Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Read the actual judgement.[1]

"The employer here, DoorDash,faced with having to actually honor its side of the bargain, now blanches at the cost of the filing fees it agreed to pay in the arbitration clause. No doubt, DoorDash never expected that so many would actually seek arbitration. Instead, in irony upon irony, DoorDash now wishes to resort to a class-wide lawsuit, the very device it denied to the workers, to avoid its duty to arbitrate. This hypocrisy will not be blessed, at least by this order."

Also in that order is DoorDash trying to force drivers to switch from the American Arbitration Association (which is generally considered legit) to some off-brand arbitration company with whom DoorDash had cut a deal. Then DoorDash wanted to seal the details of that deal, which had come out at trial. The judge said no.

The American Arbitration Association is trying to keep from being a tool of big companies to oppress consumers and customers. If a contract requires arbitration under AAA consumer rules, the AAA will allow the customer to opt for small claims court, instead.([2], p. 15.) That's why so many EULAs now call for arbitration under the commercial rules, which are intended for bigger disputes. But the AAA charges the company a substantial up-front fee for commercial arbitrations. Which is how DoorDash got into trouble here.

[1] https://aboutblaw.com/ONJ

[2] https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/Consumer-Rules-Web.p...

Applications are open for YC Winter 2022

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact