
Final Ruling Against Patreon Opens Legal Avenue to Defend Against Deplatforming - kregasaurusrex
https://reclaimthenet.org/final-ruling-patreon-owen-benjamin-injunction-denied/
======
gamblor956
There seems to be a misunderstanding about this ruling.

It's just a ruling against an injunction that would have barred resolving the
deplatforming dispute through arbitration.

It has no precendtial value. It has no probative value. It says nothing about
how the underlying dispute will be resolved.

It should be seen as just one of many examples of the courts binding companies
to the arbitration procedures companies included in their customer contracts
in their attempts to avoid court.

~~~
gamblor956
Replying to myself because this comment is on a different topic: the arguments
about deplatforming in the linked page are quite frankly ridiculous and are
unlikely to succeed, whether made in court or in arbitration.

Patrons in patreon do not have a direct contractual relationship with the
projects they sponsor, so there can be no tortious interference of contact.

The cases are simply a gambit that patreon will settle and let these racists
back on the platform rather than pay the costs of arbitration.

~~~
mikedilger
There does not need to be a written contractual relationship to invoke
tortious interference. The followers clearly intended to support Owen
financially, not Patreon itself, so there is a financial relationship between
them.

But given that Patreon was clearly and obviously a man-in-the-middle of the
relationship and had policies which could be violated and which would
terminate the relationship, and all parties knew this up front, then it is
also clear to me that Patreon can freely choose to stop being a man-in-the-
middle, and as such I don't think the tortious interference claim makes sense
in this case.

~~~
gamblor956
There absolutely needs to be a contractual relationship between two parties in
order for one of those parties to to make a _successful_ claim for tortious
interference _of contract_ by another party. It's literally Torts 101.

If the followers wanted to have a contractual arrangement with Owen, they were
free to do so outside of the bounds of Patreon (including, but not limited to
direct donations, Paypal transactions, or Stipe payments), forgoing the
controls and protections Patreon offers to patrons. The followers chose not to
do so, ergo, it's clear that they _did not_ intend to contract with Owens
directly.

------
jackfoxy
Uh, article lacking some background.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Benjamin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Benjamin)

~~~
baryphonic
Why? Owen Benjamin may be an antisemitic nutcase (the little I know of him
makes me think he is), but that's irrelevant to the legal merits of the case.
To go into his background would be a fairly ridiculous example of
bothsidesism, especially for a group like "Reclaim the Net," which seems to
have an axe to grind against cancel culture, censorship and deplatforming. No
one expects BLM to e.g. publish the evidence debunking the "hands up don't
shoot" narrative around the killing of Michael Brown, [1] so why should other
activists groups be held up to a more stringent standard? If Owen Benjamin's
legal rights were violated, he deserves to be made whole (though I admit I'd
enjoy him having some egg on his face if one or more people instrumental in
securing his legal rights happened to be Jewish).

[1] [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-brown-
shooting_n_6030...](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-brown-
shooting_n_6030220)

~~~
xyzzy_plugh
IMO this is a fundamental problem with American ideals. Antisemitism is
straight up illegal here, why should society permit assholes like this to run
around and make money encouraging more people to be like them? I'd rather work
with a platform that is willing to separate from toxicity.

~~~
sp332
The question in the case is not whether they are allowed to kick him off. The
question is whether each of his Patreon subscribers can bring them to
arbitration for interfering in their "business relationship". It's possible
that every arbitration case could be found in Patreon's favor, but it will
still cost them money.

Anyway I think the article is misleading. This only worked because Patreon's
TOS used to allow it. They've since changed the TOS
[https://nationalfile.com/patreon-loses-lawsuit-with-owen-
ben...](https://nationalfile.com/patreon-loses-lawsuit-with-owen-benjamin-
fans-likely-to-pay-millions-in-arbitration-and-legal-fees/) and this wouldn't
apply to any other company unless they had a similar oversight.

~~~
baryphonic
> The question in the case is not whether they are allowed to kick him off.
> The question is whether each of his Patreon subscribers can bring them to
> arbitration for interfering in their "business relationship". It's possible
> that every arbitration case could be found in Patreon's favor, but it will
> still cost them money.

No, not quite. The question as adjudicated is whether a company that mandates
a fairly specific arbitration process as a condition of using that company's
services can unilaterally change the terms after becoming aware of imminent
legal action being taken under those terms, whether significant fees that
constitute a liability for the company are "irreparable harm" and then whether
the courts or arbitrators are the ones who decide jurisdiction issues.

Anyone can take any legal action they like if they file the paperwork properly
and pay the fees, but have no guarantees of success.

Also, I'm not sure Patreon's changes are actually enforceable (though I doubt
any sane lawyer would want to test that before prevailing on a tortuous
interference claim). Specifically, I doubt Patreon can require consumers to
pay legal fees for arbitration beyond what CA law provides. I'm also not sure
whether Patreon can carve out this exception to tortious interference actions
this way, though a contract could in principle waive certain legal rights like
the ability to sue over torts. Regardless, I think it's likely that anyone
demanding individual arbitration's in CA could be liable whether or not they
erred to the degree Patreon did.

------
wubbalerfa
Legal issues aside as for all intents and purposes perhaps all legal aspects
proceeded as intended -

Seeing as he also spreads misinformation on AIDS and Coronavirus not even
being real, one can only hope he suferrs a horrifying fate of both at the same
time.

~~~
rimjongun
“One can only hope..” You’re using your hope in the wrong place my friend

------
ikeboy
They're not going to pay 10k per case. They're not going to have legal fees of
$20 million. This is all hyperbole and conjecture from someone with a poor
track record.

------
hirundo
Twitter is reportedly considering integrating a subscription service between
members. Their lawyers must be reviewing this case very carefully. It may mean
they'll have much less flexibility to restrict accounts with paid subscribers.

~~~
bilbo0s
Frankly, this will kill the idea of paid subscribers between members. For
Twitter to be legally safe, you would only be able to subscribe to Twitter
itself, and I'm not sure why anyone would do that?

~~~
nordsieck
> For Twitter to be legally safe, you would only be able to subscribe to
> Twitter itself, and I'm not sure why anyone would do that?

1\. The cases are still going to Arbitration. The only victory here, is that
Patreon has to abide by its own TOS (at the time of the dispute).

2\. It's not clear to me to what extent arbitration creates precedents.

3\. In the very worst case, Twitter could just not remove people from its
platform. There are all sorts of other things Twitter could do that would have
nearly the same effect without the legal risk (e.g. shadowban someone from the
rest of twitter except their current subscribers).

------
cyb_
Discussion from earlier today:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301)
(33 comments)

------
andy318
Does this imply that a company wanting to stick with an arbitration clause is
better off relocating outside California?

~~~
gamblor956
No, the trend is toward courts forcing companies to pay for arbitration if
they include arbitration clauses in their customer contacts or ToS. After all,
the company was the entity that chose to require arbitration for resolving
disputes, and can't later try to get out of it but citing the expense.

