Fryette Support Forum Forced Arbitration

[7704A]

Heads up, the terms of service for the Fryette support forum requires you to give up legal rights to take them to court either as an individual or as a group in a class action if they do something illegal that, say, violates consumer rights or worse:
https://support.fryette.com/tos#heading--disputes
(same link, but archived for longevity) :
https://web.archive.org/web/20240824190142/https://support.fryette.com/tos#heading--disputes
Screenshot:

From the wording of the bolded paragraph (their emphasis, not mine) it looks like this possibly applies to all disputes with Fryette, and not just disputes related to the terms of service for the forum or your use of the forum.

Now I am no expert on this stuff, but here is what I've found so far briefly looking online for reports 'n articles about this practice:

• Arbitrators are not bound to rule according to the law. As recently as '94 if I recall the date correctly, a survey showed that around 20% of AAA construction arbitrators didn't, sometimes because they didn't know the applicable law. Now the Fryette terms do state that California law shall govern disputes, which may qualify as satisfying the AAA provision for parties to agree on the law the arbitrator will judge by, however I don't know how that interacts with the above statistic about the 20% of arbitrators in a specific field. https://rmfpc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/FLJ-Must-Arbitrators-Follow-the-Law.pdf
• You can't organize with other wronged parties to bring a class action suit (see screenshot).
• Arbitration can end up being more expensive than court https://btlg.us/arbitration-not-necessarily-a-better-option-than-litigation/
• Arbitration can lack discovery: https://btlg.us/arbitration-not-necessarily-a-better-option-than-litigation/
• If an arbitration decision is clearly wrong, unfair, etc., there is no right to an appeal outside of a narrow set of requirements. https://www.adr.org/sites/default/files/document_repository/AAA229-After_Award_Issued.pdf, https://www.jamsadr.com/files/uploa...ppeal-arbitration-award_law360_2015-01-28.pdf
• Consumer rights organizations seem to hate it: https://www.nclc.org/study-99-of-consumers-unaware-they-are-subject-to-forced-arbitration/
• Arbitration sessions seem to be more closed off and confidential than court cases: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-case-against-mandatory-consumer-arbitration-clauses/
• "Victims" seem to win more in court than in arbitration: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-case-against-mandatory-consumer-arbitration-clauses/

Like I said, I'm not an expert in this area. I also have definitely not finished all the requisite reading to have a thorough intelligent discussion on this topic, but am posting about it now so that the rest of yous can look into it yourselves and gain an understanding of things before possibly signing away legal rights. If I waited longer to thoroughly work out my own position, maybe more of you would agree to the terms of service without first being aware of this clause. Hopefully my concerns are unfounded, but I'm not yet convinced that's the case. Generally having a forced arbitration agreement is read as consumer hostile. I hope that's not the case here.

 

[Lightning]

What’s this all about ???

 

[7704A]

What’s this all about ???

A clause in the Terms of Service for creating an account at the Fryette Support Forum, here: https://support.fryette.com/

 

[311splawndude]

So it's only for their forum? So they don't want to get sued or taken to public court in a civil case? Possibly for potential libel on their site? They prefer arbitration. I don't think this is uncommon my friend. Granted I didn't go read it for myself and I merely glanced at your post. I'm not a lawyer either. I've signed things like this for different jobs or Scopes of Work.

Is there something going on with Freyette right now that I'm not aware of - outside of maybe the poor or lack of support?

 

[errrrrl]

Man, that's a lot of words

 

[7704A]

So it's only for their forum?

It doesn't appear to be worded that way: "you and the company will resolve any dispute" in the bold paragraph, no mention of it being specifically related to the forum. The previous two mentions of disputes specify that it's TOS and/or forum stuff being dispute. The bolded paragraph doesn't.

So they don't want to get sued or taken to public court in a civil case?

So it would seem.

Possibly for potential libel on their site?

I would assume so, but the clause appears to cover all disputes with Fryette, not just stuff related to libel. Also, isn't that what Section 230 is for?

I don't think this is uncommon my friend.

I don't think so either. So far though, I think it is too common. It generally seems like a consumer unfriendly move for companies to get out of responsibility, but I'm still digging into it (again, NAL). I'm not saying that's what Fryette is trying to do, but that the letter of the agreement may permit it.

Is there something going on with Freyette right now that I'm not aware of - outside of maybe the poor or lack of support?

Not that I'm aware of. Couple of possible explanations, assuming it is consumer unfriendly, that don't imply malice on Fryette's part: They just went with the common legalese boilerplate (as you said, arbitration is common, especially of late); They meant it to cover their butts with respect to libel like you mentioned, and the fact that it apparently covers all disputes not just forum stuff is an accident; Fryette just doesn't trust it's users to not be litigious, or perhaps it doesn't trust malicious actors (Steve mentioned someone pirating their trademark and then taking them to court) to not try to sue them.

I don't expect that Fryette is going to try anything shifty and that that is the motivation for the clause, my concern is that if anything ever changes, if the company ever gets sold, management changes, or Steve does something stupid, we' ve signed away our rights for dealing with that and put ourselves in a place where it may be easier to be taken advantage of.

Again, NAL, still delving into this, but forced arbitration does not get favorable coverage from consumer rights groups and so far it seems to me like at least some of that is justified.

 

[311splawndude]

I would assume so, but the clause appears to cover all disputes with Fryette, not just stuff related to libel.

Ah. Yeah. That does make it more sucky

 

[7704A]

Ah. Yeah. That does make it more sucky

Yeah. Especially if they close the email support service/only take support request through the forum. In that situation, if hypothetically Fryette did do something shady, a consumer wouldn't be able to try and resolve it with support without first agreeing to giving up legal rights (like class actions) which they may want if support doesn't fix things. Again, a perhaps far-off hypothetical, but companies do sometimes change. Which to be clear, I'm not saying Fryette is changing, just that I don't like exposing myself to the situation where I have to be concerned about whether they will.

 

[retrorack]

So if I sign up for Disney+ and then my Deliverance electrocutes me and I die, I can’t sue them? Is that what you’re saying?

 

[retrorack]

The first line of the Terms page is:

These terms govern use of the Internet forum at https://support.fryette.com.

That’s pretty self-explanatory.

 

[napalmdeath]

California for ya..

 

[7704A]

So if I sign up for Disney+ and then my Deliverance electrocutes me and I die, I can’t sue them? Is that what you’re saying?

Not unless you first sacrifice a quad of choice NOS tubes on the alter of the mouse.

 

[7704A]

The first line of the Terms page is:

That’s pretty self-explanatory.

Full intro snippet:

I assume you're saying that the above scopes the arbitration clause to just disputes regarding the forum. I'm not sure that's self-explanatory. What eliminates the reading "to use this forum, you must agree to resolve any disputes forum-related or otherwise with Fryette via binding arbitration?" That seems like it would fit under governing use, it setups up pre-requisites for using the forum. Right now I'm reading the intro snippet as saying that agreeing to these terms is only necessary for the use of the forum, and that a different set of terms may be required to be agreed to for different products. I hope you're right that it scopes the arbitration to just forum disputes though, as that's a bit more palatable.

 

[TheGreatGreen]

Contractually obligated arbitration should be illegal.

Right now there's pretty much nothing stopping literally every company you do business with from including a "nothing we do to you can be held against us because we're going to force you to agree to 'arbitration' we control, that there is no way in hell you could actually win in, in the event that we do something grossly unfair and even illegal to you" clause in the contract.

Also, for those who don't know, the results of an arbitrated case, no matter how stacked and bullshit, is legally binding.

 

[311splawndude]

Yeah. Especially if they close the email support service/only take support request through the forum.

That's what I was getting at. Email is usually considered legally binding and often used to augment Scopes of Work or negotiations, pricing, etc. Forum discussion is not. Making it harder to make your claim and have dialog that can be used as evidence. Again, I'm not a lawyer I only play one on guitar forums.

 

[7704A]

That's what I was getting at. Email is usually considered legally binding and often used to augment Scopes of Work or negotiations, pricing, etc. Forum discussion is not. Making it harder to make your claim and have dialog that can be used as evidence. Again, I'm not a lawyer I only play one on guitar forums.

Ah, I missed that point in your previous post then. Extra sucky.

 

[311splawndude]

Ah, I missed that point in your previous post then. Extra sucky.

Yep. "We don't want you to sue us in a court of law and we won't talk to you via email or otherwise. Here is a link to our forum and FAQs where you can get all of your answers."

 

[skoora]

Well it can’t be bad compared to what’s in the Apple service agreement.

 

[paulyc]

Have you seen Disney + in the news ? You’re REALLY not going to like what they’re sneaking in…

 

[marvcus]

In arbitration, it’s like a bench trial, but in an office. There is usually same or similar discovery as in a regular civil lawsuit. Both sides have to agree to an arbitrator and have a choice from a list.

It’s not like Fryette would get his pick and that’s that. It can be a more expensive forum. But if you have a case against them, attorneys work on contingency, just like civil suits.