Originally Posted by Tenmar
I would really appreciate a way to opt out from the arbitration. I'm sorry but I really do believe in our US justice system than having to go through a private company deciding what should be the decision of an actual judge appointed by our federal government.
I don't care if I have to deliver a letter in the mail. There should be a way to opt out because I don't care how you want to spin it, if I had a choice between our legal system that is backed by the US constitution or a private arbitration company that gets to play fast and loose with the rules I'll stand by my constitution and my rights.
In fairness, in a single-plaintiff suit, you're much more likely to get a small-claims court or state local judge than a federal district judge.
I would also add that (to me) the biggest concern is not impartiality (though that's important) but instead whether they'll, e.g., require travel to LA to bring your claim.
I can't imagine ever suing Riot. But people often can't imagine suing until things go bad in a way they didn't expect. I suppose there might be something with data privacy.
Anyway, I'd really just personally like to see Riot take the lead and be the Good Guys here. A lot of software companies are trying to abuse consumers with quasi-legal intimidation. The courts so far seem willing to accommodate them.
I think a lot of people have a paranoid, conservative-influenced view that "lawsuits" mean "some guy in a suit walks up to a courthouse, 12 jurors scream EMOTIONAL DAMAGES! and everyone goes bankrupt and an eagle cries." (Check out the wildly misreported summaries of the "McDonald's coffee case", then read what actually happened there.)
I sometimes think companies are so afraid of this legal "bogeyman" that they think they have to find some way to prevent lawsuits from happening ever. That's not healthy. If companies take their customers' concerns into account, they won't be sued. Honestly, I think that if a company does something wrong and someone is injured in the process, they should compensate that person appropriately: if you do $100 of damage to somebody, you should be voluntarily offering them $100 to make it better.
It's not arbitration itself I have an issue with -- it's companies using it as a way to prevent injured customers from getting compensation, e.g. by requiring travel to a distant location.