Forced arbitration: Difference between revisions

(27 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)

Line 1:

'''[[wikipedia:Arbitration|Forced arbitration]]''' is a practice in which businesses can require their customers to resolve disputes through arbitration, instead of a traditional court system. Per Wikipedia: "Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision."

==Origins==

In 2011<ref>''American Express v Italian Colors Restaurant'', 133 S. Ct. 2403 (2013); ''AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion'', 131 S.

Ct. 1740 (2011).</ref> and 2013<ref>{{Cite web |date=Apr 16, 2019 |title=Fact Sheet: Cases Tossed Out of Court Because of Forced Arbitration Causes and Class Action Bans |url=https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn1 |access-date=Feb 12, 2026 |website=Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223043456/https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn1 |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref> cases received rulings from the ''Supreme Court of the United States'' wherein corporations can strip individuals of their constitutional right to civil jury trial and force them into private, corporate-controlled arbitration systems to resolve disputes. These rulings also stated that companies have the unilateral right to ban class actions by inserting class action “waivers” into these arbitration clauses.

In 2018, the scope of these decisions were expanded by ''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'',<ref>''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'', 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).</ref> wherein workers whose employment contracts contain class action waivers was decided to not violate legal rights granted to workers by the ''National Labor Relations Act''. This decision impacted millions of employment contracts,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=Oct 2, 2017 |title=Supreme Court Divided on Arbitration for Workplace Cases |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-workplace-arbitration.html |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250315134159/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-workplace-arbitration.html |archive-date=15 Mar 2025|access-date=Feb 12, 2026 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> and analysis by the ''National Law Journal'' has shown that the employment cases, most of which were class actions, “broke in favor of the defendant.” At least 50% of these cases compelled plaintiffs to arbitrate.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mulvaney |first=Erin |date=Feb 28, 2019 |title='Epic' Impact: How a Major SCOTUS Decision in Favor of Arbitration Is Shaping the Landscape for Workplace Lawsuits |url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/28/epic-impact-how-a-major-scotus-decision-in-favor-of-arbitration-is-shaping-the-landscape-for-workplace-lawsuits/?slreturn=20260212061628 |journal=National Law Journal |via=Law.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223043531/https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/28/epic-impact-how-a-major-scotus-decision-in-favor-of-arbitration-is-shaping-the-landscape-for-workplace-lawsuits/?slreturn=20260222233527 |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref>

==How it works==

Businesses will typically add an arbitration clause to their [[Terms of Service]] or Terms of Use. This clause generally outlines how disputes are handled between the consumer and the business. A good example of a typical arbitration clause can be found in [[Instagram]]'s Terms of Use, which, as of January 6, 2025, is under Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes:<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Terms of Use |url=https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Instagram]]}}</ref><blockquote>"Except as provided below, you and we agree that any cause of action, legal claim, or dispute between you and us arising out of or related to these Terms or Instagram ("claim(s)") must be resolved by arbitration on an individual basis. [[Class action|Class actions]] and class arbitrations are not permitted; you and we may bring a claim only on your own behalf and cannot seek relief that would affect other Instagram users."</blockquote>Currently, in the United States, arbitration clauses such as this one are legal under the [[Federal Arbitration Act]] (FAA).<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=30 Jul 1947 |title=TITLE 9—ARBITRATION |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title9/html/USCODE-2019-title9.htm |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=www.govinfo.gov}}</ref> Efforts have been made, however, to prohibit forced arbitration, most notably the [[Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal]] (FAIR) Act of 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |date=27 Apr 2023 |title=S.1376 - Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1376 |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=www.congress.gov}}</ref>

Businesses will typically add an arbitration clause to their [[Terms of Service]] or Terms of Use. This clause generally outlines how disputes are handled between the consumer and the business. A good example of a typical arbitration clause can be found in [[Instagram]]'s Terms of Use, which, as of January 6, 2025, is under Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes:<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Terms of Use |url=https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Instagram]] |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222100652/https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870/ |archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref><blockquote>"Except as provided below, you and we agree that any cause of action, legal claim, or dispute between you and us arising out of or related to these Terms or Instagram ("claim(s)") must be resolved by arbitration on an individual basis. [[Class action|Class actions]] and class arbitrations are not permitted; you and we may bring a claim only on your own behalf and cannot seek relief that would affect other Instagram users."</blockquote>Currently, in the United States, arbitration clauses such as this one are legal under the [[Federal Arbitration Act]] (FAA).<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=30 Jul 1947 |title=TITLE 9—ARBITRATION |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title9/html/USCODE-2019-title9.htm |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=www.govinfo.gov |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260219114958/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title9/html/USCODE-2019-title9.htm |archive-date=19 Feb 2026}}</ref> Efforts have been made, however, to prohibit forced arbitration, most notably the [[Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal]] (FAIR) Act of 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |date=27 Apr 2023 |title=S.1376 - Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1376 |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=www.congress.gov |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251110183101/https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1376 |archive-date=10 Nov 2025}}</ref>

The [[wikipedia:United_Nations|United Nations]] has published a guideline for consumer protections in 2016, which lists the following under IV 11(c):<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016 |title=United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection |url=https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditccplpmisc2016d1_en.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=unctad.org}}</ref><blockquote>"Businesses should provide complete, accurate and not misleading information regarding the goods and services, terms, conditions, applicable fees and final costs to enable consumers to take informed decisions. Businesses should ensure easy access to this information, especially to the key terms and conditions"</blockquote>

The [[wikipedia:United_Nations|United Nations]] has published a guideline for consumer protections in 2016, which lists the following under IV 11(c):<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016 |title=United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection |url=https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditccplpmisc2016d1_en.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=unctad.org |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222170649/https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditccplpmisc2016d1_en.pdf |archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref><blockquote>"Businesses should provide complete, accurate and not misleading information regarding the goods and services, terms, conditions, applicable fees and final costs to enable consumers to take informed decisions. Businesses should ensure easy access to this information, especially to the key terms and conditions"</blockquote>

==Why it is a problem==

Line 12:

Line 19:

====Bypassing of constitutional rights====

Due to the out of place nature of arbitration, various rights granted by the US constitution and its amendments are entirely bypassed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zanville |first=Stuart |date=Sep 1, 2015 |title=Forced Arbitration |url=https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2015-september/forced-arbitration |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200921050552/https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2015-september/forced-arbitration |archive-date=Sep 21, 2020 |access-date=Mar 5, 2025 |work=Advocate Magazine}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=J. Mann |first=Kimberly |date=1997 |title=Constitutional Challenges to Court-Ordered Arbitration |url=https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=lr |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=ir.law.fsu.edu}}</ref><ref>Brunet, Edward, Arbitration and Constitutional Rights (June 24, 1992). North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 81-120, 1992, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2284464</ref>

Due to the out of place nature of arbitration, various rights granted by the US constitution and its amendments are entirely bypassed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zanville |first=Stuart |date=Sep 1, 2015 |title=Forced Arbitration |url=https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2015-september/forced-arbitration |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200921050552/https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2015-september/forced-arbitration |archive-date=Sep 21, 2020 |access-date=Mar 5, 2025 |work=Advocate Magazine}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=J. Mann |first=Kimberly |date=1997 |title=Constitutional Challenges to Court-Ordered Arbitration |url=https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=lr |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=ir.law.fsu.edu |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250510155224/https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=lr |archive-date=10 May 2025}}</ref><ref>Brunet, Edward, Arbitration and Constitutional Rights (June 24, 1992). North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 81-120, 1992, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2284464</ref>

The 7th amendment,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of the United States Seventh Amendment |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-7/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=constitution.congress.gov}}</ref> also known as the right to a trial by jury, is bypassed via forced arbitration. Additionally, the 6th amendment,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of the United States Sixth Amendment |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=constitution.congress.gov}}</ref> also known as the right to a speedy trial, is also bypassed by arbitration since arbitrated cases can take excessively longer than traditional public trials,<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 Sep 2024 |title=How Long Does Arbitration Take? A Closer Look |url=https://adrtimes.com/how-long-does-arbitration-take/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=adrtimes.com}}</ref> especially when lawsuits that could have been filed under class action, end up being broken up into hundreds of individually arbitrated cases, such as what has happened with ''Bucher Law PLLC Vs. Valve Inc.''<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bucher |first=Will |title=Steam Case Explained |url=https://www.bucherlawfirm.com/steam-case-explained |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=BUCHER LAW PLLC}}

The 7th amendment,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of the United States Seventh Amendment |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-7/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=constitution.congress.gov |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260127011142/https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-7/ |archive-date=27 Jan 2026}}</ref> also known as the right to a trial by jury, is bypassed via forced arbitration. Additionally, the 6th amendment,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of the United States Sixth Amendment |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=constitution.congress.gov |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260208145033/https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/ |archive-date=8 Feb 2026}}</ref> also known as the right to a speedy trial, is also bypassed by arbitration since arbitrated cases can take excessively longer than traditional public trials,<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 Sep 2024 |title=How Long Does Arbitration Take? A Closer Look |url=https://adrtimes.com/how-long-does-arbitration-take/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=adrtimes.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251027060808/https://adrtimes.com/how-long-does-arbitration-take/ |archive-date=27 Oct 2025}}</ref> especially when lawsuits that could have been filed under class action, end up being broken up into hundreds of individually arbitrated cases, such as what has happened with ''Bucher Law PLLC Vs. Valve Inc.''<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bucher |first=Will |title=Steam Case Explained |url=https://www.bucherlawfirm.com/steam-case-explained |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=BUCHER LAW PLLC |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260220085211/https://www.bucherlawfirm.com/steam-case-explained |archive-date=20 Feb 2026}}

</ref>

Line 23:

Line 30:

===Conflict of interest===

Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Seru |first=Amit |date=Feb 2023 |title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. |url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 Jul 2009 |title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration |url=~~http~~://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=indisputably.org}}</ref>

Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Seru |first=Amit |date=Feb 2023 |title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. |url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251021045031/https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases |archive-date=21 Oct 2025}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 Jul 2009 |title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration |url=https://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=indisputably.org |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251117220857/http://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ |archive-date=17 Nov 2025}}</ref>

===Bricking until agreement===

[[File:Bad Piggies forced arbitration.png|thumb|An example of forced arbitration, where the user has to agree to arbitration, regardless of if the software was previously installed on their device]]

For digital software in particular, they can be retroactively amended to require the user to agree to forced arbitration, while blocking the user from accessing the content they paid for until they agree to this binding arbitration. In the case of the mobile game ''Bad Piggies'', published by [[Rovio]], regardless of if the end user chose to not update their game or had the game previously installed since before the publisher instituted arbitration, said user is incapable of playing the game until they agree to binding arbitration.<ref>{{Cite web |last=u/JamesTDG |date=Oct 30, 2025 |title=r/badpiggies - God damn it, Rovio, you put arbitration into the game I ALREADY PAID FOR |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/badpiggies/comments/1oklx98/god_damn_it_rovio_you_put_arbitration_into_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button |access-date=Oct 30, 2025 |website=Reddit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223043639/https://old.reddit.com/r/badpiggies/comments/1oklx98/god_damn_it_rovio_you_put_arbitration_into_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref>

==Examples==

''Main article: [[List of products and services with forced arbitration]]''

Some examples of arbitration clauses in terms and conditions include:

*Bandcamp Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-20. In addition, users in countries where forced arbitration is not allowed cannot use the service: "Use of the Service is not authorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these Terms of Use, including without limitation, this section."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Bandcamp Terms of Use |url=https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251013161152/https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use |archive-date=2025-10-13 |access-date=2025-10-20 |website=Bandcamp}}</ref>

*CNN Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-13 "14. CLASS ACTION AND JURY TRIAL WAIVER" <ref>{{Cite web |date=May 12, 2025 |title=CNN Terms Of Use |url=https://www.cnn.com/terms0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251014030156/https://www.cnn.com/terms0 |archive-date=2025-10-14 |access-date=2025-10-13 |website=[[CNN]]}}</ref>

*Indeed Terms of Service, as of 2025-08-22 - Section D: General Terms for All Users - 12. Arbitration Agreement<ref>{{Cite web |title=Terms of Service |url=https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250825081104/https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 |archive-date=2025-08-25 |access-date=2025-09-02 |website=[[Indeed]]}}</ref>

*Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />

*Itch.io Terms of Service Section 15. Class Action Waiver<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2023-04-15 |title=itch.io Terms of Service |url=https://itch.io/docs/legal/terms |website=Itch.io}}</ref> does not force arbitration, but still seeks to revoke rights to participate in class action or collective arbitration proceedings.

*Itch.io Terms of Service Section 15. Class Action Waiver<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2023-04-15 |title=itch.io Terms of Service |url=https://itch.io/docs/legal/terms |website=Itch.io |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260221145924/https://itch.io/docs/legal/terms |archive-date=21 Feb 2026}}</ref> does not force arbitration, but still seeks to revoke rights to participate in class action or collective arbitration proceedings.

*Powell's Books - Has forced arbitration clause in their Term of Use.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-30 |title=Terms of Use {{!}} Powell's Books |url=https://www.powells.com/info/terms-of-use |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250528215842/https://www.powells.com/info/terms-of-use |archive-date=2025-05-28 |access-date=2025-05-30 |website=Powell's Books}}</ref>

*Section 13.1. Binding arbitration agreement and class action waiver, of [[Protonmail|Proton]]'s Terms of Service, says " Please read this section and the class action waiver section carefully – it may significantly affect your legal rights, including your right to file a lawsuit in court and to have a jury hear your claims. It contains procedures for mandatory binding arbitration and a class action waiver."<ref>{{Cite web |date=21 Jan 2025 |title=Terms of Service |url=https://proton.me/legal/terms |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250310210512/https://proton.me/nl/legal/terms |archive-date=10 Mar 2025 |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=Proton}}</ref>

*[[Sony]] PlayStation Network Terms of Service - Section 14 - Binding Individual Arbitration<ref>{{Cite web |title=PLAYSTATION NETWORK TERMS OF SERVICE AND USER AGREEMENT |url=https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241216114722/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/ |archive-date=16 Dec 2024 |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[PlayStation]]}}</ref>

*[[Roku]], in March of 2024, prompted a pop-up on its devices for the tv owners to accept new terms of use, which included preventing "mass arbitration" from multiple plantiffs, before being able to use their devices. Opting out can be done by mail, but only after accepting the agreement shown on the TV.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Roku Channel Terms of Use |url=https://docs.roku.com/published/therokuchannel-userstermsandconditions/en/us |website=Roku |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260212025217/https://docs.roku.com/published/therokuchannel-userstermsandconditions/en/us |archive-date=12 Feb 2026}}</ref>

*[[Spotify]]'s End User Agreement, since 2015, contains a Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web | title=Spotify Terms of Use |url=https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901121247/https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/#6-problems-and-disputes |archive-date=1 Sep 2025 |access-date=5 Sep 2025 |website=[[Spotify]]}}</ref>

*[[Ticketmaster]] Terms of Use - Section 17 - Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver |url=https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use#section17 |archive-date=5 Jan 2025 |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Ticketmaster]]}}</ref>

*Western Digital - Has a forced-arbitration clause in the warranty for a ST500DM002-1BD142 hard drive. Clause 1, section "C". (And possibly other products.) <ref>{{Cite web |title=Warranty {{!}} Western Digital |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf}}</ref>

*Wayfair uses forced arbitration language in the Legal Disputes section of their Terms of Use.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Terms of Use |url=https://www.wayfair.com/terms?section=terms-of-use |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241025165417/https://www.wayfair.com/terms?section=terms-of-use |archive-date=25 Oct 2024 |access-date=6 Nov 2025 |website=[[Wayfair]]}}</ref> On 6 November 2025, the company emailed account holders notifying them of a change to the Legal Disputes section, and stating "You do not have to do anything to accept the updated Terms. Your continued use of our websites, apps or any of our services, including your account, indicate your acceptance of the updated Terms."

*Western Digital - Has a forced-arbitration clause in the warranty for a ST500DM002-1BD142 hard drive. Clause 1, section "C". (And possibly other products.) <ref>{{Cite web |title=Warranty {{!}} Western Digital |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf}} ([https://web.archive.org/web/20260223043708/https://consumerrights.wiki/w/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf Archived])</ref>

*Yahoo Terms of Service - Section 14.2.b "'''BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT'''" <ref>{{Cite web |title=Yahoo Terms of Service {{!}} Yahoo |url=https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250315082242/https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html |archive-date=2025-03-15 |access-date=2025-03-15 |website=Yahoo}}</ref>

*Zenimax Media (Bethesda) has an arbitration agreement that can only be opted out of within 30 days, ''by mail''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=ZeniMax Terms of Service |url=https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/terms-of-service |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=ZeniMax Media}}</ref>

*Zenimax Media (Bethesda) has an arbitration agreement that can only be opted out of within 30 days, ''by mail''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=ZeniMax Terms of Service |url=https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/terms-of-service |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=ZeniMax Media |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251231215938/https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/terms-of-service |archive-date=31 Dec 2025}}</ref>

*~~Section 27.1 of~~ [[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, says: "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court."<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 Aug 2023 |title=Zoom Terms of Service |url=https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Zoom]]}}</ref>

*[~~[Roku]~~], ~~in March of 2024~~, ~~prompted a pop~~-~~up on~~ its ~~devices~~ for the ~~tv owners~~ to ~~accept [[Roku#Post~~-~~Purchase EULA Modification (Mar~~. ~~2024)~~|~~new terms of use]~~], ~~which included preventing "mass~~ arbitration~~" from multiple plantiffs~~, ~~before being able~~ to ~~use their devices~~. ~~Opting out can be done by mail~~, ~~but only after accepting the agreement shown on the TV~~.[https://www.~~consumerreports~~.org/~~electronics~~-~~computers~~/~~tvs~~/~~why~~-is-~~roku~~-~~disabling~~-~~tvs~~-~~a1111833568/]~~

* [[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, Section 27.1, says: "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court."<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 Aug 2023 |title=Zoom Terms of Service |url=https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Zoom]] |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251021031940/https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null |archive-date=21 Oct 2025}}</ref>

* Hubitat's Terms of Service, Section 13 "ARBITRATION/WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL." <ref>{{Cite web |date=26 Mar 2026 |title=Hubitat Terms of Service |url=https://hubitat.com/terms-of-service |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260326135254/https://hubitat.com/terms-of-service |archive-date=26 Mar 2026 |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Hubitat}}</ref>

==Legal cases==

Many cases, often class actions, were turned away because of forced arbitration clauses, below is an incomplete list of consumer protection cases shut down by forced arbitraton.

{| class="wikitable"

|+

!Case name

!Year

!Summary

!Related article

|-

|'''''Clemins v. GE Money Bank, No. 11-CV-00210, 2012 WL 5868659'''''

|2012

|[TBA]

|

|-

|'''''Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Co.'', No. 15-CV-02159-VC (N.D. Cal. 2017).'''

|2017

|In 2017, Wells Fargo settled with many of its customers whose credit scores were harmed after thousands of bank employees opened as many as 3.5 million fake checking and credit card accounts in customers’ names to meet the company’s aggressive sales goals. Yet for years, the company had forced complaining customers into arbitration and just a few months before the bank agreed to settle this case, it tried to kill the case by forcing defrauded customers to arbitrate.<!-- https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/29/investing/wells-fargo-settles-fake-account-lawsuit-110-million/index.html

https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/25/investing/wells-fargo-lawsuit-forced-arbitration/?iid=EL -->

|

|-

|'''''G.G. v. Valve Corp., No. 2:16cv01941, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50640'''''

|2017

|[TBA] - Lawsuit against valve over CS:GO loot boxes being gambling, compelled into arbitration

|

|-

|'''''Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA'', 889 F.3d 1230'''

|2018

|From 2008 to 2009 across various class actions, Wells Fargo was abusing its forced arbitration clause to combat legal cases wherein the company unlawfully charged overdraft fees.

|

|-

|'''''DeNicolo v. The Hertz Corp'', No. 19-210'''

|2019

|[TBA]<!-- https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans

Top of "Rentals Cars/Automobiles"

https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn11

-->

|

|}

==References==

[[Category:~~Anti-Consumer_Practices~~]]

[[Category:Common license terms]]

[[Category:Common terms]]

[[Category:~~Rights Stripping~~]]

[[Category:Theme]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''[[wikipedia:Arbitration|Forced arbitration]]''' is a practice in which businesses can require their customers to resolve disputes through arbitration, instead of a traditional court system. Per Wikipedia: "Arbitration is a formal method of dispute resolution involving a third party neutral who makes a binding decision."
+==Origins==
+In 2011<ref>''American Express v Italian Colors Restaurant'', 133 S. Ct. 2403 (2013); ''AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion'', 131 S.
+Ct. 1740 (2011).</ref> and 2013<ref>{{Cite web |date=Apr 16, 2019 |title=Fact Sheet: Cases Tossed Out of Court Because of Forced Arbitration Causes and Class Action Bans |url=https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn1 |access-date=Feb 12, 2026 |website=Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223043456/https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn1 |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref> cases received rulings from the ''Supreme Court of the United States'' wherein corporations can strip individuals of their constitutional right to civil jury trial and force them into private, corporate-controlled arbitration systems to resolve disputes. These rulings also stated that companies have the unilateral right to ban class actions by inserting class action “waivers” into these arbitration clauses.
+In 2018, the scope of these decisions were expanded by ''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'',<ref>''Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis'', 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).</ref> wherein workers whose employment contracts contain class action waivers was decided to not violate legal rights granted to workers by the ''National Labor Relations Act''. This decision impacted millions of employment contracts,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=Oct 2, 2017 |title=Supreme Court Divided on Arbitration for Workplace Cases |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-workplace-arbitration.html |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250315134159/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/politics/supreme-court-workplace-arbitration.html |archive-date=15 Mar 2025|access-date=Feb 12, 2026 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> and analysis by the ''National Law Journal'' has shown that the employment cases, most of which were class actions, “broke in favor of the defendant.” At least 50% of these cases compelled plaintiffs to arbitrate.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mulvaney |first=Erin |date=Feb 28, 2019 |title='Epic' Impact: How a Major SCOTUS Decision in Favor of Arbitration Is Shaping the Landscape for Workplace Lawsuits |url=https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/28/epic-impact-how-a-major-scotus-decision-in-favor-of-arbitration-is-shaping-the-landscape-for-workplace-lawsuits/?slreturn=20260212061628 |journal=National Law Journal |via=Law.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223043531/https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/02/28/epic-impact-how-a-major-scotus-decision-in-favor-of-arbitration-is-shaping-the-landscape-for-workplace-lawsuits/?slreturn=20260222233527 |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref> <!-- Something something, objectively connect it to how it may have influenced corporations into abusing these measures in their own EULAs -->
 ==How it works==
-Businesses will typically add an arbitration clause to their [[Terms of Service]] or Terms of Use. This clause generally outlines how disputes are handled between the consumer and the business. A good example of a typical arbitration clause can be found in [[Instagram]]'s Terms of Use, which, as of January 6, 2025, is under Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes:<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Terms of Use |url=https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Instagram]]}}</ref><blockquote>"Except as provided below, you and we agree that any cause of action, legal claim, or dispute between you and us arising out of or related to these Terms or Instagram ("claim(s)") must be resolved by arbitration on an individual basis. [[Class action|Class actions]] and class arbitrations are not permitted; you and we may bring a claim only on your own behalf and cannot seek relief that would affect other Instagram users."</blockquote>Currently, in the United States, arbitration clauses such as this one are legal under the [[Federal Arbitration Act]] (FAA).<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=30 Jul 1947 |title=TITLE 9—ARBITRATION |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title9/html/USCODE-2019-title9.htm |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=www.govinfo.gov}}</ref> Efforts have been made, however, to prohibit forced arbitration, most notably the [[Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal]] (FAIR) Act of 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |date=27 Apr 2023 |title=S.1376 - Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1376 |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=www.congress.gov}}</ref>
+Businesses will typically add an arbitration clause to their [[Terms of Service]] or Terms of Use. This clause generally outlines how disputes are handled between the consumer and the business. A good example of a typical arbitration clause can be found in [[Instagram]]'s Terms of Use, which, as of January 6, 2025, is under Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes:<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Terms of Use |url=https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Instagram]] |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222100652/https://help.instagram.com/581066165581870/ |archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref><blockquote>"Except as provided below, you and we agree that any cause of action, legal claim, or dispute between you and us arising out of or related to these Terms or Instagram ("claim(s)") must be resolved by arbitration on an individual basis. [[Class action|Class actions]] and class arbitrations are not permitted; you and we may bring a claim only on your own behalf and cannot seek relief that would affect other Instagram users."</blockquote>Currently, in the United States, arbitration clauses such as this one are legal under the [[Federal Arbitration Act]] (FAA).<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date=30 Jul 1947 |title=TITLE 9—ARBITRATION |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title9/html/USCODE-2019-title9.htm |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=www.govinfo.gov |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260219114958/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title9/html/USCODE-2019-title9.htm |archive-date=19 Feb 2026}}</ref> Efforts have been made, however, to prohibit forced arbitration, most notably the [[Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal]] (FAIR) Act of 2023.<ref>{{Cite web |date=27 Apr 2023 |title=S.1376 - Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1376 |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=www.congress.gov |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251110183101/https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/1376 |archive-date=10 Nov 2025}}</ref>
-The [[wikipedia:United_Nations|United Nations]] has published a guideline for consumer protections in 2016, which lists the following under IV 11(c):<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016 |title=United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection |url=https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditccplpmisc2016d1_en.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=unctad.org}}</ref><blockquote>"Businesses should provide complete, accurate and not misleading information regarding the goods and services, terms, conditions, applicable fees and final costs to enable consumers to take informed decisions. Businesses should ensure easy access to this information, especially to the key terms and conditions"</blockquote>
+The [[wikipedia:United_Nations|United Nations]] has published a guideline for consumer protections in 2016, which lists the following under IV 11(c):<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016 |title=United Nations Guidelines for Consumer Protection |url=https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditccplpmisc2016d1_en.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=unctad.org |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222170649/https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ditccplpmisc2016d1_en.pdf |archive-date=22 Feb 2026}}</ref><blockquote>"Businesses should provide complete, accurate and not misleading information regarding the goods and services, terms, conditions, applicable fees and final costs to enable consumers to take informed decisions. Businesses should ensure easy access to this information, especially to the key terms and conditions"</blockquote>
 ==Why it is a problem<!-- Extra reading:  https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/116th-congress/house-report/204/1 -->==
@@ Line 12: / Line 19: @@
 ====Bypassing of constitutional rights<!-- Sources to read before integration:  https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/266/  https://www.clearygottlieb.com/-/media/files/arbitration-and-the-us-constitution-the-impact-of-federalism-and-due-process-on-the-enforcement-of-arbitration-agreements-and-awards-in-the-united-states.pdf  https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/482/ -->====
-Due to the out of place nature of arbitration, various rights granted by the US constitution and its amendments are entirely bypassed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zanville |first=Stuart |date=Sep 1, 2015 |title=Forced Arbitration |url=https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2015-september/forced-arbitration |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200921050552/https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2015-september/forced-arbitration |archive-date=Sep 21, 2020 |access-date=Mar 5, 2025 |work=Advocate Magazine}}</ref><!-- The exact date is a placeholder, since the article does not list the exact day in September it was published --><ref>{{Cite web |last=J. Mann |first=Kimberly |date=1997 |title=Constitutional Challenges to Court-Ordered Arbitration |url=https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=lr |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=ir.law.fsu.edu}}</ref><ref>Brunet,  Edward, Arbitration and Constitutional Rights (June 24, 1992). North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 81-120, 1992,  Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2284464</ref>
+Due to the out of place nature of arbitration, various rights granted by the US constitution and its amendments are entirely bypassed.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Zanville |first=Stuart |date=Sep 1, 2015 |title=Forced Arbitration |url=https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2015-september/forced-arbitration |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200921050552/https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2015-september/forced-arbitration |archive-date=Sep 21, 2020 |access-date=Mar 5, 2025 |work=Advocate Magazine}}</ref><!-- The exact date is a placeholder, since the article does not list the exact day in September it was published --><ref>{{Cite web |last=J. Mann |first=Kimberly |date=1997 |title=Constitutional Challenges to Court-Ordered Arbitration |url=https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=lr |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=ir.law.fsu.edu |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250510155224/https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=lr |archive-date=10 May 2025}}</ref><ref>Brunet,  Edward, Arbitration and Constitutional Rights (June 24, 1992). North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 71, pp. 81-120, 1992,  Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2284464</ref>
-The 7th amendment,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of the United States Seventh Amendment |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-7/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=constitution.congress.gov}}</ref> also known as the right to a trial by jury, is bypassed via forced arbitration. Additionally, the 6th amendment,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of the United States Sixth Amendment |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=constitution.congress.gov}}</ref> also known as the right to a speedy trial, is also bypassed by arbitration since arbitrated cases can take excessively longer than traditional public trials,<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 Sep 2024 |title=How Long Does Arbitration Take? A Closer Look |url=https://adrtimes.com/how-long-does-arbitration-take/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=adrtimes.com}}</ref> especially when lawsuits that could have been filed under class action, end up being broken up into hundreds of individually arbitrated cases, such as what has happened with ''Bucher Law PLLC Vs. Valve Inc.''<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bucher |first=Will |title=Steam Case Explained |url=https://www.bucherlawfirm.com/steam-case-explained |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=BUCHER LAW PLLC}}
+The 7th amendment,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of the United States Seventh Amendment |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-7/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=constitution.congress.gov |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260127011142/https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-7/ |archive-date=27 Jan 2026}}</ref> also known as the right to a trial by jury, is bypassed via forced arbitration. Additionally, the 6th amendment,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitution of the United States Sixth Amendment |url=https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=constitution.congress.gov |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260208145033/https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/ |archive-date=8 Feb 2026}}</ref> also known as the right to a speedy trial, is also bypassed by arbitration since arbitrated cases can take excessively longer than traditional public trials,<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 Sep 2024 |title=How Long Does Arbitration Take? A Closer Look |url=https://adrtimes.com/how-long-does-arbitration-take/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=adrtimes.com |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251027060808/https://adrtimes.com/how-long-does-arbitration-take/ |archive-date=27 Oct 2025}}</ref> especially when lawsuits that could have been filed under class action, end up being broken up into hundreds of individually arbitrated cases, such as what has happened with ''Bucher Law PLLC Vs. Valve Inc.''<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bucher |first=Will |title=Steam Case Explained |url=https://www.bucherlawfirm.com/steam-case-explained |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=BUCHER LAW PLLC |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260220085211/https://www.bucherlawfirm.com/steam-case-explained |archive-date=20 Feb 2026}}
 </ref>
@@ Line 23: / Line 30: @@
 ===Conflict of interest===
-Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Seru |first=Amit |date=Feb 2023 |title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. |url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 Jul 2009 |title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration |url=http://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=indisputably.org}}</ref>
+Companies track performance of arbitrators over time, and as such, are able to pick arbitrators that lean towards the industry rather than the consumer.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Seru |first=Amit |date=Feb 2023 |title=Tipping the scales: Balancing consumer arbitration cases. |url=https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251021045031/https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tipping-scales-balancing-consumer-arbitration-cases |archive-date=21 Oct 2025}}</ref> While both the consumer and company theoretically have some control over the selection of the arbitrator, the company generally has an information advantage in the selection process. Furthermore, individual arbitrators have a long-term financial incentive to bias their rulings in favor of corporations, as the corporation is much more likely to become a "repeat customer" than the consumer. In extreme cases, entire arbitration firms may have a material conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web |date=20 Jul 2009 |title=NAF Announcement — Out of Consumer Arbitration |url=https://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=indisputably.org |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251117220857/http://indisputably.org/2009/07/naf-announcement-out-of-consumer-arbitration/ |archive-date=17 Nov 2025}}</ref>
+===Bricking until agreement===
+[[File:Bad Piggies forced arbitration.png|thumb|An example of forced arbitration, where the user has to agree to arbitration, regardless of if the software was previously installed on their device]]
+For digital software in particular, they can be retroactively amended to require the user to agree to forced arbitration, while blocking the user from accessing the content they paid for until they agree to this binding arbitration. In the case of the mobile game ''Bad Piggies'', published by [[Rovio]], regardless of if the end user chose to not update their game or had the game previously installed since before the publisher instituted arbitration, said user is incapable of playing the game until they agree to binding arbitration.<ref>{{Cite web |last=u/JamesTDG |date=Oct 30, 2025 |title=r/badpiggies - God damn it, Rovio, you put arbitration into the game I ALREADY PAID FOR |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/badpiggies/comments/1oklx98/god_damn_it_rovio_you_put_arbitration_into_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button |access-date=Oct 30, 2025 |website=Reddit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260223043639/https://old.reddit.com/r/badpiggies/comments/1oklx98/god_damn_it_rovio_you_put_arbitration_into_the/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button |archive-date=23 Feb 2026}}</ref><!-- This is TYPICALLY a no-no. Do NOT cite yourselves on the wiki! I am however the first person to post about this issue on the subreddit, so I can only cite myself here. When others post about it, I will change the ref. -->
 ==Examples==
+''Main article: [[List of products and services with forced arbitration]]''
 Some examples of arbitration clauses in terms and conditions include:<!-- Sort alphabetically! -->
+*Bandcamp Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-20. In addition, users in countries where forced arbitration is not allowed cannot use the service: "Use of the Service is not authorized in any jurisdiction that does not give effect to all provisions of these Terms of Use, including without limitation, this section."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Bandcamp Terms of Use |url=https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251013161152/https://bandcamp.com/terms_of_use |archive-date=2025-10-13 |access-date=2025-10-20 |website=Bandcamp}}</ref>
+*CNN Terms of Service, as of 2025-10-13 "14. CLASS ACTION AND JURY TRIAL WAIVER" <ref>{{Cite web |date=May 12, 2025 |title=CNN Terms Of Use |url=https://www.cnn.com/terms0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251014030156/https://www.cnn.com/terms0 |archive-date=2025-10-14 |access-date=2025-10-13 |website=[[CNN]]}}</ref>
+*Indeed Terms of Service, as of 2025-08-22 - Section D: General Terms for All Users - 12. Arbitration Agreement<ref>{{Cite web |title=Terms of Service |url=https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250825081104/https://www.indeed.com/legal#d12 |archive-date=2025-08-25 |access-date=2025-09-02 |website=[[Indeed]]}}</ref>
 *Instagram Terms of Use - Section 7.4 - How We Will Handle Disputes<ref name=":0" />
-*Itch.io Terms of Service Section 15. Class Action Waiver<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2023-04-15 |title=itch.io Terms of Service |url=https://itch.io/docs/legal/terms |website=Itch.io}}</ref> does not force arbitration, but still seeks to revoke rights to participate in class action or collective arbitration proceedings.
+*Itch.io Terms of Service Section 15. Class Action Waiver<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=2023-04-15 |title=itch.io Terms of Service |url=https://itch.io/docs/legal/terms |website=Itch.io |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260221145924/https://itch.io/docs/legal/terms |archive-date=21 Feb 2026}}</ref> does not force arbitration, but still seeks to revoke rights to participate in class action or collective arbitration proceedings.
 *Powell's Books - Has forced arbitration clause in their Term of Use.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-30 |title=Terms of Use {{!}} Powell's Books |url=https://www.powells.com/info/terms-of-use |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250528215842/https://www.powells.com/info/terms-of-use |archive-date=2025-05-28 |access-date=2025-05-30 |website=Powell's Books}}</ref>
 *Section 13.1. Binding arbitration agreement and class action waiver, of [[Protonmail|Proton]]'s Terms of Service, says " Please read this section and the class action waiver section carefully – it may significantly affect your legal rights, including your right to file a lawsuit in court and to have a jury hear your claims. It contains procedures for mandatory binding arbitration and a class action waiver."<ref>{{Cite web |date=21 Jan 2025 |title=Terms of Service |url=https://proton.me/legal/terms |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250310210512/https://proton.me/nl/legal/terms |archive-date=10 Mar 2025 |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=Proton}}</ref>
 *[[Sony]] PlayStation Network Terms of Service - Section 14 - Binding Individual Arbitration<ref>{{Cite web |title=PLAYSTATION NETWORK TERMS OF SERVICE AND USER AGREEMENT |url=https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241216114722/https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/psn-terms-of-service/ |archive-date=16 Dec 2024 |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[PlayStation]]}}</ref>
+*[[Roku]], in March of 2024, prompted a pop-up on its devices for the tv owners to accept new terms of use, which included preventing "mass arbitration" from multiple plantiffs, before being able to use their devices. Opting out can be done by mail, but only after accepting the agreement shown on the TV.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Roku Channel Terms of Use |url=https://docs.roku.com/published/therokuchannel-userstermsandconditions/en/us |website=Roku |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260212025217/https://docs.roku.com/published/therokuchannel-userstermsandconditions/en/us |archive-date=12 Feb 2026}}</ref>
+*[[Spotify]]'s End User Agreement, since 2015, contains a Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web | title=Spotify Terms of Use |url=https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250901121247/https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/end-user-agreement/#6-problems-and-disputes |archive-date=1 Sep 2025 |access-date=5 Sep 2025 |website=[[Spotify]]}}</ref>
 *[[Ticketmaster]] Terms of Use - Section 17 - Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mandatory Arbitration Agreement and Class Action Waiver |url=https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250105150022/https://help.ticketmaster.com/hc/en-us/articles/10468830739345-Terms-of-Use#section17 |archive-date=5 Jan 2025 |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Ticketmaster]]}}</ref>
-*Western Digital - Has a forced-arbitration clause in the warranty for a ST500DM002-1BD142 hard drive. Clause 1, section "C". (And possibly other products.) <ref>{{Cite web |title=Warranty {{!}} Western Digital |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf}}</ref>
+*Wayfair uses forced arbitration language in the Legal Disputes section of their Terms of Use.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Terms of Use |url=https://www.wayfair.com/terms?section=terms-of-use |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241025165417/https://www.wayfair.com/terms?section=terms-of-use |archive-date=25 Oct 2024 |access-date=6 Nov 2025 |website=[[Wayfair]]}}</ref> On 6 November 2025, the company emailed account holders notifying them of a change to the Legal Disputes section, and stating "You do not have to do anything to accept the updated Terms. Your continued use of our websites, apps or any of our services, including your account, indicate your acceptance of the updated Terms."
+*Western Digital - Has a forced-arbitration clause in the warranty for a ST500DM002-1BD142 hard drive. Clause 1, section "C". (And possibly other products.) <ref>{{Cite web |title=Warranty {{!}} Western Digital |url=https://consumerrights.wiki/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf}} ([https://web.archive.org/web/20260223043708/https://consumerrights.wiki/w/File:WD-HDD-Warranty.pdf Archived])</ref>
 *Yahoo Terms of Service - Section 14.2.b "'''BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT'''" <ref>{{Cite web |title=Yahoo Terms of Service {{!}} Yahoo |url=https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250315082242/https://legal.yahoo.com/us/en/yahoo/terms/otos/index.html |archive-date=2025-03-15 |access-date=2025-03-15 |website=Yahoo}}</ref>
-*Zenimax Media (Bethesda) has an arbitration agreement that can only be opted out of within 30 days, ''by mail''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=ZeniMax Terms of Service |url=https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/terms-of-service |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=ZeniMax Media}}</ref>
+*Zenimax Media (Bethesda) has an arbitration agreement that can only be opted out of within 30 days, ''by mail''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=ZeniMax Terms of Service |url=https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/terms-of-service |access-date=2025-05-31 |website=ZeniMax Media |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251231215938/https://www.zenimax.com/en/legal/terms-of-service |archive-date=31 Dec 2025}}</ref>
-*Section 27.1 of [[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, says: "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court."<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 Aug 2023 |title=Zoom Terms of Service |url=https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Zoom]]}}</ref>
-*[[Roku]], in March of 2024, prompted a pop-up on its devices for the tv owners to accept [[Roku#Post-Purchase EULA Modification (Mar. 2024)|new terms of use]], which included preventing "mass arbitration" from multiple plantiffs, before being able to use their devices. Opting out can be done by mail, but only after accepting the agreement shown on the TV.[https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/tvs/why-is-roku-disabling-tvs-a1111833568/]
+* [[Zoom]]'s Terms of Service, Section 27.1, says: "You and Zoom agree that any dispute or claim between you and Zoom arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the Services (a “Dispute”), including any related software, hardware, integrations, advertising or marketing communications, your account, or any aspects of your relationship or transactions with Zoom, will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court."<ref>{{Cite web |date=11 Aug 2023 |title=Zoom Terms of Service |url=https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null |url-status=live |access-date=4 May 2025 |website=[[Zoom]] |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251021031940/https://www.zoom.com/it/trust/terms/?cms_guid=false&lang=null |archive-date=21 Oct 2025}}</ref>
+* Hubitat's Terms of Service, Section 13 "ARBITRATION/WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL." <ref>{{Cite web |date=26 Mar 2026 |title=Hubitat Terms of Service |url=https://hubitat.com/terms-of-service |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260326135254/https://hubitat.com/terms-of-service |archive-date=26 Mar 2026 |access-date=26 Mar 2026 |website=Hubitat}}</ref>
+==Legal cases<!-- Want to add more? this baby is chalk full of them! https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn4 -->==
+Many cases, often class actions, were turned away because of forced arbitration clauses, below is an incomplete list of consumer protection cases shut down by forced arbitraton.<!-- As always, please ensure chronological organization! -->
+{| class="wikitable"
+|+
+!Case name
+!Year
+!Summary
+!Related article
+|-
+|'''''Clemins v. GE Money Bank, No. 11-CV-00210, 2012 WL 5868659'''''
+|2012
+|[TBA]
+|
+|-
+|'''''Jabbari v. Wells Fargo & Co.'', No. 15-CV-02159-VC (N.D. Cal. 2017).'''
+|2017
+|<!-- Direct copy/paste, PLEASE make sure to revise with original wording! -->In 2017, Wells Fargo settled with many of its customers whose credit scores were harmed after thousands of bank employees opened as many as 3.5 million fake checking and credit card accounts in customers’ names to meet the company’s aggressive sales goals. Yet for years, the company had forced complaining customers into arbitration and just a few months before the bank agreed to settle this case, it tried to kill the case by forcing defrauded customers to arbitrate.<!-- https://money.cnn.com/2017/03/29/investing/wells-fargo-settles-fake-account-lawsuit-110-million/index.html
+https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/25/investing/wells-fargo-lawsuit-forced-arbitration/?iid=EL -->
+|
+|-
+|'''''G.G. v. Valve Corp., No. 2:16cv01941, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50640'''''
+|2017
+|[TBA] - Lawsuit against valve over CS:GO loot boxes being gambling, compelled into arbitration
+|
+|-
+|'''''Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA'', 889 F.3d 1230'''
+|2018
+|From 2008 to 2009 across various class actions, Wells Fargo was abusing its forced arbitration clause to combat legal cases wherein the company unlawfully charged overdraft fees.
+|
+|-
+|'''''DeNicolo v. The Hertz Corp'', No. 19-210'''
+|2019
+|[TBA]<!-- https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans
+Top of "Rentals Cars/Automobiles"
+https://www.centerjd.org/content/fact-sheet-cases-tossed-out-court-because-forced-arbitration-causes-and-class-action-bans#_ftn11
+ -->
+|
+|}
 ==References==
 {{reflist}}
-[[Category:Anti-Consumer_Practices]]
+[[Category:Common license terms]]
 [[Category:Common terms]]
-[[Category:Rights Stripping]]
+[[Category:Theme]]