From a business stand point, of course they would. Most of these cases will at best require time and money to sort out, and at worse cost them even more money (compensating a driver for damages or lost wages). So why wouldn't they let these get tied up in bureaucracy until the drivers decide it's not worth the effort?
Force arbitration is bullshit and anti-consumer.
Definitely. I love this quote further down in the article:
> Last June, for instance, I wrote about a Fitbit lawyer’s all-too-candid admission that no rational litigant would pay a $750 filing fee to arbitrate a claim over a product that costs $162 – a concession that plaintiffs' lawyers called the “ugly truth” about mandatory arbitration clauses.
Sometimes it's not about the money - sometimes it's about sending a message.
I'm saying this is a dangerous line of thinking. What happens when someone does spend the money? Or finances a large group of people to exercise their rights?
(Recall the Gawker case - they threat modeled that Hulk Hogan couldn't afford to seek relief in the courts. But they pissed off someone much richer than Hogan, who was happy to help him access legal relief.)
Let's assume their average cost is $200 and yours is $800. Are you willing to spend a million dollars to cost Fitbit $250k? This wouldn't hurt Fitbit much, and it's going to be a lot of work to find, vet, and distribute money to the 1,250 people who are willing to undergo arbitration.
Even if your plan worked, you'd just have spent a bunch of money to make Fitbit live up to some of the legal obligations it was using arbitration to avoid. This wouldn't change anything going forward.
The main benefit would be to the people who got their $162 in value. If that's your goal, you could help a lot more of those people if you just gave each of them $162 rather than spending $750 to help them go through the process.
Or you could spend your millions lobbying to change the laws so Fitbit can't require arbitration with a $750 fee.
Important rhetorical question (spoken kindly, despite word choice): Whose message? As in, who gets to send this message that's alluded to? It will be a certain sort of person, with a certain sort of capacity, and anyone else who wants to send a message can get f*cked. The resulting state of any system will reflect this asymmetry.
(Not implying that you were saying the above was fair, just wanted to draw out this aspect for others that the "message" line might resonate with :)
But Uber, what do they actually do well ? Besides executing on that whole "startup" thing of fomenting civil disobedience, greenwashing it as "sharing", and then capturing it to install themselves as new less-accountable middlemen? This type of grossly incompetent mishandling is exactly the kind of thing we need to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to even entertain these eval(input()) clauses in "contracts".
It’s compounded by the facts as the litigates previously sued and Uber moved to have the class action litigation compelled to arbitration individually, wherein there were representations Uber made to the court (which now appear to be lies) and a court order of arbitration Uber also appears to be violating.
A clever enough lawyer may even circumvent any waiver of class action provision on the same legal arguments for all such litigants with similar claims.
Voting with your wallet works if a majority of people understand the issue and vote the same way. Here you're just creating problems for yourself.
Not that the enthusiasm isn't good :)
No, but it’s one parameter worth considering. I never stated that it was the only deciding factor.
Life is not binary.
Move slow and break things now? I guess whatever feeds the VC's.