Judge upholds Tesla arbitration agreement that drivers called “unconscionable”
Madison_rogue@kbin.social to 
arstechnica.com
Four Tesla drivers who sued the company over its allegedly deceptive "self-driving" claims will have to go to arbitration instead of pursuing a class action, a judge ruled.
This is literally illegal in most developed countries. Only in the US and with Satan can you sign a contract that removes your rights under law.
Yup, those clauses should be illegal. Especially nowdays. In the past, you could cross out sections you don’t agree too before signing, or negotiate the contract somehow. But now, contracts are very clearly designed as a “take it or leave it” offer, and when literally everyone in a given marketplace for an essential product or service has the same clauses, it effectively removes your rights.
There was a case back in 2018 where Uber's arbitration clause backfired on it, after an attempt at a class action suit failed 12,500 Uber drivers each filed for arbitration independently and Uber was absolutely swamped with arbitration fees. It's unfortunate that it has to come to this sort of thing, but here's hoping that similar troubles come Tesla's way. Maybe eventually these giant corporations will learn if it keeps hurting them.
It's a wonder that there is anyone still buying Tesla cars.
Most companies are doing this, sticking arbitration agreements in their user agreements. Most of the time it benefits them hugely since arbitration is typically much more favorable to them than court (which is already incredibly favorable to them).
Once in a while it bites them; I recall reading some company where thousands of users started going to arbitration, and that costs them cause they pay the arbitration fees. In that case they tried to weasel out of the arbitration agreement, but last I heard a judge made them stick to it, forcing them to pay arbitration fees for every user that was asking for it.
Some backup links
Uber paying arbitration fees: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/uber-loses-appeal-block-92-million-mass-arbitration-fees-2022-04-18/
GEICO nearly having to pay $5.2mil to a woman who got an std in a rented car, stating that it should be covered under the insurance policy and arbitrator agreed: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/geico-std-car-5-million-award-vacated-by-judges/
Why? Even without self-driving, it's still an electric car, and there's quite a bit demand for those nowdays which should be a good thing, right?