Ethics of Arbitration Clauses: Dish Network’s New ToS

Arbitration clauses are old news in commercial contracts, but they’re appearing more frequently in the terms of service agreements firms are providing to consumers. The Dish clause is interesting because it not only bars ordinary contract litigation (in favor of arbitration) but demands that customers sign away their right to join a class action against Dish as a condition of receiving Dish services. When is arbitration merely an alternative form of dispute resolution? When is it instead an uncompensated diminution in the availability of redress for ill-served or harmed consumers? Does it matter what industry the firm seeking an arbitration clause is in? >>>

LINK: Dish Taking Away Users’ Right To Sue Company In Court. Here’s How To Opt Out (by Chris Morran in Consumerist)

[L]ike a growing number of companies, Dish Network is updating its terms of use to strip customers of their right to dispute legal claims in a court of law. There is a way for Dish subscribers to opt out of this restriction — but only if they do it right away.
…
However, Dish is providing subscribers with the ability to opt out of this provision, but only if they do so within 30 days. So if you’re a Dish customer, check your e-mail inbox because you probably have a boring-sounding message from Dish with details of the new arbitration rules. Your 30-day countdown started whenever that e-mail was sent.

What do you think?

Brought to you by: