Noticed this update got pushed just now.

Edit: Seems they’re doing this to prevent costs from arbitration. Read comment below.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    40·
    7 hours ago

    Seems like a good thing?

    I was wondering if it was related to anything passed recently, because another service had to change privacy rules to opt in over a rule change in Cali. I just assume if it sounds like a good thing for consumers, it probably wasn’t their choice, lol, but I guess in this case it’s just a cost cutting measure.

    I at least appreciate them being pretty clear about what’s different now.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      22·
      5 hours ago

      I think there’s a bit of a sea change in business generally where arbitration ended up being worse for corporations if too many customers/employees used that option because it meant paying a bunch of money for each case instead of dealing with one class action suit.

      While the arbitration courts themselves are generally biased to corporate interests, it’s not enough of a thumb on the scale to make up for the huge downside.

      • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        11·
        4 hours ago

        I’ve seen some arbitration agreements stating that you can’t collaborate with other customers who are affected by the same issue, requiring each customer to have a different attorney.

        Some companies really want to make it impossible for you to win any significant damages against them.

        At that point, they are just telling on themselves.

        • ggppjj@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 hours ago

          I’ve seen some arbitration agreements stating that you can’t collaborate with other customers who are affected by the same issue, requiring each customer to have a different attorney.

          Oh no, I did it anyways and collaborated with other customers online. Oh well guess we gotta arbitrate that now.