G. Confidentiality. You and Apple Payments agree that all arbitration proceedings under this Agreement will be treated as strictly confidential, which means that you and Apple Payments agree not to disclose or have communicated to third parties the dispute, disputes in dispute or the facts, circumstances, documents and other underlying documents related to such disputes. Except as necessary in connection with a judicial application for an interim remedy, a judicial challenge to an arbitral award or its enforcement, or unless required by law. So Macrumors suggests that the consumer is better off fighting problems with a lawyer than going through arbitration, isn`t it? Don`t you think Goldman Sachs will have a powerful lawyer if they are prosecuted? Would you like to know who agrees that arbitration is bad for the consumer? Unlike a lawyer, this is especially true for tech giants, which use arbitrage frameworks to boost market power. If Amazon sellers or sellers don`t have the opportunity to argue, they must comply with Amazon`s merkuriel ordering systems. The same applies to employees, contractors and business partners of Google and Facebook. A system with an «alternative» litigation mechanism that is generally inaccessible does not allow people in contact with tech giants to assert their rights. Nowadays, arbitration clauses are incredibly common in terms and conditions. If you agree to arbitration, you are essentially waiving your right to sue Apple or Goldman Sachs, either individually or as a member of a class.B. Other claims subject to arbitration.
In addition to claims made by you or Apple Payments, claims made by or against an employee, representative, representative, related company, or subsidiary of ApplePayments are subject to arbitration as described herein. Facebook incorporates arbitration clauses into its terms of service and contracts with its employees. For employees, only 5 arbitration proceedings have been initiated since 2014; for trading partners, there were none. Staff cases involved misrepresentation, discrimination, reprisals, harassment, violations of national wage legislation, lack of appropriate measures and lack of participation in interactive procedures. «Amazon`s recent response to Congress makes it clear that its mandatory arbitration clause is extremely effective in removing any meritorious claims that may be made against the company,» said Shaoul Sussman, a lawyer at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. «The effectiveness of the clause is confirmed by the incredibly low number of arbitrations Amazon has participated in over the past five years.» According to the response to the registration questions, Amazon participated in 163 arbitration agreements with its third parties between 2014 and 2019. That`s still less than 30 cases a year for 2.5 million sellers. Most of these cases, and more specifically 100, concerned Amazon, which would have withheld sellers` money or inventory. The closure or closure of the account represented 22 cases and the refund of lost or damaged inventory 16 others. The rest of the cases involved unauthorized money transfers, patent infringements or counterfeit sales by other sellers, customer refund disputes, restrictions on product listings, shipping litigation, and infringement claims.
The number of arbitration agreements has only increased in recent years; Amtrak drivers stamped them on their tickets. By revealing how few Americans are using these options, the tech giants have given a strong testimony to why the system simply doesn`t work.
- Posted by wbase
- On 11 septiembre, 2021
- 0 Comments