Amazon is changing its policy - yet again! What do you think is the motive this time?
Here is the latest email (copied and pasted): What do you think is going on? Arbitration vs. court process
We wanted to let you know that we recently updated our [Conditions of Use] (link insert).
One of our updates involves how disputes are resolved between you and Amazon. Previously, our Conditions of Use set out an arbitration process for those disputes. Our updated Conditions of Use provides for dispute resolution by the courts.
Please visit …/conditions of use (no spaces) to read our updated terms in full.
As always, your use of any Amazon service constitutes your agreement to our [Conditions of Use]
Thank you,
Amazon is changing its policy - yet again! What do you think is the motive this time?
Here is the latest email (copied and pasted): What do you think is going on? Arbitration vs. court process
We wanted to let you know that we recently updated our [Conditions of Use] (link insert).
One of our updates involves how disputes are resolved between you and Amazon. Previously, our Conditions of Use set out an arbitration process for those disputes. Our updated Conditions of Use provides for dispute resolution by the courts.
Please visit …/conditions of use (no spaces) to read our updated terms in full.
As always, your use of any Amazon service constitutes your agreement to our [Conditions of Use]
Thank you,
Seller_rUYESE2zW9M3E
It’s clear to me that most commentators on this subject do not understand Amazon’s reasons for now requiring Amazon customers to use lawsuits rather than arbitration.
The reason big business uses arbitration clauses is to prevent consumer class action lawsuits against them. The thinking was that if consumers cannot join a class action lawsuit and instead have to arbitrate their cases individually, few would do so since their individual claims would be too small to justify hiring an attorney. And most people would be afraid to go up against a big company by themselves. In short, big corporations hoped consumers would be too intimidated to challenge them.
However, the Supreme Court has said that if the cost of arbitration makes it practical for only big money disputes, and nothing else, then it might not be a constitutional alternative to the courts. Therefore, to prevent courts from striking the arbitration clause, Amazon and other corporations cover the cost of arbitration in small claim cases, preventing consumers from challenging arbitration as unfair because it costs more than civil litigation to pursue.
But a recent legal innovation has changed the advantage of forcing arbitration on
consumers. Class action attorneys–barred from filing 1 lawsuit with thousands of
plaintiffs as members of a class–have found the Achilles heel of forced arbitration.
They are now filing arbitration requests for thousands of plaintiffs on an individual basis. Amazon is only the latest corporation that has fallen victim to this new strategy.
In Amazon’s case, the class action attorneys filed 75,000 arbitration requests on behalf of 75,000 Echo buyers. And Amazon is now faced with having to pay millions for these 75,000 requested arbitration hearings. Once Amazon realized how arbitration could be
used against them, they suddenly rediscovered the advantage of good old civil litigation.
So that’s why arbitration is out and civil court trials are in with Amazon.
61 replies
Seller_JSkKTxOgzk1ON
Probably a good thing, Amazon does not usually change policy to hurt us sellers, their backbone.
Seller_LMf9CF5P8NlmA
I know they have lost some court cases by people saying their TOS and forced arbitration are unnecessary, so either they changed it to make things easier and less costly or they feel like they can win/handle more cases through court.
Seller_nrFdj0h231r7B
I received this email through my buyer account email, not my seller account email. I think it pertains to customers’ conditions of use, not sellers’.
Seller_qsjXhUS6U3FXD
I think this is for customers. I typed in the web address it referenced and it took me to the customer support page. But a big red flag was when I saw, " Last updated: May 3, 2021" So was there an update and Amazon is just now notifying customers? Or is this another phony email? I did read on and hate to admit that as a customer I had never fully read these conditions and found:
" DISPUTES
Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon Service will be adjudicated in the state or Federal courts in King County, Washington, and you consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in these courts. We each waive any right to a jury trial."
Seller_tfeuabuyLJJxX
it will be coming to sellers too. arbitration is expensive for companies.
also found it interesting that they put the phone number to the legal department in there…
Seller_OIwySjujrWvUg
the change is for amazon customers/buyers, we have another thread here
Seller_sUfyk7ajzPzny
It was discussed in this topic-thread about 6 weeks ago, in the immediate aftermath of The Wall Street Journal breaking the news :
As our friend @Dogone intimates, only the three-known iterations of the CHC’s (“Customer-facing Help Content”) “Conditions of Use” - at https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=508088 , https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201909000 , & https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GLSBYFE9MGKKQXXM have as of now had the Arbitration language removed.
The same is not as of yet true of the language in the SHC’s (“Seller Help Content”) version, Conditions of Use (link), nor in that of the Amazon Services Business Solutions Agreement (link).
Seller_qsjXhUS6U3FXD
It seems like I read an article some time back about a California court ruled a business cannot force someone to abide by a contract that violates that state’s laws of awarding every citizen the right to a trial by jury. So I went and looked it up and this is what I found.
In reaching its conclusion, the Bowers court discussed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Grafton Partners v. Superior Court, where petitioner argued that a pre-dispute contractual agreement waiving the right to a jury trial, but still providing for resolution through a court trial, was unenforceable. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the right to a jury trial is fundamental in the California Constitution, and can only be waived as provided by statute. The Court rejected the respondent’s attempt to analogize the jury waiver at issue to an arbitration agreement. While noting that arbitration agreements are specifically authorized by statute (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281), the Court also drew another important distinction: arbitration provisions represent an agreement to avoid the judicial forum altogether.
Now this is of course California whose laws are quite different than many other states. But even stating that, the laws are way to confusing and one law can cancel out another. Makes you wonder if the legal system is just a word game???
Seller_w5tXkGLVYBnzo
That seems merely consistent with the law. People aren’t supposed to be able to sign away their right to have a day in court, it’s a 7th Amendment described right. Just because teams of shady lawyers have gotten away with drafting lousy contract language for years doesn’t mean it was ever OK, it just means it wasn’t effectively challenged. There are in fact precepts in the law that the drafter of a contract has additional responsibility to draft a fair one and abide by its content. There might be some new regulatory brooms in DC that Amazon wants off their back, and contractual language in line with norms and decency they might figure could help that happen.
Amazon is changing its policy - yet again! What do you think is the motive this time?
Here is the latest email (copied and pasted): What do you think is going on? Arbitration vs. court process
We wanted to let you know that we recently updated our [Conditions of Use] (link insert).
One of our updates involves how disputes are resolved between you and Amazon. Previously, our Conditions of Use set out an arbitration process for those disputes. Our updated Conditions of Use provides for dispute resolution by the courts.
Please visit …/conditions of use (no spaces) to read our updated terms in full.
As always, your use of any Amazon service constitutes your agreement to our [Conditions of Use]
Thank you,
Amazon is changing its policy - yet again! What do you think is the motive this time?
Here is the latest email (copied and pasted): What do you think is going on? Arbitration vs. court process
We wanted to let you know that we recently updated our [Conditions of Use] (link insert).
One of our updates involves how disputes are resolved between you and Amazon. Previously, our Conditions of Use set out an arbitration process for those disputes. Our updated Conditions of Use provides for dispute resolution by the courts.
Please visit …/conditions of use (no spaces) to read our updated terms in full.
As always, your use of any Amazon service constitutes your agreement to our [Conditions of Use]
Thank you,
Amazon is changing its policy - yet again! What do you think is the motive this time?
Here is the latest email (copied and pasted): What do you think is going on? Arbitration vs. court process
We wanted to let you know that we recently updated our [Conditions of Use] (link insert).
One of our updates involves how disputes are resolved between you and Amazon. Previously, our Conditions of Use set out an arbitration process for those disputes. Our updated Conditions of Use provides for dispute resolution by the courts.
Please visit …/conditions of use (no spaces) to read our updated terms in full.
As always, your use of any Amazon service constitutes your agreement to our [Conditions of Use]
Thank you,
Seller_rUYESE2zW9M3E
It’s clear to me that most commentators on this subject do not understand Amazon’s reasons for now requiring Amazon customers to use lawsuits rather than arbitration.
The reason big business uses arbitration clauses is to prevent consumer class action lawsuits against them. The thinking was that if consumers cannot join a class action lawsuit and instead have to arbitrate their cases individually, few would do so since their individual claims would be too small to justify hiring an attorney. And most people would be afraid to go up against a big company by themselves. In short, big corporations hoped consumers would be too intimidated to challenge them.
However, the Supreme Court has said that if the cost of arbitration makes it practical for only big money disputes, and nothing else, then it might not be a constitutional alternative to the courts. Therefore, to prevent courts from striking the arbitration clause, Amazon and other corporations cover the cost of arbitration in small claim cases, preventing consumers from challenging arbitration as unfair because it costs more than civil litigation to pursue.
But a recent legal innovation has changed the advantage of forcing arbitration on
consumers. Class action attorneys–barred from filing 1 lawsuit with thousands of
plaintiffs as members of a class–have found the Achilles heel of forced arbitration.
They are now filing arbitration requests for thousands of plaintiffs on an individual basis. Amazon is only the latest corporation that has fallen victim to this new strategy.
In Amazon’s case, the class action attorneys filed 75,000 arbitration requests on behalf of 75,000 Echo buyers. And Amazon is now faced with having to pay millions for these 75,000 requested arbitration hearings. Once Amazon realized how arbitration could be
used against them, they suddenly rediscovered the advantage of good old civil litigation.
So that’s why arbitration is out and civil court trials are in with Amazon.
Seller_rUYESE2zW9M3E
It’s clear to me that most commentators on this subject do not understand Amazon’s reasons for now requiring Amazon customers to use lawsuits rather than arbitration.
The reason big business uses arbitration clauses is to prevent consumer class action lawsuits against them. The thinking was that if consumers cannot join a class action lawsuit and instead have to arbitrate their cases individually, few would do so since their individual claims would be too small to justify hiring an attorney. And most people would be afraid to go up against a big company by themselves. In short, big corporations hoped consumers would be too intimidated to challenge them.
However, the Supreme Court has said that if the cost of arbitration makes it practical for only big money disputes, and nothing else, then it might not be a constitutional alternative to the courts. Therefore, to prevent courts from striking the arbitration clause, Amazon and other corporations cover the cost of arbitration in small claim cases, preventing consumers from challenging arbitration as unfair because it costs more than civil litigation to pursue.
But a recent legal innovation has changed the advantage of forcing arbitration on
consumers. Class action attorneys–barred from filing 1 lawsuit with thousands of
plaintiffs as members of a class–have found the Achilles heel of forced arbitration.
They are now filing arbitration requests for thousands of plaintiffs on an individual basis. Amazon is only the latest corporation that has fallen victim to this new strategy.
In Amazon’s case, the class action attorneys filed 75,000 arbitration requests on behalf of 75,000 Echo buyers. And Amazon is now faced with having to pay millions for these 75,000 requested arbitration hearings. Once Amazon realized how arbitration could be
used against them, they suddenly rediscovered the advantage of good old civil litigation.
So that’s why arbitration is out and civil court trials are in with Amazon.
Seller_rUYESE2zW9M3E
It’s clear to me that most commentators on this subject do not understand Amazon’s reasons for now requiring Amazon customers to use lawsuits rather than arbitration.
The reason big business uses arbitration clauses is to prevent consumer class action lawsuits against them. The thinking was that if consumers cannot join a class action lawsuit and instead have to arbitrate their cases individually, few would do so since their individual claims would be too small to justify hiring an attorney. And most people would be afraid to go up against a big company by themselves. In short, big corporations hoped consumers would be too intimidated to challenge them.
However, the Supreme Court has said that if the cost of arbitration makes it practical for only big money disputes, and nothing else, then it might not be a constitutional alternative to the courts. Therefore, to prevent courts from striking the arbitration clause, Amazon and other corporations cover the cost of arbitration in small claim cases, preventing consumers from challenging arbitration as unfair because it costs more than civil litigation to pursue.
But a recent legal innovation has changed the advantage of forcing arbitration on
consumers. Class action attorneys–barred from filing 1 lawsuit with thousands of
plaintiffs as members of a class–have found the Achilles heel of forced arbitration.
They are now filing arbitration requests for thousands of plaintiffs on an individual basis. Amazon is only the latest corporation that has fallen victim to this new strategy.
In Amazon’s case, the class action attorneys filed 75,000 arbitration requests on behalf of 75,000 Echo buyers. And Amazon is now faced with having to pay millions for these 75,000 requested arbitration hearings. Once Amazon realized how arbitration could be
used against them, they suddenly rediscovered the advantage of good old civil litigation.
So that’s why arbitration is out and civil court trials are in with Amazon.
61 replies
61 replies
Seller_JSkKTxOgzk1ON
Probably a good thing, Amazon does not usually change policy to hurt us sellers, their backbone.
Seller_LMf9CF5P8NlmA
I know they have lost some court cases by people saying their TOS and forced arbitration are unnecessary, so either they changed it to make things easier and less costly or they feel like they can win/handle more cases through court.
Seller_nrFdj0h231r7B
I received this email through my buyer account email, not my seller account email. I think it pertains to customers’ conditions of use, not sellers’.
Seller_qsjXhUS6U3FXD
I think this is for customers. I typed in the web address it referenced and it took me to the customer support page. But a big red flag was when I saw, " Last updated: May 3, 2021" So was there an update and Amazon is just now notifying customers? Or is this another phony email? I did read on and hate to admit that as a customer I had never fully read these conditions and found:
" DISPUTES
Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon Service will be adjudicated in the state or Federal courts in King County, Washington, and you consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in these courts. We each waive any right to a jury trial."
Seller_tfeuabuyLJJxX
it will be coming to sellers too. arbitration is expensive for companies.
also found it interesting that they put the phone number to the legal department in there…
Seller_OIwySjujrWvUg
the change is for amazon customers/buyers, we have another thread here
Seller_sUfyk7ajzPzny
It was discussed in this topic-thread about 6 weeks ago, in the immediate aftermath of The Wall Street Journal breaking the news :
As our friend @Dogone intimates, only the three-known iterations of the CHC’s (“Customer-facing Help Content”) “Conditions of Use” - at https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=508088 , https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201909000 , & https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GLSBYFE9MGKKQXXM have as of now had the Arbitration language removed.
The same is not as of yet true of the language in the SHC’s (“Seller Help Content”) version, Conditions of Use (link), nor in that of the Amazon Services Business Solutions Agreement (link).
Seller_qsjXhUS6U3FXD
It seems like I read an article some time back about a California court ruled a business cannot force someone to abide by a contract that violates that state’s laws of awarding every citizen the right to a trial by jury. So I went and looked it up and this is what I found.
In reaching its conclusion, the Bowers court discussed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Grafton Partners v. Superior Court, where petitioner argued that a pre-dispute contractual agreement waiving the right to a jury trial, but still providing for resolution through a court trial, was unenforceable. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the right to a jury trial is fundamental in the California Constitution, and can only be waived as provided by statute. The Court rejected the respondent’s attempt to analogize the jury waiver at issue to an arbitration agreement. While noting that arbitration agreements are specifically authorized by statute (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281), the Court also drew another important distinction: arbitration provisions represent an agreement to avoid the judicial forum altogether.
Now this is of course California whose laws are quite different than many other states. But even stating that, the laws are way to confusing and one law can cancel out another. Makes you wonder if the legal system is just a word game???
Seller_w5tXkGLVYBnzo
That seems merely consistent with the law. People aren’t supposed to be able to sign away their right to have a day in court, it’s a 7th Amendment described right. Just because teams of shady lawyers have gotten away with drafting lousy contract language for years doesn’t mean it was ever OK, it just means it wasn’t effectively challenged. There are in fact precepts in the law that the drafter of a contract has additional responsibility to draft a fair one and abide by its content. There might be some new regulatory brooms in DC that Amazon wants off their back, and contractual language in line with norms and decency they might figure could help that happen.
Seller_JSkKTxOgzk1ON
Probably a good thing, Amazon does not usually change policy to hurt us sellers, their backbone.
Seller_JSkKTxOgzk1ON
Probably a good thing, Amazon does not usually change policy to hurt us sellers, their backbone.
Seller_LMf9CF5P8NlmA
I know they have lost some court cases by people saying their TOS and forced arbitration are unnecessary, so either they changed it to make things easier and less costly or they feel like they can win/handle more cases through court.
Seller_LMf9CF5P8NlmA
I know they have lost some court cases by people saying their TOS and forced arbitration are unnecessary, so either they changed it to make things easier and less costly or they feel like they can win/handle more cases through court.
Seller_nrFdj0h231r7B
I received this email through my buyer account email, not my seller account email. I think it pertains to customers’ conditions of use, not sellers’.
Seller_nrFdj0h231r7B
I received this email through my buyer account email, not my seller account email. I think it pertains to customers’ conditions of use, not sellers’.
Seller_qsjXhUS6U3FXD
I think this is for customers. I typed in the web address it referenced and it took me to the customer support page. But a big red flag was when I saw, " Last updated: May 3, 2021" So was there an update and Amazon is just now notifying customers? Or is this another phony email? I did read on and hate to admit that as a customer I had never fully read these conditions and found:
" DISPUTES
Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon Service will be adjudicated in the state or Federal courts in King County, Washington, and you consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in these courts. We each waive any right to a jury trial."
Seller_qsjXhUS6U3FXD
I think this is for customers. I typed in the web address it referenced and it took me to the customer support page. But a big red flag was when I saw, " Last updated: May 3, 2021" So was there an update and Amazon is just now notifying customers? Or is this another phony email? I did read on and hate to admit that as a customer I had never fully read these conditions and found:
" DISPUTES
Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon Service will be adjudicated in the state or Federal courts in King County, Washington, and you consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in these courts. We each waive any right to a jury trial."
Seller_tfeuabuyLJJxX
it will be coming to sellers too. arbitration is expensive for companies.
also found it interesting that they put the phone number to the legal department in there…
Seller_tfeuabuyLJJxX
it will be coming to sellers too. arbitration is expensive for companies.
also found it interesting that they put the phone number to the legal department in there…
Seller_OIwySjujrWvUg
the change is for amazon customers/buyers, we have another thread here
Seller_OIwySjujrWvUg
the change is for amazon customers/buyers, we have another thread here
Seller_sUfyk7ajzPzny
It was discussed in this topic-thread about 6 weeks ago, in the immediate aftermath of The Wall Street Journal breaking the news :
As our friend @Dogone intimates, only the three-known iterations of the CHC’s (“Customer-facing Help Content”) “Conditions of Use” - at https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=508088 , https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201909000 , & https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GLSBYFE9MGKKQXXM have as of now had the Arbitration language removed.
The same is not as of yet true of the language in the SHC’s (“Seller Help Content”) version, Conditions of Use (link), nor in that of the Amazon Services Business Solutions Agreement (link).
Seller_sUfyk7ajzPzny
It was discussed in this topic-thread about 6 weeks ago, in the immediate aftermath of The Wall Street Journal breaking the news :
As our friend @Dogone intimates, only the three-known iterations of the CHC’s (“Customer-facing Help Content”) “Conditions of Use” - at https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=508088 , https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201909000 , & https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GLSBYFE9MGKKQXXM have as of now had the Arbitration language removed.
The same is not as of yet true of the language in the SHC’s (“Seller Help Content”) version, Conditions of Use (link), nor in that of the Amazon Services Business Solutions Agreement (link).
Seller_qsjXhUS6U3FXD
It seems like I read an article some time back about a California court ruled a business cannot force someone to abide by a contract that violates that state’s laws of awarding every citizen the right to a trial by jury. So I went and looked it up and this is what I found.
In reaching its conclusion, the Bowers court discussed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Grafton Partners v. Superior Court, where petitioner argued that a pre-dispute contractual agreement waiving the right to a jury trial, but still providing for resolution through a court trial, was unenforceable. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the right to a jury trial is fundamental in the California Constitution, and can only be waived as provided by statute. The Court rejected the respondent’s attempt to analogize the jury waiver at issue to an arbitration agreement. While noting that arbitration agreements are specifically authorized by statute (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281), the Court also drew another important distinction: arbitration provisions represent an agreement to avoid the judicial forum altogether.
Now this is of course California whose laws are quite different than many other states. But even stating that, the laws are way to confusing and one law can cancel out another. Makes you wonder if the legal system is just a word game???
Seller_qsjXhUS6U3FXD
It seems like I read an article some time back about a California court ruled a business cannot force someone to abide by a contract that violates that state’s laws of awarding every citizen the right to a trial by jury. So I went and looked it up and this is what I found.
In reaching its conclusion, the Bowers court discussed the California Supreme Court’s decision in Grafton Partners v. Superior Court, where petitioner argued that a pre-dispute contractual agreement waiving the right to a jury trial, but still providing for resolution through a court trial, was unenforceable. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the right to a jury trial is fundamental in the California Constitution, and can only be waived as provided by statute. The Court rejected the respondent’s attempt to analogize the jury waiver at issue to an arbitration agreement. While noting that arbitration agreements are specifically authorized by statute (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1281), the Court also drew another important distinction: arbitration provisions represent an agreement to avoid the judicial forum altogether.
Now this is of course California whose laws are quite different than many other states. But even stating that, the laws are way to confusing and one law can cancel out another. Makes you wonder if the legal system is just a word game???
Seller_w5tXkGLVYBnzo
That seems merely consistent with the law. People aren’t supposed to be able to sign away their right to have a day in court, it’s a 7th Amendment described right. Just because teams of shady lawyers have gotten away with drafting lousy contract language for years doesn’t mean it was ever OK, it just means it wasn’t effectively challenged. There are in fact precepts in the law that the drafter of a contract has additional responsibility to draft a fair one and abide by its content. There might be some new regulatory brooms in DC that Amazon wants off their back, and contractual language in line with norms and decency they might figure could help that happen.
Seller_w5tXkGLVYBnzo
That seems merely consistent with the law. People aren’t supposed to be able to sign away their right to have a day in court, it’s a 7th Amendment described right. Just because teams of shady lawyers have gotten away with drafting lousy contract language for years doesn’t mean it was ever OK, it just means it wasn’t effectively challenged. There are in fact precepts in the law that the drafter of a contract has additional responsibility to draft a fair one and abide by its content. There might be some new regulatory brooms in DC that Amazon wants off their back, and contractual language in line with norms and decency they might figure could help that happen.
