That could open a wedge for older sites, like https://www.vrbo.com/ , to compete on.
I’m stunned that they’d do this. This must be a misprint. It’s entirely unlike them to avoid responsibilities while externalizing costs on to others.
What next, Uber will do something shady? Come on!
C’mon guys: “Heads I win, Tails you lose” is at least concise…
ebay has been doing this for years, with dissatisfaction on the part of both buyers and sellers who have run into shady site users. Their defense? “We’re just a venue; we only connect buyers and sellers…”
Note that compulsory arbitration only applies in the USA. The section starts with “if you live in the United States”. In the civilised world they cannot do this.
How oh how is binding arbitration still legal?
Have any of the candidates or sitting senators (Warren?) made a move to make this illegal?
Well, I always knew the US wasn’t part of the civilized world.
The subject is certainly in Warren’s wheelhouse. The CFPB is issuing new rules on arbitration clauses, but that’s just for financial institutions.
I’ve read that there has been talk of legislation, but I mean, come on… It’s Congress.
Courts have sometimes struck down arbitration clauses that don’t have a way to opt out. If you’re party to a contract with mandatory arbitration and you don’t want to be, try sending a letter asking to opt out. Even when the contract doesn’t allow that, and even when they deny or ignore the request - your legal position will be much improved.
Forced arbitration is part of the ruling classes’ separate legal framework. Yeah, you can threaten to remove it for political gain, but only if you hate campaign financing.
Because we continue to operate under the delusion that campaign contributions can’t possibly affect the legislative priorities of people we’re determined to vote for.
Competition based on user benefits isn’t really the goal of the disruptives, they’re all about low cost/administration and pushing liability downhill.
And that bribes are Speech, Corporations are full people.
My personal favorite of late is, “My candidate takes money from special interests, but I’ve put them in a magical blind spot where I assume they’re not corruptible.”
Since they seem to still be providing coverage I wonder if the insurance bit is that there’s some regulation regarding insurance they don’t want to comply with.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
