News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti... by CommentCard on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @05:33AM (#15548671)
Your example falls under the purview of negligence in tort law. Nevertheless an arbitration agreement may supersede a potential lawsuit.

The widespread use of forced arbitration seems ripe for examination by the SCOTUS. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a fairly blatant violation of the 7th amendment.

Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti... by zimpenfish on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @08:09AM (#15549363)
> The widespread use of forced arbitration seems ripe for examination by the SCOTUS.

Given the current makeup of SCOTUS, I wouldn't hold your breath, sadly.

(Although I would like to hear Gorsuch claim that since the constitution didn't say anything about forced arbitration, it's out of the purview of SCOTUS. If only to hear him slapped down by RBG again.)

Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti... by kharms on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @09:16AM (#15549791)
They looked at a related issue not too long ago.

https://www.classdefenseblog.com/2015/12/supreme-court-holds...

Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti... by JackFr on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @10:12AM (#15550254)
In your view is it ever permissible(enforceable) to forfeit the right to sue as part of a contract? Or are there just certain kinds of contracts or circumstances for which the right to sue is inalienable?
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti... by s73ver_ on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @11:39AM (#15551012)
It's not in Europe, so I see zero reason why it should be permissible here.
Re:U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Acti... by ifhd on Wednesday October 25, 2017 @03:26PM (#15553301)
They have examined it and found it's fine.