A new weapon in arbitration: sheer volume (nytimes.com)

Article summary

A federal judge in San Francisco, William Alsup, ordered DoorDash to proceed with arbitration cases and pay the fees, after the company tried to switch to a different arbitration organization. The case involves 6,000 arbitration cases against DoorDash, amounting to $9 million in fees. The judge's ruling may have implications for the use of arbitration clauses in contracts. DoorDash had initially forced its dashers to use a specific arbitration organization, but then refused to pay the fees when they did so.

Main themes

• arbitration clauses
• corporate accountability
• contract law
• class action suits
• judicial rulings
• legal fees

What commenters say

• The arbitration system can be used as a tool to hold companies accountable for mass bad behavior, even if class action suits are not allowed.
• Companies may try to neutralize the impact of arbitration by tweaking the terms of their arbitration clauses.
• The cost of arbitration can be a significant burden for companies, with fees ranging from $1,000 to $1,500 per case.
• Some argue that the arbitration system is unfair because it allows anyone with enough money and intention to impose significant costs on a company, regardless of the legitimacy of the claims.
• Others believe that the arbitration system is necessary to protect individuals from corporate wrongdoing, and that companies should be held responsible for the costs of arbitration.
• The use of arbitration clauses in contracts can be seen as a way for companies to avoid accountability and protect their interests.
• The ruling in the DoorDash case may set a precedent for the use of arbitration clauses in contracts and the responsibility of companies to pay arbitration fees.