Forced arbitration - Revision history

2001:4BC9:82B:F663:2205:B7FF:FE00:E700: /* References */ fix archive date

2026-03-21T02:47:51Z

References: fix archive date

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 21 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''[[wikipedia:Arbitration\|Forced arbitration]]''' is a practice in which businesses can require their customers to resolve disputes through arbitration, instead of a traditional court system. Per Wikipedia: "Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision."		'''[[wikipedia:Arbitration\|Forced arbitration]]''' is a practice in which businesses can require their customers to resolve disputes through arbitration, instead of a traditional court system. Per Wikipedia: "Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision."

	== Origins ==		==Origins==
	In 2011<ref>''American Express v Italian Colors Restaurant'', 133 S. Ct. 2403 (2013); ''AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion'', 131 S.		In 2011<ref>''American Express v Italian Colors Restaurant'', 133 S. Ct. 2403 (2013); ''AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion'', 131 S.

Line 42:		Line 42:

	*Bandcamp Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-20. In addition, users in countries where forced arbitration is not allowed cannot use the service: "Use of the Service is not authorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these Terms of Use, including without limitation, this section."<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bandcamp Terms of Use \|url=https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251013161152/https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date=2025-10-20 \|website=Bandcamp}}</ref>		*Bandcamp Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-20. In addition, users in countries where forced arbitration is not allowed cannot use the service: "Use of the Service is not authorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these Terms of Use, including without limitation, this section."<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bandcamp Terms of Use \|url=https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251013161152/https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date=2025-10-20 \|website=Bandcamp}}</ref>
	*CNN Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-13 "14. CLASS ACTION AND JURY TRIAL WAIVER" <ref>{{Cite web \|title=CNN Terms Of Use \|url=https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251014030156/https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date=2025-10-13 \|website=[[CNN]]}}</ref>		*CNN Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-13 "14. CLASS ACTION AND JURY TRIAL WAIVER" <ref>{{Cite web \|date=May 12, 2025 \|title=CNN Terms Of Use \|url=https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251014030156/https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-date=2025-10-14 \|access-date=2025-10-13 \|website=[[CNN]]}}</ref>
	*Indeed Terms of Service, as of 2025-08-22 - Section D: General Terms for All Users - 12. Arbitration Agreement<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms of Service \|url=https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250825081104/https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|archive-date=2025-08-25 \|access-date=2025-09-02 \|website=[[Indeed]]}}</ref>		*Indeed Terms of Service, as of 2025-08-22 - Section D: General Terms for All Users - 12. Arbitration Agreement<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms of Service \|url=https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250825081104/https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|archive-date=2025-08-25 \|access-date=2025-09-02 \|website=[[Indeed]]}}</ref>
	*Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />		*Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />
Line 58:		Line 58:
	*[[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, Section 27.1, says: "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court."<ref>{{Cite web \|date=11 Aug 2023 \|title=Zoom Terms of Service \|url=https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=[[Zoom]] \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251021031940/https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null \|archive-date=21 Oct 2025}}</ref>		*[[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, Section 27.1, says: "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court."<ref>{{Cite web \|date=11 Aug 2023 \|title=Zoom Terms of Service \|url=https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=[[Zoom]] \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251021031940/https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null \|archive-date=21 Oct 2025}}</ref>

	== Legal cases<!-- Want to add more? this baby is chalk full of them! https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn4 --> ==		==Legal cases<!-- Want to add more? this baby is chalk full of them! https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn4 -->==
	Many cases, often class actions, were turned away because of forced arbitration clauses, below is an incomplete list of consumer protection cases shut down by forced arbitraton.<!-- As always, please ensure chronological organization! -->		Many cases, often class actions, were turned away because of forced arbitration clauses, below is an incomplete list of consumer protection cases shut down by forced arbitraton.<!-- As always, please ensure chronological organization! -->
	{\| class="wikitable"		{\| class="wikitable"
Line 79:		Line 79:
	\|		\|
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''''G.G. v. Valve Corp., No. 2:16cv01941, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50640'''''		\|'''''G.G. v. Valve Corp., No. 2:16cv01941, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50640'''''
	\|2017		\|2017
	\|[TBA] - Lawsuit against valve over CS:GO loot boxes being gambling, compelled into arbitration		\|[TBA] - Lawsuit against valve over CS:GO loot boxes being gambling, compelled into arbitration

Bananabot: Added archive URLs for 19 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-23T04:37:23Z

Added archive URLs for 19 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot

Show changes

Bananabot: Re-archived 1 citation(s) from archive.today to web.archive.org using CRWCitationBot

2026-02-22T23:43:03Z

Re-archived 1 citation(s) from archive.today to web.archive.org using CRWCitationBot

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:43, 22 February 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Ct. 1740 (2011).</ref> and 2013<ref>{{Cite web \|date=Apr 16, 2019 \|title=Fact Sheet: Cases Tossed Out of Court Because of Forced Arbitration Causes and Class Action Bans \|url=https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn1 \|access-date=Feb 12, 2026 \|website=Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School}}</ref> cases received rulings from the ''Supreme Court of the United States'' wherein corporations can strip individuals of their constitutional right to civil jury trial and force them into private, corporate-controlled arbitration systems to resolve disputes. These rulings also stated that companies have the unilateral right to ban class actions by inserting class action “waivers” into these arbitration clauses.		Ct. 1740 (2011).</ref> and 2013<ref>{{Cite web \|date=Apr 16, 2019 \|title=Fact Sheet: Cases Tossed Out of Court Because of Forced Arbitration Causes and Class Action Bans \|url=https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn1 \|access-date=Feb 12, 2026 \|website=Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School}}</ref> cases received rulings from the ''Supreme Court of the United States'' wherein corporations can strip individuals of their constitutional right to civil jury trial and force them into private, corporate-controlled arbitration systems to resolve disputes. These rulings also stated that companies have the unilateral right to ban class actions by inserting class action “waivers” into these arbitration clauses.

	In 2018, the scope of these decisions were expanded by ''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'',<ref>''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'', 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).</ref> wherein workers whose employment contracts contain class action waivers was decided to not violate legal rights granted to workers by the ''National Labor Relations Act''. This decision impacted millions of employment contracts,<ref>{{Cite news \|last=Liptak \|first=Adam \|date=Oct 2, 2017 \|title=Supreme Court Divided on Arbitration for Workplace Cases \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-workplace-arbitration.html \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://~~archive~~.is/~~gd5bQ~~ \|archive-date=~~Feb 12, 2026~~ \|access-date=Feb 12, 2026 \|work=The New York Times}}</ref> and analysis by the ''National Law Journal'' has shown that the employment cases, most of which were class actions, “broke in favor of the defendant.” At least 50% of these cases compelled plaintiffs to arbitrate.<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Mulvaney \|first=Erin \|date=Feb 28, 2019 \|title='Epic' Impact: How a Major SCOTUS Decision in Favor of Arbitration Is Shaping the Landscape for Workplace Lawsuits \|url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/28/epic-impact-how-a-major-scotus-decision-in-favor-of-arbitration-is-shaping-the-landscape-for-workplace-lawsuits/?slreturn=20260212061628 \|journal=National Law Journal \|via=Law.com}}</ref> <!-- Something something, objectively connect it to how it may have influenced corporations into abusing these measures in their own EULAs -->		In 2018, the scope of these decisions were expanded by ''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'',<ref>''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'', 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).</ref> wherein workers whose employment contracts contain class action waivers was decided to not violate legal rights granted to workers by the ''National Labor Relations Act''. This decision impacted millions of employment contracts,<ref>{{Cite news \|last=Liptak \|first=Adam \|date=Oct 2, 2017 \|title=Supreme Court Divided on Arbitration for Workplace Cases \|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-workplace-arbitration.html \|url-status=live \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250315134159/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-workplace-arbitration.html \|archive-date=15 Mar 2025\|access-date=Feb 12, 2026 \|work=The New York Times}}</ref> and analysis by the ''National Law Journal'' has shown that the employment cases, most of which were class actions, “broke in favor of the defendant.” At least 50% of these cases compelled plaintiffs to arbitrate.<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Mulvaney \|first=Erin \|date=Feb 28, 2019 \|title='Epic' Impact: How a Major SCOTUS Decision in Favor of Arbitration Is Shaping the Landscape for Workplace Lawsuits \|url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/28/epic-impact-how-a-major-scotus-decision-in-favor-of-arbitration-is-shaping-the-landscape-for-workplace-lawsuits/?slreturn=20260212061628 \|journal=National Law Journal \|via=Law.com}}</ref> <!-- Something something, objectively connect it to how it may have influenced corporations into abusing these measures in their own EULAs -->

	==How it works==		==How it works==

JamesTDG: Section on the origins of forced arb's abuse and a section on legal cases shut down due to forced arb

2026-02-12T11:45:21Z

Section on the origins of forced arb's abuse and a section on legal cases shut down due to forced arb

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''[[wikipedia:Arbitration|Forced arbitration]]''' is a practice in which businesses can require their customers to resolve disputes through arbitration, instead of a traditional court system. Per Wikipedia: "Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision."
 ==How it works==
@@ Line 50: / Line 57: @@
 *Zenimax Media (Bethesda) has an arbitration agreement that can only be opted out of within 30 days, ''by mail''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=ZeniMax Terms of Service |url=https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/terms-of-service |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=ZeniMax Media}}</ref>
 *[[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, Section 27.1, says: "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court."<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 Aug 2023 |title=Zoom Terms of Service |url=https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Zoom]]}}</ref>
 ==References==

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: Undo revision 36717 by AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) nvm the edits fine, LW just didnt like it

2026-02-11T17:45:27Z

Undo revision 36717 by AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) nvm the edits fine, LW just didnt like it

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 11 February 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:

	===Conflict of interest===		===Conflict of interest===
	Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=~~http~~://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>		Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=https://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>

	===Bricking until agreement===		===Bricking until agreement===

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: Reverted edit by AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) to last revision by 138.199.102.2

2026-02-11T17:44:57Z

Reverted edit by AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) to last revision by 138.199.102.2

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 11 February 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:

	===Conflict of interest===		===Conflict of interest===
	Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=~~https~~://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>		Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=http://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>

	===Bricking until agreement===		===Bricking until agreement===

AnotherConsumerRightsPerson: http to https with AutoWikiBrowser, replaced: http: → https:

2026-02-11T17:44:01Z

http to https with AutoWikiBrowser, replaced: http: → https:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:44, 11 February 2026
Line 23:		Line 23:

	===Conflict of interest===		===Conflict of interest===
	Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=~~http~~://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>		Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=https://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>

	===Bricking until agreement===		===Bricking until agreement===

138.199.102.2 at 19:25, 6 November 2025

2025-11-06T19:25:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 6 November 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:
	*[[Spotify]]'s End User Agreement, since 2015, contains a Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web \| title=Spotify Terms of Use \|url=https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/ \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901121247/https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/#6-problems-and-disputes \|archive-date=1 Sep 2025 \|access-date=5 Sep 2025 \|website=[[Spotify]]}}</ref>		*[[Spotify]]'s End User Agreement, since 2015, contains a Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web \| title=Spotify Terms of Use \|url=https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/ \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901121247/https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/#6-problems-and-disputes \|archive-date=1 Sep 2025 \|access-date=5 Sep 2025 \|website=[[Spotify]]}}</ref>
	*[[Ticketmaster]] Terms of Use - Section 17 - Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver \|url=https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use#section17 \|archive-date=5 Jan 2025 \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=[[Ticketmaster]]}}</ref>		*[[Ticketmaster]] Terms of Use - Section 17 - Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver \|url=https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use#section17 \|archive-date=5 Jan 2025 \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=[[Ticketmaster]]}}</ref>
			*Wayfair uses forced arbitration language in the Legal Disputes section of their Terms of Use.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms of Use \|url=https://www.wayfair.com/terms?section=terms-of-use \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241025165417/https://www.wayfair.com/terms?section=terms-of-use \|archive-date=25 Oct 2024 \|access-date=6 Nov 2025 \|website=[[Wayfair]]}}</ref> On 6 November 2025, the company emailed account holders notifying them of a change to the Legal Disputes section, and stating "You do not have to do anything to accept the updated Terms. Your continued use of our websites, apps or any of our services, including your account, indicate your acceptance of the updated Terms."
	*Western Digital - Has a forced-arbitration clause in the warranty for a ST500DM002-1BD142 hard drive. Clause 1, section "C". (And possibly other products.) <ref>{{Cite web \|title=Warranty {{!}} Western Digital \|url=https://consumerrights.wiki/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf}}</ref>		*Western Digital - Has a forced-arbitration clause in the warranty for a ST500DM002-1BD142 hard drive. Clause 1, section "C". (And possibly other products.) <ref>{{Cite web \|title=Warranty {{!}} Western Digital \|url=https://consumerrights.wiki/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf}}</ref>
	*Yahoo Terms of Service - Section 14.2.b "'''BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT'''" <ref>{{Cite web \|title=Yahoo Terms of Service {{!}} Yahoo \|url=https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250315082242/https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html \|archive-date=2025-03-15 \|access-date=2025-03-15 \|website=Yahoo}}</ref>		*Yahoo Terms of Service - Section 14.2.b "'''BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT'''" <ref>{{Cite web \|title=Yahoo Terms of Service {{!}} Yahoo \|url=https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250315082242/https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html \|archive-date=2025-03-15 \|access-date=2025-03-15 \|website=Yahoo}}</ref>

2A02:C7C:1488:8700:24C9:1710:ECDD:A64B: /* Examples */ fixed cite documented parm error

2025-11-05T22:43:58Z

Examples: fixed cite documented parm error

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 5 November 2025
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=http://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>		Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=http://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>

	=== Bricking until agreement ===		===Bricking until agreement===
	[[File:BadPiggiesArbitration.png\|thumb\|An example of forced arbitration, where the user has to agree to arbitration, regardless of if the software was previously installed on their device]]		[[File:BadPiggiesArbitration.png\|thumb\|An example of forced arbitration, where the user has to agree to arbitration, regardless of if the software was previously installed on their device]]
	For digital software in particular, they can be retroactively amended to require the user to agree to forced arbitration, while blocking the user from accessing the content they paid for until they agree to this binding arbitration. In the case of the mobile game ''Bad Piggies'', published by [[Rovio]], regardless of if the end user chose to not update their game or had the game previously installed since before the publisher instituted arbitration, said user is incapable of playing the game until they agree to binding arbitration.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=u/JamesTDG \|date=Oct 30, 2025 \|title=r/badpiggies - God damn it, Rovio, you put arbitration into the game I ALREADY PAID FOR \|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/badpiggies/comments/1oklx98/god_damn_it_rovio_you_put_arbitration_into_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button \|access-date=Oct 30, 2025 \|website=Reddit}}</ref><!-- This is TYPICALLY a no-no. Do NOT cite yourselves on the wiki! I am however the first person to post about this issue on the subreddit, so I can only cite myself here. When others post about it, I will change the ref. -->		For digital software in particular, they can be retroactively amended to require the user to agree to forced arbitration, while blocking the user from accessing the content they paid for until they agree to this binding arbitration. In the case of the mobile game ''Bad Piggies'', published by [[Rovio]], regardless of if the end user chose to not update their game or had the game previously installed since before the publisher instituted arbitration, said user is incapable of playing the game until they agree to binding arbitration.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=u/JamesTDG \|date=Oct 30, 2025 \|title=r/badpiggies - God damn it, Rovio, you put arbitration into the game I ALREADY PAID FOR \|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/badpiggies/comments/1oklx98/god_damn_it_rovio_you_put_arbitration_into_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button \|access-date=Oct 30, 2025 \|website=Reddit}}</ref><!-- This is TYPICALLY a no-no. Do NOT cite yourselves on the wiki! I am however the first person to post about this issue on the subreddit, so I can only cite myself here. When others post about it, I will change the ref. -->
Line 35:		Line 35:

	*Bandcamp Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-20. In addition, users in countries where forced arbitration is not allowed cannot use the service: "Use of the Service is not authorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these Terms of Use, including without limitation, this section."<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bandcamp Terms of Use \|url=https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251013161152/https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date=2025-10-20 \|website=Bandcamp}}</ref>		*Bandcamp Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-20. In addition, users in countries where forced arbitration is not allowed cannot use the service: "Use of the Service is not authorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these Terms of Use, including without limitation, this section."<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bandcamp Terms of Use \|url=https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251013161152/https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date=2025-10-20 \|website=Bandcamp}}</ref>
	*CNN Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-13 "14. CLASS ACTION AND JURY TRIAL WAIVER" <ref>{{Cite web \|title=CNN Terms Of Use \|url=https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251014030156/https://www.cnn.com/terms0		*CNN Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-13 "14. CLASS ACTION AND JURY TRIAL WAIVER" <ref>{{Cite web \|title=CNN Terms Of Use \|url=https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251014030156/https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date=2025-10-13 \|website=[[CNN]]}}</ref>
	\|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date 2025-10-13 \|website=[[CNN]]}}</ref>
	*Indeed Terms of Service, as of 2025-08-22 - Section D: General Terms for All Users - 12. Arbitration Agreement<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms of Service \|url=https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250825081104/https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|archive-date=2025-08-25 \|access-date=2025-09-02 \|website=[[Indeed]]}}</ref>		*Indeed Terms of Service, as of 2025-08-22 - Section D: General Terms for All Users - 12. Arbitration Agreement<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms of Service \|url=https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250825081104/https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|archive-date=2025-08-25 \|access-date=2025-09-02 \|website=[[Indeed]]}}</ref>
	*Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />		*Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />

Drakeula: /* References */ theme article, remove from incident categories

2025-11-05T08:18:28Z

References: theme article, remove from incident categories

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:18, 5 November 2025
Line 53:		Line 53:
	==References==		==References==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}
	~~[[Category:Anti-consumer practices]]~~
	[[Category:Common license terms]]		[[Category:Common license terms]]
	~~[[Category:Rights Stripping]]~~
	[[Category:Theme]]		[[Category:Theme]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:25, 6 November 2025
Line 45:		Line 45:
	*[[Spotify]]'s End User Agreement, since 2015, contains a Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web \| title=Spotify Terms of Use \|url=https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/ \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901121247/https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/#6-problems-and-disputes \|archive-date=1 Sep 2025 \|access-date=5 Sep 2025 \|website=[[Spotify]]}}</ref>		*[[Spotify]]'s End User Agreement, since 2015, contains a Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web \| title=Spotify Terms of Use \|url=https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/ \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901121247/https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/#6-problems-and-disputes \|archive-date=1 Sep 2025 \|access-date=5 Sep 2025 \|website=[[Spotify]]}}</ref>
	*[[Ticketmaster]] Terms of Use - Section 17 - Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver \|url=https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use#section17 \|archive-date=5 Jan 2025 \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=[[Ticketmaster]]}}</ref>		*[[Ticketmaster]] Terms of Use - Section 17 - Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver \|url=https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use#section17 \|archive-date=5 Jan 2025 \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=[[Ticketmaster]]}}</ref>
			*Wayfair uses forced arbitration language in the Legal Disputes section of their Terms of Use.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms of Use \|url=https://www.wayfair.com/terms?section=terms-of-use \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241025165417/https://www.wayfair.com/terms?section=terms-of-use \|archive-date=25 Oct 2024 \|access-date=6 Nov 2025 \|website=[[Wayfair]]}}</ref> On 6 November 2025, the company emailed account holders notifying them of a change to the Legal Disputes section, and stating "You do not have to do anything to accept the updated Terms. Your continued use of our websites, apps or any of our services, including your account, indicate your acceptance of the updated Terms."
	*Western Digital - Has a forced-arbitration clause in the warranty for a ST500DM002-1BD142 hard drive. Clause 1, section "C". (And possibly other products.) <ref>{{Cite web \|title=Warranty {{!}} Western Digital \|url=https://consumerrights.wiki/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf}}</ref>		*Western Digital - Has a forced-arbitration clause in the warranty for a ST500DM002-1BD142 hard drive. Clause 1, section "C". (And possibly other products.) <ref>{{Cite web \|title=Warranty {{!}} Western Digital \|url=https://consumerrights.wiki/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf}}</ref>
	*Yahoo Terms of Service - Section 14.2.b "'''BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT'''" <ref>{{Cite web \|title=Yahoo Terms of Service {{!}} Yahoo \|url=https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250315082242/https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html \|archive-date=2025-03-15 \|access-date=2025-03-15 \|website=Yahoo}}</ref>		*Yahoo Terms of Service - Section 14.2.b "'''BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT'''" <ref>{{Cite web \|title=Yahoo Terms of Service {{!}} Yahoo \|url=https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250315082242/https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html \|archive-date=2025-03-15 \|access-date=2025-03-15 \|website=Yahoo}}</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 5 November 2025
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=http://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>		Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Seru \|first=Amit \|date=Feb 2023 \|title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. \|url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web \|date=20 Jul 2009 \|title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration \|url=http://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ \|url-status=live \|access-date=4 May 2025 \|website=indisputably.org}}</ref>

	=== Bricking until agreement ===		===Bricking until agreement===
	[[File:BadPiggiesArbitration.png\|thumb\|An example of forced arbitration, where the user has to agree to arbitration, regardless of if the software was previously installed on their device]]		[[File:BadPiggiesArbitration.png\|thumb\|An example of forced arbitration, where the user has to agree to arbitration, regardless of if the software was previously installed on their device]]
	For digital software in particular, they can be retroactively amended to require the user to agree to forced arbitration, while blocking the user from accessing the content they paid for until they agree to this binding arbitration. In the case of the mobile game ''Bad Piggies'', published by [[Rovio]], regardless of if the end user chose to not update their game or had the game previously installed since before the publisher instituted arbitration, said user is incapable of playing the game until they agree to binding arbitration.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=u/JamesTDG \|date=Oct 30, 2025 \|title=r/badpiggies - God damn it, Rovio, you put arbitration into the game I ALREADY PAID FOR \|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/badpiggies/comments/1oklx98/god_damn_it_rovio_you_put_arbitration_into_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button \|access-date=Oct 30, 2025 \|website=Reddit}}</ref><!-- This is TYPICALLY a no-no. Do NOT cite yourselves on the wiki! I am however the first person to post about this issue on the subreddit, so I can only cite myself here. When others post about it, I will change the ref. -->		For digital software in particular, they can be retroactively amended to require the user to agree to forced arbitration, while blocking the user from accessing the content they paid for until they agree to this binding arbitration. In the case of the mobile game ''Bad Piggies'', published by [[Rovio]], regardless of if the end user chose to not update their game or had the game previously installed since before the publisher instituted arbitration, said user is incapable of playing the game until they agree to binding arbitration.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=u/JamesTDG \|date=Oct 30, 2025 \|title=r/badpiggies - God damn it, Rovio, you put arbitration into the game I ALREADY PAID FOR \|url=https://www.reddit.com/r/badpiggies/comments/1oklx98/god_damn_it_rovio_you_put_arbitration_into_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button \|access-date=Oct 30, 2025 \|website=Reddit}}</ref><!-- This is TYPICALLY a no-no. Do NOT cite yourselves on the wiki! I am however the first person to post about this issue on the subreddit, so I can only cite myself here. When others post about it, I will change the ref. -->
Line 35:		Line 35:

	*Bandcamp Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-20. In addition, users in countries where forced arbitration is not allowed cannot use the service: "Use of the Service is not authorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these Terms of Use, including without limitation, this section."<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bandcamp Terms of Use \|url=https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251013161152/https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date=2025-10-20 \|website=Bandcamp}}</ref>		*Bandcamp Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-20. In addition, users in countries where forced arbitration is not allowed cannot use the service: "Use of the Service is not authorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these Terms of Use, including without limitation, this section."<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bandcamp Terms of Use \|url=https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251013161152/https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use \|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date=2025-10-20 \|website=Bandcamp}}</ref>
	*CNN Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-13 "14. CLASS ACTION AND JURY TRIAL WAIVER" <ref>{{Cite web \|title=CNN Terms Of Use \|url=https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251014030156/https://www.cnn.com/terms0		*CNN Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-13 "14. CLASS ACTION AND JURY TRIAL WAIVER" <ref>{{Cite web \|title=CNN Terms Of Use \|url=https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251014030156/https://www.cnn.com/terms0 \|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date=2025-10-13 \|website=[[CNN]]}}</ref>
	\|archive-date=2025-10-13 \|access-date 2025-10-13 \|website=[[CNN]]}}</ref>
	*Indeed Terms of Service, as of 2025-08-22 - Section D: General Terms for All Users - 12. Arbitration Agreement<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms of Service \|url=https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250825081104/https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|archive-date=2025-08-25 \|access-date=2025-09-02 \|website=[[Indeed]]}}</ref>		*Indeed Terms of Service, as of 2025-08-22 - Section D: General Terms for All Users - 12. Arbitration Agreement<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Terms of Service \|url=https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|url-status=live \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250825081104/https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 \|archive-date=2025-08-25 \|access-date=2025-09-02 \|website=[[Indeed]]}}</ref>
	*Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />		*Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />