Top
Best
New

Posted by dataflow 1 day ago

Uber arbitration award over Emily Normandin-Parker’s death(consumerrights.wiki)
158 points | 187 commentspage 2
lacoolj 23 hours ago||
This is what happens when every single company we have an app for forces us to re-agree to new TOC (most this year, but last year too).

Go check your e-mail - look at all the TOC agreements you had to make recently. How many added a new (or amended an existing) arbitration clause?

Too many. And consumers are stuck either agreeing blindly/under duress, or uninstalling the app? These are apps we use and rely on, and don't have enough competition to refuse.

Lyft and Uber. Name one other competitor in the app space. Without googling it

Rant over (it wasn't even a rant at the beginning but couldn't help myself)

ChrisArchitect 1 day ago||
[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49761654
cube00 1 day ago||
Another frustrating aspect of forced arbitration is Uber can now avoid ever using that arbitrator ever again.
superxpro12 1 day ago||
At no point in time has anyone ever suspected that companies requiring arbitration was in the best interests of the consumer. This is very plainly an attempt to avoid responsibility and consequences. It's a margin-improving policy. The safety of its customers are merely a number on a spreadsheet.
kridsdale1 1 day ago||
People do that with judges too. It’s why all mp3 sharing lawsuits were in the same district of Texas.
tzs 23 hours ago||
The MP3 lawsuits were filed in the districts in which the defendants resided. Almost all of the 94 districts had MP3 sharing lawsuits.

You are probably thinking of patents. For a long time the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) was by far the most popular choice for patent lawsuits by far, especially against big tech companies.

Then there was a Supreme Court decision (TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017)) [1]. It made it so corporations can only be sued for patent infringement in the state where they are incorporated or a district where they have both infringed and have a regular and established place of business.

EDTX is largely a rural district with no really major cities. Most big tech companies have no physical offices there.

Many of those cases moved to the Western District of Texas (WDTX). WDTX includes Austin, and a whole lot of big tech has offices there.

There was one judge in Waco whose court was particularly attractive to patent lawsuits, due to having plaintiff-friendly procedures and a rapid trial schedule. 100% of patent cases filed in Waco went to him. In a few years his court was handling 20% of all patents cases in the entire country.

The Supreme Court and Congress did not like so many patent cases being handled by a single judge, and the WDTX Chief Judge making it so patent cases filed in WDTX are random distributed among its 13 judges.

Cases against big tech companies mostly moved to Delaware (where many big tech companies are incorporated) or Northern California.

EDTX regained the number one spot for patent cases after that, although not from big tech cases. Delaware and Northern California remain the big places for those.

EDTX is #1 because even though it is rural and has almost no big tech presence, it still has major retailers, grocery chains, distribution centers, and communication hubs. For patent suits not against big tech it still works fine.

Also, Heartland did not apply to international defendants. They can still be sued in any district in the US.

The biggest reason EDTX is a popular choice if you can pick it is not plaintiffs do particularly well there. It depends on when you look because it has varied quite a bit, but there are often other districts where plaintiffs win more.

The big reasons are:

• Patent litigation is complex, both for the court and the attorneys. Regardless of which side of the case is on you want a court with experience. If the court is inexperienced the case can drag on which is expensive, burning up lots of billable hours of the expensive patent litigation firm you are using. EDTX has many patent experienced judges, and has developed rules and procedures to move cases along.

• In addition to cases moving along efficiently once they get going, the get going faster in EDTX.

Patent suits are civil cases. They take a back seat to criminal cases. EDTX simply does not have much federal crime (or state crime that ends up in federal district courts).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TC_Heartland_LLC_v._Kraft_Food...

dataflow 1 day ago|
Video from Louis Rossmann: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2B3uBQuGnU
lysace 1 day ago|
No. Just no. We don't need monetized influencers pontificating and building fandoms on this. That is gross.
cube00 1 day ago|||
Louis founded the Consumer Rights wiki and also wrote the article that's the subject of this NH thread.
Hugsbox 1 day ago||||
Mr Rossman will literally tell you to use an ad-blocker to watch his videos and refuses to take sponsorships, actively does not want money from making YouTube videos and just wants to get the word out. I'd agree with you if it was literally any other creator.
kskdkwkdkkd 1 day ago|||
Two things can be true at once, especially when talking about people’s behaviour. I don’t know this guy from atom, but if he’s a YouTuber then my instinct is to not trust him.
dataflow 23 hours ago||
Your instinct is, believe it or not, imperfect.
lysace 18 hours ago||
No, you are in the wrong here.
lysace 22 hours ago|||
Is https://ytlarge.com/monetization-checker BS?

https://i.imgur.com/Hq61TTI.png

'The video "Based arbitrator destroys uber" Is Monetized'

'Advertising Status: Ads are active'

'Total Number of Ads: 1 (1 Post-roll)'

ixwt 1 day ago|||
Louis Rossman does not take sponsorships, and turns off ads for his videos as much as YouTube allows. His videos are for his opinions, not making money.