
DoorDash drivers use arbitration clause to force DoorDash into arbitration - koolba
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/21135474/doordash-workers-forced-arbitration-william-alsup
======
teruakohatu
Good ol' Judge William Alsup. His decisions are always fun to read. He was the
judge that learnt how to code so he could understand the Google Oracle case.

I wonder if consumers could use forced arbitration in the same way.

~~~
imjustsaying
>I wonder if consumers could use forced arbitration in the same way.

They can. Patreon is about to be hit really hard for playing thought
policeman.

[https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-mandatory-
arbitration/](https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-mandatory-arbitration/)

~~~
heartbeats
I don't see why this is getting downvoted – it seems like a materially correct
claim:

> “You’re going to pay that money,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said [to
> DoorDash] in court. “You don’t want to pay millions of dollars, but that’s
> what you bargained to do and you’re going to do it.”

There really isn't much room for interpretation, is there? Patreon is a tiny
company, $5 million is ~1% of their value. If nothing else it would cause
trouble with the liquidity.

~~~
tzs
It's probably being down voted for a couple of reasons.

1\. The claim in the link that Patreon banning someone from using them to
receive funding is tortious interference with a business relationship giving
the people who wanted to donate that person a cause of action is extremely
tenuous at best.

For an act to be tortious interference there has to be something wrong about
that act other than just that it impacted the relationship between two other
parties.

For example, if Patreon decided to kick off all black creators, that would be
wrong regardless of whether or not it impacted any business relationships
between those creators and others. A claim for tortious interference might be
viable.

The bannings being complained about don't fall into any such protected
category as far as I know.

2\. The link is to a site that is generally unreliable. The author is a major
pusher of conspiracy theories, pedophilia accusations, and the like which
almost never stand up to scrutiny. For those rare things he publishes that are
not those kind of things, there should always be a better source you can link
to.

No one has time to fact check every article they read, so you want to get your
articles from places that are mostly right with at most a rare goof, not
places that are the other way around. Many people down vote for linking to the
later kind of site, even if the particular article is one of their rare
reasonable ones, because it makes more work for the reader than linking to a
better site would have.

~~~
tssva
Although I find the claim of tortuous interference as extremely tenuous as you
do your description of what is required for an act to be "wrong" is poor
bordering on incorrect.

An act can be wrong for the purposes of tortuous interference if it is done to
appropriate the benefits of the plaintiff's contract, is an independent or
illegal wrong, or if the conduct was done for the sole purpose of injuring the
plaintiff.

In this case it will be extremely difficult to proof that Patreon acted solely
to injure the defendants.

~~~
tzs
What I was trying to get at was the idea stated by the Supreme Court of Oregon
in Top Serv. Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 582 P.2d 1365 (1978) [1],
cited by the California court in Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., 11 Cal. 4th 376 (1995) [2]:

> In summary, such a claim is made out when interference resulting in injury
> to another is wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference
> itself. Defendant's liability may arise from improper motives or from the
> use of improper means. They may be wrongful by reason of a statute or other
> regulation, or a recognized rule of common law, or perhaps an established
> standard of a trade or profession

which I came across in this article on the elements of tortuous interference
claims under California law [3].

[1] [https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-
court/1978/283-o...](https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-
court/1978/283-or-201-0.html)

[2] [https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-
court/4th/11...](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-
court/4th/11/376.html)

[3] [https://www.businessjustice.com/what-are-the-elements-
for-a-...](https://www.businessjustice.com/what-are-the-elements-for-a-
tortious-interference-claim-under-ca.html)

~~~
tssva
Another good reference from the American Bar Association can be found at
[https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/bus...](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/business-
torts-unfair-competition/practice/2019/wrongful-conduct-interference-
contractual-economic-relations/)

"Defendant's liability may arise from improper motives or from the use of
improper means." Given this quote from your source the description you
presented of what is required to meet the standard is still inaccurate. Based
upon the quote the action taken doesn't have to be improper. Only the
motivation for the action has to be improper.

------
saltking112
This is great news. Making it uneconomical for companies to enforce
arbitration will be a big step in consumer/labor protection.

------
Nextgrid
Always nice to see "move fast and break things" scum getting a bit of their
own medicine.

~~~
kmlx
> "move fast and break things" scum

this is a gratuitous and useless slur.

~~~
Nextgrid
The slur seems totally justified considering the company is trying to exploit
workers and uses the arbitration clause to prevent them from suing (though it
now backfired on them).

The sad part is that they're not alone. Most of these new "disruptive"
startups are equally nasty.

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Phrases like "exploit workers" and "nasty" are judgements, not factual
descriptions. Some argue that every employer since the beginning of history
has been an exploiter. Others argue, you are a free agent and if you dislike
the conditions of employment you can simply go elsewhere. This is particularly
true in the highly fluid gig economy.

~~~
toomuchtodo
The state of California implemented AB5 to prevent further worker exploration
perpetrated by gig economy companies. It stands to reason that the
exploitation is not a judgment, but observable fact and therefore the impetus
for the legislation I mention.

------
kabacha
How is forced arbitration even legal? "all of the legal issues you might have
with us must go through the private judge we choose"

~~~
sneak
In theory, the parties both agree to arbitration and mutually waive their
right to trial in the contract at the beginning, voluntarily, before any
dispute arises.

You're not forced to work for DoorDash in the first place, so it's not really
forcing anyone. In theory.

~~~
zonethundery
'contract of adhesion' is the term of art here

------
pyrosome
In case anyone was wondering:

> 5\. How much does arbitration cost?

> If the court orders a case to arbitration (following a stipulation or at the
> Case Management Conference), and the parties elect to use an arbitrator on
> the court's Arbitration Panel, the court pays the arbitrator ($150 for up to
> four hours and a maximum of $300 regardless of the number of arbitration
> sessions).

> If the parties choose a private arbitrator, they will be required to pay the
> arbitrator's regular hourly rate and other charges. The market rates for
> private arbitrators can range from $200-$1,000 per hour.

[http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1555406&_da...](http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1555406&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&a=5#5)

~~~
redis_mlc
> If the court orders a case to arbitration

If it's not by court order, but in the clause of a contract, then the company
just never bothers to schedule the arbitration at all. That's actually going
on with some companies.

So no law suit and no arbitration. Win-win for the company.

~~~
pmiller2
Yep. Uber got some bad press for this a while ago.

