbitration agreements stating that you can’t collaborate with other customers who are affected by the same issue, requiring each customer to have a different attorney.

        Some companies really want to make it impossible for you to win any significant damages against them.

        At that point, they are just telling on themselves.

        • ggppjj@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          3 months ago

          I’ve seen some arbitration agreements stating that you can’t collaborate with other customers who are affected by the same issue, requiring each customer to have a different attorney.

          Oh no, I did it anyways and collaborated with other customers online. Oh well guess we gotta arbitrate that now.

    • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyzMEnglish
      10·
      3 months ago

      From what I’ve read, it can go either way (note: not a lawyer).

      Arbitration is easier for people to seek compensation, but it usually prevents any significant damages and doesn’t set a legal precedent that others can use to easily get compensation.

      Court cases are harder to start and generally require a lawyer, but if you win you can get significant damages and it can set a legal precedent.

      So it’s usually best for the consumer to have a choice on how to pursue issues. I have seen a lot of companies lately update their terms for arbitration only though, so this is at contrast with how most companies I’ve seen are handling things.

      • taiyang@lemmy.world
        5·
        3 months ago

        Having been sued by copyright vultures, I definitely get the difficulty with court. The minimum just to have a lawyer retainer was 2500. The vultures told us to essentially give them 2400 and the problem would go away (a strongly worded email managed to get them off my back, but mostly because they clearly used bots).

        I can see it weed out small cases less than that. I guess it’d help if I knew what people were sueing over.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          4·
          3 months ago

          Should’ve gone with a much lower number. The difference of 100 dollars means nothing to my burning spite.

          • taiyang@lemmy.world
            2·
            3 months ago

            That was technically my thinking too, haha. If you’re ever targeted by this (and it can be as simple as having a Google image placeholder in an unindexed page) you just need to be stubborn and spiteful. It’s not worth their time with so many other patsies, haha.