Presented by Colin Rule
Last summer, in a case called AT&T v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court struck down a long-standing judge-made rule that arbitration agreements are unenforceable if they are included in standard consumer contracts. This has unleashed a wave of changes in consumer terms and conditions across the United States, as in-house legal teams integrate AT&T v. Concepcion-type language into consumer contracts to better protect corporations against class action lawsuits. Some decry this development as a huge blow against consumer protection, suggesting that binding arbitration can never be fair to consumers. But others see this as a window of opportunity, where streamlined and consumer-favorable arbitration processes can be crafted that better meet the needs of consumers. In this session, we will discuss the current situation, and how online arbitration could be designed to strike the right balance between the competing interests of businesses and consumers. We will demo the latest in online arbitration processes, and talk about potential best practices.
Colin Rule is CEO of Modria.com, an online dispute resolution provider based in Silicon Valley. He was eBay and PayPal’s first Director of Online Dispute Resolution from 2003 to 2011, and he’s the author of Online Dispute Resolution for Business (Jossey-Bass, 2003).
****WEBINAR ACCESS INFORMATION****
You will access this live webinar by following this link:
*Please log in at least 15 minutes prior if this is the first time you are accessing one of our webinars due to the configuration process that takes place*
Here are some tips to ensure you are present and can participate in the presentation:
· When prompted select participant login and enter a desired name. You do not need a password.
· If you have troubles with the link in this email, please cut and paste it into a new browser.
· I know there were issues with the latest version of Firefox, therefore, you may want to try a different browser if issues arise.
· Test the link prior to logging on for the session. The first time takes a few minutes for the page to load. There is a configuration wizard prior to your first time using this software. Please test the link and enter the room any time prior to the event. The room will be open.
· If you do not have a headset or speaker for your computer, you may also dial in from a phone. Below is the Information to do so.
Dial in number: (571) 392-7604
Phone PIN: 66772539
The recent Apple security update removed an older Java plug-in and Java Preferences but you can still download Java for Mac OS X here, and you'll be getting the latest version:
It is not Apple's version but it is Oracle's. It will place the Java Preferences in your System Preferences > Other pane.
Hi guys! Thanks for the great discussion yesterday. Let me post a few links here so that everyone will have access to the information we shared.
Here's the deck we walked through: http://www.novojustice.com/files/cyberweek12.pptx (MS powerpoint)
AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT
BARNES & NOBLE E-COMMERCE
ELECTRONIC ARTS ENTERTAINMENT
VERIZON WIRELESS TELECOM
XBOX LIVE ENTERTAINMENT
Also, interesting information (and user reaction) on PayPal's new arbitration clause:
Hello everyone, The archive for the Online Arbitration Webinar is all loaded above. Please feel free to continue to the discussion by posting your comments and questions in thid forum. Enjoy!
Thank you for the insightful presentation, Colin. My name is John Matson and I am a student at the Creighton University School of Law. I am currently enrolled in an alternative dispute resolution class. Each member of our class had the opportunity to choose a Cyberweek presentation to research and comment on. I am really glad I chose this Webinar. One part of the presentation in particular grabbed my attention. It seems that corporations would have significant incentives to quickly settle consumer claims (as long as they were for negligible amounts) in most cases. That being said, I can also see that if there was no process to ensure that claims were meritorious, corporations that settled too frequently may be taken advantage of by opportunistic consumers. I liked your idea of tracking the claims of any particular consumer. You suggested that if a given consumer filed complaints more than three times in a given time period against a corporation, the corporation should look more closely at the merits of the complaints being filed. Such a process seems like a great way to decrease the possibility of consumer abuse of the generally consumer-friendly process you are suggesting corporations employ. I wonder if it might be sound policy for a corporation to settle claims up to three times (again, assuming the claims were for negligible amounts) and then "take a closer look" by requiring the consumer to arbitrate their subsequent claims. It would seem to me that if the corporation assumed such a policy, a court may look even more favorably on that corporation's consumer predispute-binding-arbitration clauses and prohibition-of-class-action clauses. Thanks again for the great presentation.
Many Thanks for the informative presentation.
I have a Query and this is something where i every time get stuck when i read about online arbitration i.e Choice of Law
Is there any possibility, that issue of Choice of law might arise during Online arbitration?
Arbitrator shall resolve the dispute according to the law of which country, if parties are not subject to same law and when the choice of law is not decided in the arbitration clause?
And is it like Private international law plays the role?
I might sound out of the box, but i really need clarification on this aspect..
ODR has undoubtedly overcome the jurisdictional issue involved in the cross border transactions.And it is very clear that ODR is not only the best but the only way to resolve Online disputes.
I understand that the businesses run online through websites e.g E bay when they use ODR technique and provides Online arbitration for resolving the disputes arisen between the parties irrespective of the location of the customer. And it is understood from the e bay arbitration clause (as in presentation ) that the Choice of law is also decided in the clause itself, therefore in that case chice of law dispute cannot arise.
Great presentation! Off the top of my head I have a few questions/suggestions that might help. Instead of having to physically mail a letter to opt out of the arbitration could we include an section when people agree to terms and conditions that allow them to opt out on the web. A company could also include an area on the website that might include anonymous filings of past arbitrations similar to the feedback system that ebay uses. This might encourage users to trust the arbitration process while still allowing the possibility for class-action law suits if repeat players are abusing the system. I also really like the suggestion of the system that Amazon uses of the 3 lifetime no questions asked refunds that would favor the occasional buyer. I apologize in advance if these were covered in the slides. Thanks for the presentation!