It's not really legal in the UK. It's unenforceable on claims under 5k and for claims over 5k the courts will make a case by case decision if arbitration is appropriate.

https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/insights/reports/inside-arbitration/click-to-agree-technology-and-consumer-arbitration

However, lots of companies still add these bullshit clauses as a way to bully people out of seeing a lawyer.

FYI it is the other way around. The British Empire spread Common Law around the world. Here is a Wikipedia's Page (Common Law section) which explains the spread:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems

This is why we occasionally get courts referring to Ancient precedents from England.

lapdogs

The Whitehouse is 12 years overdue for its 200-year reno. Are you angling to get it done for free?

The US has twice as many parties as China. If that ain't a major difference then I don't what is /s

Or became tech bros themselves and now want the world to cater to them.

AntiCorpoTerrorism... Cyberpunk much...

you know they put shit like this in the agreements because they know nobody reads them

That's only half of the problem: even if you carefully read what you agree to, if you refuse agreements that include a forced arbitration clause, you have no other choice because all companies foist it on you.

In other words, if you refuse forced arbitration, you essentially have to opt out of normal life, because there are no alternatives.

Fun fact: in Germany, anything "unexpected" they write in TOS is not legally binding, because everyone knows noone reads it.

"This comment is way too long."

presses Agree

Heck half the time my screen reading software glitches out on ToS pages, so I just have to assume I'm selling my soul but hopefully not much else and click accept because it's not like I'm going to find someone to sit and read it out to me, that would take hours!

And yet for every other contract I have ever signed in my entire life, I have a legal right to ask for it in an accessible form before I sign it. As a visually impaired person, uber is present in my life.

I hated it, it was the most inaccessible app for such a purpose, and the drivers really did not understand I can't see what they see. I like just calling the depot, talking to a human, and booking a cab.... But you can't do that now either because when you call you wait on hold for 20 minutes while the automated message tells you about the taxi app.

So now unfortunately, uber is easier to book than a taxi, I don't know if the ToS in the taxi app has any harmful stuff about arbitration because again, I've never been able to get a screen reader to read out the ToS properly on any app!

I feel like such a boomer, but I am really feeling more and more isolated as every service Abdi connection I've built my life around is moving online into a digital visual space faster than the affordable assustive technology can keep up with.

I'm expected to read something on a screen when I physically can not, uber and similar apps, including the app my local state government brought in during covid that now holds much only transit ID to show transit staff I'm blind (to get l transport assistance at train stations) all do this.

Once you open the wallet section of the app, for fraud prevention they disabled third party screen readers from reading anything on the app.

I have to open my app, then ask the other person to look through my wallet for me to find the card because I can't, it's such a privacy violation.

their daughter clicked “agree” when presented with updated terms and conditions while ordering food via her mom’s Uber Eats account.

Woman died because an employee at a Disney resort served her food with peanuts in it. Her widower tried to sue, because the woman had confirmed with the server that there would be no nuts, and the server assured them there wouldn’t be. So someone on the restaurant’s side fucked up. Pretty open and shut case of negligence.

Disney’s lawyers tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, by saying that the husband had agreed to binding arbitration in the Terms of Service when he signed up for a free two week Disney+ trial on his Xbox several years prior. He never actually paid for a subscription, and cancelled after the free trial. But Disney was saying that the binding arbitration clause was still in effect in perpetuity, even after the trial ended and he cancelled the service.

Disney quickly reversed course (and “allowed” the man to sue them) once they realized it was making headlines, because they didn’t want to deal with the bad PR. But if it hadn’t made headlines, Disney’s lawyers likely would have continued pushing for dismissal.

"How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man!?"

Well, that is exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases, and almost certainly what's going to happen here.

That's not to undercut how shitty a practice it is, it mostly serves to discourage and dissuade people from trying to sue in the first place.

Months previously the daughter, who was a minor, had set up Uber Eats and just clicked through the terms of service because it’s not like you have a choice, plus she was a kid.

The parents were seriously injured in an Uber crash, but the court sided with Uber that they could NOT sue because those terms of service were legally binding for all Uber interactions

Uber are pulling the same shit as Disney.

Apparently if you have ever ever ever accepted a Disney + account, and you have a family member die in a restaurant that is owned by Disney or dies in the theme park, you can’t sue Disney

And this is Uber doing the same thing. Uber driver crashed into a vehicle and because the woman in the car they crashed into had ordered something on Uber eats once upon a time when she was on her moms account she cannot sue an Uber driver ever.