arbitration
Latest
Netflix to pay $42 million in dispute over screenwriter compensation
Arbitrators have told Netflix to pay $42 million to screenwriters who reportedly didn't get enough residual pay.
Airbnb drops sexual harassment and assault arbitration rules for guests and hosts
The company made a similar change for its employees in 2018.
Amazon makes it easier to sue after deluge of arbitration claims
Amazon has changed its policy on forced arbitration to allow customers to file lawsuits against it.
Uber offers settlement to some drivers over worker status
Uber drivers may in the US are out of luck pursuing class action lawsuits that would force the company to treat them as employees. They might, however, get something for their trouble -- with some caveats. TechCrunch has learned that Uber has offered a tentative settlement to those drivers who've pursued individual arbitration cases over their worker status. Uber would pay them 11 cents for every mile they've driven during trips (including for services like Uber Eats). However, drivers would also have to drop all worker misclassification claims against Uber.
SoundCloud’s Premier program is a bad deal for artists
Earlier this month, SoundCloud made its direct monetization program public, allowing hundreds of thousands of creators to make money from the platform. However, The Verge has gotten its hands on the contract artists have to sign to become a part of SoundCloud Premier, and it's rife with stipulations that aren't in artists' interests. From mandatory arbitration clauses to weak payment terms, SoundCloud's contract stands to limit creators' positions and restrict the steps they can take if they feel that they've been wronged.
Silicon Valley’s Brett Kavanaugh problem
As we steel ourselves to careen numbly toward whatever new horrors lay in store with Trump, his Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh, and the conservative politicians willing to help them, it's impossible not to contemplate how deep and depraved the culture of silence actually goes here. USA Today wrote: "When Kavanaugh gave a speech in 2015 at Catholic University's Columbus School of Law and stated, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. That's been a good thing for all of us, I think,' he summed up the culture perfectly (...) It was their job to protect each other from their misdeeds no matter how big or alcohol-fueled. The boys kept each other's secrets."
Lyft drops arbitration requirement for sexual assault cases
Uber isn't the only ridesharing company dropping forced arbitration for sexual assault cases. Lyft is following suit and removing its own arbitration requirement, including confidentiality agreements. This covers both passengers and workers, Lyft said. In other words, survivors can pursue cases in public court and freely share their experiences.
Uber won't force sexual assault survivors into arbitration
Uber is responding to mounting complaints about its forced arbitration for sexual assault and harassment cases. The ridesharing firm has announced that it's no longer requiring arbitration for these complaints. While that's still an option if survivors want privacy above all else, they're now free to seek justice in court (including through class action lawsuits) and, importantly, to freely discuss their cases. They previously had to hold to non-disclosure agreements that prevented them from drawing attention to systemic problems or even seeking outside help.
Senator urges Uber to stop forced arbitration in sexual assault cases
A CNN investigation recently revealed that Uber has had at least 103 different sexual assault cases filed against its drivers in the past four years. What's worse is that Uber has also reportedly forced victims to settle their cases via arbitration rather than open court, a move which helps keep the epidemic silent. Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal is now calling on the company to release the survivors of these assaults from these agreements and allow them to seek justice in court.
Microsoft improves transparency for sexual harassment claims
The slew of sexual harassment disclosures in the entertainment business has started to influence the technology world, and Microsoft in particular sees this as an opportunity to rethink its policies. It's waiving the requirement for pre-dispute arbitration agreements in sexual harassment claims, which could keep complaints out of court and thus out of the public eye. The company already didn't enforce an arbitration clause relating to sexual harassment, but now wants to eliminate that obligation for the "limited number" of workers who would be affected.
Samsung can't use in-box warranty to kill Galaxy S4 lawsuit
Oh Samsung. When the company isn't busy recalling cellphones and washing machines for being safety hazards, it's busy fighting its customers in court. In 2015, Daniel Norcia contended that he was misled by Samsung about the capabilities of his Galaxy S4. Specifically, its speed, performance and memory capacity, according to Consumerist.
RIM loses in arbitration with Nokia, may have to pay royalties on BlackBerrys with WiFi
Nokia and RIM already have a troubled history whenever they come into contact, so it's no surprise that what truces they do have are fraying at the edges. Thanks to filings, we now know that RIM has lost a Swedish arbitration proceeding where it tried to extend a 2003 patent cross-licensing deal with Nokia to include WiFi devices; the wireless technology isn't covered, the arbitrator says, and RIM now has to either pay royalties worldwide or risk seeing its devices yanked from the market. Nokia isn't wasting any time pressuring the team in Waterloo into coughing up -- it's taking steps to enforce the decision in Canada, the UK and the US. RIM has so far turned down any comment, although it's more likely that their firm will cut a deal rather than risk a sweeping ban. Consider it another of the many hurdles for RIM to jump on the road to January 30th.
Valve's updated Steam Subscriber Agreement bars class action lawsuits
If you're like most people, when Steam started up this morning you noticed there was an extra pop-up prompting you to click a button that says "I agree" a few times, and you did this without reading much into what you were consenting to. Turns out you don't actually "own" your left hand anymore. Oh, well.Actually, it was an updated Steam Subscriber Agreement altering the legal options available to customers. First, Steam customers may no longer bring class action claims against the service, mirroring similar moves by large distribution and publishing companies, including Sony and Microsoft."We considered this change very carefully. It's clear to us that in some situations, class actions have real benefits to customers," Valve explains. "In far too many cases however, class actions don't provide any real benefit to users and instead impose unnecessary expense and delay, and are often designed to benefit the class action lawyers who craft and litigate these claims."Individual claims will still be allowed, though Valve has now instituted a required process that channels these claims to arbitration or small claims court. Valve will reimburse the cost of arbitration under a certain amount, provided the arbitrator deems the claim isn't frivolous nor the expenses unreasonable.Valve is also opening an office in Luxembourg "to better serve our EU customers and partners," who will sign an EU-specific SSA.Hey, at least you still own your left hand.
Timegate wins arbitration dispute against SouthPeak
Texas district Judge Keith Ellison has invalided an arbitrator's ruling that ordered Section 8 developer Timegate to repay the game's publisher, SouthPeak, $7.3 million in allegedly misused development funds. The ruling also rewrote Timegate's publishing contract with SouthPeak, granting SouthPeak a permanent license for Section 8's IP and its sequels.The arbitrator's decision was thrown out on the grounds that the rewritten publishing contract did not match the intent of the original document. Arbitrators are allowed to rewrite legally binding agreements, but only so long as the resulting agreement matches the spirit of the original document. Timegate and SouthPeak's original publishing agreement was very clear that Timegate would retain all IP rights for the brand -- changing this was beyond the scope of the original contract's intent and was therefore inappropriate.This all started back in the neolithic caveman days of 2009, when Timegate sued SouthPeak, claiming that the publisher had altered revenue reports in order to retain royalties meant for Timegate, which is embezzlement.SouthPeak countersued, claiming that Timegate fraudulently misrepresented itself in order to convince SouthPeak (which acquired original Section 8 publisher Gamecock) to enter into the publishing agreement. It also claimed that Section 8's lackluster retail performance was solely Timegate's fault, and that Timegate had failed to contribute a required $2.5 million in development funds, misused the $7.5 million in development funds provided by SouthPeak, and failed to give SouthPeak revenue from Section 8's PC sequel and PS3 port.This tale is likely far from over, however, as SouthPeak still has the ability to appeal Judge Ellison's ruling.
Activision wins ruling, regains control of ModernWarfare3.com
The issue of the web domain ModernWarfare3.com, originally spotted thanks to a (presumably unofficial) Battlefield 3 promotion and later outed by DNS service GoDaddy, has been settled. You guessed it: Activision and its lawyers have prevailed. The National Arbitration Forum has decided unanimously in favor of the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 publisher, saying that the three criteria necessary for a domain name transfer (that the name is confusing, the holder has no real interest in the domain name, and the name is "being used in bad faith") have all been met. The three-member panel has ordered that the domain name be transferred back to Activision. Currently, the domain name appears to be offline, but we presume it'll redirect right into the official Modern Warfare 3 site as soon as Activision is done. Too bad for Battlefield 3 fan and Florida resident Anthony Abraham, who tried to argue both fair use, and that the term "modern warfare" was generic enough to have a life outside of the video game world. Hopefully he's still got ElderScrolls5.com sitting in his back pocket, just waiting for a competitor to promote.
Red 5 in legal battle with Webzen over FireFall, seeking $5 million
Firefall developer Red 5 Studios has filed for legal arbitration against Korean publisher Webzen. According to Red 5, Webzen has committed "multiple breaches" in its Asian publishing agreement, and the studio is seeking both to terminate its agreement and to "recover $5 million due to Webzen's alleged breach of its obligation and refusal to commit that money to market the game in the United States." The arbitration should not affect the United States or European release of Firefall, which will both be self-published by Red 5. Webzen has published its own response to Red 5's claims, stating that it is "undisputable" that it has "fulfilled all of its obligations" to the studio. The publisher also mentions that Firefall has undergone numerous development delays. Webzen also references its own "disputes" with Chinese game operator The9 – majority shareholder in Red 5 – though it makes no direct allegations toward the company. The publisher states further that Red 5 Korea has "infringed Webzen's rights as the publisher in Korea," though no specifics are mentioned. Regarding the arbitration, Webzen says it will comply with the final decision, but plans to "firmly seek all of its remedies under the law."
The Lawbringer: Rookie's guide to the EULA, part 2
Welcome to the Lawbringer, WoW.com's weekly examination of the intersection between law and the World of Warcraft. Your tour guide is Amy Schley, recent law school grad. Last week, we looked at the first half of the EULA -- the license limitations, the steps to terminate the agreement and a few other provisions. This week is the back half of the EULA -- the warranties, conflict resolution provisions and miscellaneous provisions. Export controls Section 8 prohibits the export and sale of the game to countries the United States has embargoed or persons that are on the "Specially Designated Nationals" list, essentially a list of terrorist organizations. Alas, this means that we won't be settling the War on Terror with world PvP death match.
THQ triumphant in WWE / JAKKS Pacific dispute
You may not know this, but THQ and JAKKS Pacific have been locked in a vicious courtroom tussle over payment for work on some of THQ's WWE titles. See, THQ and JAKKS had a deal wherein THQ was to pay JAKKS 10% of money accrued from the sale of the JAKKS-developed WWE games; however, the two ALL CAPS companies were set to renegotiate that deal when JAKKS jumped the gun, signing a new contract without THQ's consent. And, as you've probably guessed, that's when THQ sicked the lawyers on 'em. Today, the result of this ongoing cage match are in and THQ managed to pin JAKKS for the 1-2-3. In the end, THQ was able to get that 10% figure lowered to only 6%, which will save the company "approximately" $23 million. JAKKS is surely upset: before the suit, the company was set to receive $57 million for its efforts in developing WWE titles; now that figure is a much lower $34 million. And what have we learned here? In the fantastical world of WWE, signing important documents without the consent of your business partner might make for great television but ... wait, we need to rethink this lesson ... Source - THQ Prevails in JAKKS Pacific Arbitration Dispute Source - JAKKS Pacific Announces Result in THQ Arbitration
Apple, Psystar strike a deal
CNET and The Mac Observer noted a legal filing on Friday that suggested Apple and Psystar were looking to bypass the normal lawsuit process and enter a phase of private arbitration and mediation. The filing notes that Apple and Psystar will participate in the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, a way to keep legal costs down -- and the outcome private. For famously secretive Apple, this agreement seems right up their alley. The agreement means the two companies will enter non-binding arbitration, present their case to a neutral party, and work out a deal through mediation. This all probably comes down to one thing: cash money. Psystar has nowhere near the cash reserves that Apple has, so this less-expensive option is attractive to them. It's attractive to Apple because if they lose, the decision is kept under wraps. As CNET's Tom Krazit notes, if Apple is guilty of Psystar's antitrust accusations, it could hurt their other cases where they're accused of the same thing. Of course, we'll know for certain the outcome simply by seeing if Psystar continues to sell their computers (or not) after January 31, when the ADR sessions wrap up. [Via AppleInsider.] Update: According to Psystar's attorneys, Apple and Psystar were ordered into the mediation by the court. According to several of our commenters, ADR is a common practice. Soulbarn says: "It is practically mandatory. It would be a surprise if it didn't happen, no matter who the case involved, big or small, famous or not famous, precedent-setting or non-precedent setting. It is part of the normal legal process." Thanks, everyone!
Stubborn ex-customer takes Gateway to court for defective PC
"Me against the world" has taken on a whole new meaning for high school dropout Dennis Sheehan, who has taken Gateway to small claims court in a completely bizarre catch 22-laden case. Apparently, the now 46-year old Sheehan took his stubbornness out on the corporation who sent him a computer that "displayed scattered graphics" fresh out of the box. After the company purportedly refused to remedy the issue, the two have ended up in court where Gateway claimed that clicking through the EULA upon bootup eliminated his right to even sue; au contraire, claimed Sheehan, who explained that the malfunctioning PC wasn't even able to render the text and allow him the opportunity to read it. Interestingly enough, a tentative ruling on May 24th sided with the plantiff and maintained that the case would stay in small claims court, but it looks like finality is still a good ways off for the perturbed ex-customer.[Thanks, Mike]
