New Discord TOS binds you to forced arbitration - Opt-Out Now
New Discord TOS binds you to forced arbitration - Opt-Out Now
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/17618684
Forced arbitration means any legal disputes you may have with Discord must be resolved through a single third party mediator, who 99% of the time is chosen by, and will rule in favor of, the corporation/Discord. This effectively removes all your legal rights as a consumer, because arbitration decisions are legally binding and non-appealable.
The new ToS goes into effect April 15th, 2024.
YOU CAN OPT OUT OF ARBITRATION. You must email arbitration-opt-out@discord.com BEFORE MAY 15TH (30 days after ToS effective date) with your username stating that you wish to opt out of the arbitration clause. Once May 15th passes you are bound to arbitration with Discord forever.
Opt-out before it's too late.
You're viewing a single thread.
I am not a lawyer, but:
Given the recent trend of corporations trying to force you to give up your legal rights, I strongly advise everyone here to check their local laws and see if this sort of forced arbitration is even legal where they live.
Just for the sake of example I'll translate an excerpt of the local (Brazilian) Customers' Defence Code, from 1990:
Section II. On abusive clauses.
Article 51. Contractual clauses referring to the supply of goods and services are void of full right (i.e. non-enforceable), when: [...]
subsection VII - they determine the compulsory usage of arbitration.
I bet that most people around the world have similar laws protecting them. Use them or you'll lose them.
This is true. Generally speaking, arbitration isn't enforced (or enforceable at all) outside of the U.S. Discord knows this and explicitly states that the arbitration agreement will only apply if you are a US Resident; and any other conflicts will be subject to federal and California law. That said, they should still try to opt out if they can, if only to send a message.
That said, they should still try to opt out if they can, if only to send a message.
Yup - full agree. And I think that they should be nagging their lawmakers to actually defend their interests, instead of bowing to corporations in servitude.
(Note that my earlier comment was mostly a public service announcement, not disagreeing with you. Your point in the OP is sane and I agree with it.)
And I think that they should be nagging their lawmakers to actually defend their interests, instead of bowing to corporations in servitude.
(Above highlighted link is for US citizens.)
Edit: Just contacted my representative, and let them know my feelings about this issue.
This is commentary about the state of rights in the US:
What's it like to live in a free world where people aren't the property of companies?