Amazon's New User Agreement Seeks To Curb Class-action Suits (theindianalawyer.com) 30
Amazon has "reintroduced a clause in its user agreement that seeks to prevent shoppers from filing class-action lawsuits against the online retailer," reports Bloomberg, "inserting a legal buffer between itself and plaintiffs attorneys that it removed five years ago."
In an email sent to customers on Friday, the company said a new "arbitration agreement and class-action waiver" will require shoppers to resolve disputes outside the courts but said they could still file small claims, cases that typically limit damages to a few thousand dollars... The user-agreement update isn't necessarily binding in court. Plaintiffs attorneys could still seek class-action lawsuits against Amazon, and it would be up to a judge to determine if the user agreement prevents them from doing so.
Amazon was contacted for an explanation by Bloomberg, and provided a statement saying they continually update their wording "to better serve our customers."
Amazon said they'd "determined" that "reinstating the arbitration clause will offer customers a fast, cost-effective way to resolve disputes while still giving them the option of going to small claims court."
Amazon was contacted for an explanation by Bloomberg, and provided a statement saying they continually update their wording "to better serve our customers."
Amazon said they'd "determined" that "reinstating the arbitration clause will offer customers a fast, cost-effective way to resolve disputes while still giving them the option of going to small claims court."
Mo harm, No foul. (Score:4, Funny)
Amazon said they'd "determined" that "reinstating the arbitration clause will offer customers a fast, cost-effective way to resolve disputes while still giving them the option of going to small claims court."
I ran this through an IANAL filter. For layman’s sake.
It “determined” what they meant to say was If we harm you, Fuck You. Fuck You Very Much and Have A Nice Day.
Re:Mo harm, No foul. (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazon said they'd "determined" that "reinstating the arbitration clause will offer customers a fast, cost-effective way to resolve disputes while still giving them the option of going to small claims court."
I ran this through an IANAL filter. For layman’s sake.
It “determined” what they meant to say was If we harm you, Fuck You. Fuck You Very Much and Have A Nice Day.
This is why I'm glad I live in a country that doesn't treat consumers like second class citizens. Amazon could just... you know... do less of whatever it is that brings class actions?
Re: Mo harm, No foul. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deleted my Amazon account two years ago. Don't miss it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about Amazon. Amazon is a symptom of a wider problem. The underlying question is, why on earth are you able to sign your "rights" away? What kind of legal system lets you do that?
Re: (Score:2)
The underlying question is, why on earth are you able to sign your "rights" away? What kind of legal system lets you do that?
You can't. As the summary says, "The user-agreement update isn't necessarily binding in court." But people who don't know that my THINK they signed their rights away, which is good for Amazon (et. al.).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And/or consumers could just stop supporting Amazon. Click here to sign away your rights.
And what happens when every shop is doing it because it's literally not illegal?
This is exactly why this kind of behaviour is illegal in many countries and you can't sign away your statutory rights with a shrinkwrap contract.... Hell you can't even sign them away with a contract written in blood.
Re: Mo harm, No foul. (Score:2)
Probably dodging the tariff payback issues (Score:3)
After all, they did successfully sue for refunds of the unlawful tariffs but have otherwise not bothered to follow through with lowering prices accordingly for the consumers. That couldn't possibly be it, right?
This should be overruled by statute (Score:2)
Not binding in most places. (Score:3)
Filter Country of Origin (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Over 99% of Amazon's products would be removed if your filtered out one country of origin.
These are not 'user agreements' (Score:2)
The user does not have any opportunity to negotiate a change to any of the clauses, they are 'terms of business', deliberately written so that most people do not read them and even fewer understand them. Amazon is not really any worse than most of the on-line retailers.
What is needed are a set of agreements that are drawn up to be understandable to non lawyers and to be fair to both parties. There need to be a set of them as the requirements of a business selling clothes is different from one selling pizzas
Didn't they remove this a while ago? (Score:2)
Didn't Amazon remove the mandatory arbitration clause a while back because too many users were using it, making Amazon have to spend too much money and time on arbitration? Or was that another large Internet vendor?
Totally fair (Score:2)
reinstating the arbitration clause will offer customers a fast, cost-effective way to resolve disputes while still giving them the option of going to small claims court.
Gee, if a counterfeit lithium ion battery peddled by Amazon burns your house down, you get to sort it out in small claims court.
Or else let some guy whose salary ultimately comes from Amazon decide whether they're liable.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine my odds in small claims court would be better. But with dollar amount limits, a burned down house might end up with thousands of individual cases for "single 2x4 structural lumber" and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Odds in a small claims court are much better... for Amazon. For starters people buying low cost rubbish that burns their house down on Amazon aren't the same kinds of people that go starting lawsuits in a country which lacks a loser-pays legal system.
I sent notice to reportascam and legal aliases at (Score:1)
They can write anything they want. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, except of course that is if you live in America where the Federal Arbitration Act has leaglised precisely this kind of contractual escape clause and also preempted any state laws that attempts to bypass it. Once again showing that America is land of the free [to get fucked over]
Re: (Score:2)
If they really wanted to curb only class-actions, stipulate that lawyers fees are capped at 3 percent and the customers get 97% of all winnings. Oops but that steps on lawyer toes so that is probably illegal.
This Trend is Actually About 100 Years Old (Score:2)
Class action ... (Score:2)
Your wallet is the most powerful thing you own.
Just look at Canada and its choice not to travel to the USA, its cost tourism in the USA BILLIONS and that will only rise. Likewise the loss of alcohol sales into Canada and there will be many more companies suffering the same "Vote with the wallet".
I am a Kiwi, and I voted with my wallet the day Trump was elected, I buy stuff elsewhere avoiding US brands, freedom of speech at its finest.
send Amazon a letter once a year (Score:2)
They letter should say you are exempt from the clause, in exchange you will continue paying for prime and at Amazons choice they can end this agreement by returning your payment within 90 days.
No idea if it would hold up against an army of corporate attorneys that would file in the most business bias district possible, but that it technically a contract as it has valid considerations.
IANAL - I watched a semester of introductory course work on public access in the 1990's. This is not legal advice, for entert