The title is misleading, this is a standard forced-arbitration clause that many other companies push on their users.
It doesn't say you can't sue them, it just says you must use binding arbitration when you do, which means you can't have an official judge or jury... a single neutral third-party (usually a lawyer or retired judge) becomes both the judge and jury, and their decision is final.
I think the incentive for them is that arbitration cases are usually harder for consumers to win, and/or the case gets resolved much more quickly than going through the traditional court system. I would imagine things like huge punitive damages or class-action suits are a lot harder (or impossible) to have as well.
How would this make any sense or even stand in front of a judge?
The title is misleading, this is a standard forced-arbitration clause that many other companies push on their users.
It doesn't say you can't sue them, it just says you must use binding arbitration when you do, which means you can't have an official judge or jury... a single neutral third-party (usually a lawyer or retired judge) becomes both the judge and jury, and their decision is final.
I think the incentive for them is that arbitration cases are usually harder for consumers to win, and/or the case gets resolved much more quickly than going through the traditional court system. I would imagine things like huge punitive damages or class-action suits are a lot harder (or impossible) to have as well.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/amazon-reinstates-b...