<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: American Express v. Italian Colors: arbitration waiver of class actions	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/american-express-v-italian-colors-arbitration-waiver-class-actions/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/american-express-v-italian-colors-arbitration-waiver-class-actions/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:45:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: AmEx v. Italian Colors: the end of the world? - Overlawyered		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/american-express-v-italian-colors-arbitration-waiver-class-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-221700</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[AmEx v. Italian Colors: the end of the world? - Overlawyered]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:45:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=39413#comment-221700</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] commentary regards last week&#8217;s decision on American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant (see earlier) as a virtual sentence of doom for class actions, which will henceforth be barred by contract in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] commentary regards last week&#8217;s decision on American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant (see earlier) as a virtual sentence of doom for class actions, which will henceforth be barred by contract in [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: William Nuesslein		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/american-express-v-italian-colors-arbitration-waiver-class-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-221266</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William Nuesslein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=39413#comment-221266</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[OMG O.M. How would a large telephone company monatize its great advantage in arbitration? The avoidance of legal-lotto benefits its customers through lower fees. Even I can see that.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OMG O.M. How would a large telephone company monatize its great advantage in arbitration? The avoidance of legal-lotto benefits its customers through lower fees. Even I can see that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: O.M.		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/american-express-v-italian-colors-arbitration-waiver-class-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-221235</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[O.M.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:06:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=39413#comment-221235</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;i&gt;consumers and small businesses by millions sign away their class action rights not because they are all hoodwinked or coerced, but because at some level they have rational grounds to recognize that those class-action rights are very unlikely to pay off for them in durable future benefits (as opposed to benefits for participants in the litigation industry).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Oh, come ON. People sign arbitration agreements en masse first and foremost because they simply want the service, loan, or job that&#039;s conditional upon signing the agreement. Most consumers &#038; employees don&#039;t know the ramifications, or they know they couldn&#039;t afford to litigate anyway, and/or they think it&#039;s unlikely they&#039;ll ever have a dispute worth litigating. The likelihood that they won&#039;t get a big payout in a class action doesn&#039;t even enter into it! Small businesses are in theory better informed, but again, they want the services that companies like Amex provide, and they&#039;re all-too-willing to gamble that they won&#039;t be the victim of a nickel-and-dime scheme that the law normally discourages B2B service providers from hatching.

Your predictable ad hominem is a nice distraction, but even if it were true that anti-arbitration sentiment is fueled by armies of &quot;legal leftists&quot; with dollar-sign eyeballs, you completely sidestep the indisputable fact that arbitration agreements very simply and effectively allow corporations to opt-out of the court system and class actions, thus enabling them to all but completely dodge accountability for systemic violations of employment, consumer protection, and now even antitrust law. The fact that people aren&#039;t coerced into signing, or that they probably won&#039;t get a big payout in class-action litigation, does not excuse or balance out this inherent, shameful disregard for rights that people suffered and even fought and died for.

The one good thing about this development is that the door is now wide open for businesses to really put the screws to each other, instead of just to the little guy. Maybe this will change some stubborn, &quot;pro-business&quot; minds about how fair arbitration really is. Somehow I doubt it, though.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p><i>consumers and small businesses by millions sign away their class action rights not because they are all hoodwinked or coerced, but because at some level they have rational grounds to recognize that those class-action rights are very unlikely to pay off for them in durable future benefits (as opposed to benefits for participants in the litigation industry).</i></p></blockquote>
<p>Oh, come ON. People sign arbitration agreements en masse first and foremost because they simply want the service, loan, or job that&#8217;s conditional upon signing the agreement. Most consumers &amp; employees don&#8217;t know the ramifications, or they know they couldn&#8217;t afford to litigate anyway, and/or they think it&#8217;s unlikely they&#8217;ll ever have a dispute worth litigating. The likelihood that they won&#8217;t get a big payout in a class action doesn&#8217;t even enter into it! Small businesses are in theory better informed, but again, they want the services that companies like Amex provide, and they&#8217;re all-too-willing to gamble that they won&#8217;t be the victim of a nickel-and-dime scheme that the law normally discourages B2B service providers from hatching.</p>
<p>Your predictable ad hominem is a nice distraction, but even if it were true that anti-arbitration sentiment is fueled by armies of &#8220;legal leftists&#8221; with dollar-sign eyeballs, you completely sidestep the indisputable fact that arbitration agreements very simply and effectively allow corporations to opt-out of the court system and class actions, thus enabling them to all but completely dodge accountability for systemic violations of employment, consumer protection, and now even antitrust law. The fact that people aren&#8217;t coerced into signing, or that they probably won&#8217;t get a big payout in class-action litigation, does not excuse or balance out this inherent, shameful disregard for rights that people suffered and even fought and died for.</p>
<p>The one good thing about this development is that the door is now wide open for businesses to really put the screws to each other, instead of just to the little guy. Maybe this will change some stubborn, &#8220;pro-business&#8221; minds about how fair arbitration really is. Somehow I doubt it, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Eric Rasmusen		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/american-express-v-italian-colors-arbitration-waiver-class-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-221178</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Rasmusen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:35:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=39413#comment-221178</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve only seen summaries (and the SC opinion), but is the antitrust claim here as stupid as it sounds? It seems to be that Amex is  monopolizing by requiring a restaurant to accept  the Amex debit card if it wants to use the Amex credit card, a tying claim.  No wonder Italian Colors&#039; law firm says it needs some fancy expert witnessing, if that&#039;s what they&#039;re trying to who.   If that&#039;s really it, Amex should ask the court for damages for the bringing of such a frivolous suit.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve only seen summaries (and the SC opinion), but is the antitrust claim here as stupid as it sounds? It seems to be that Amex is  monopolizing by requiring a restaurant to accept  the Amex debit card if it wants to use the Amex credit card, a tying claim.  No wonder Italian Colors&#8217; law firm says it needs some fancy expert witnessing, if that&#8217;s what they&#8217;re trying to who.   If that&#8217;s really it, Amex should ask the court for damages for the bringing of such a frivolous suit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: jdgalt		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/06/american-express-v-italian-colors-arbitration-waiver-class-actions/comment-page-1/#comment-221177</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jdgalt]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=39413#comment-221177</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I like the concept of arbitration, but the law ought to recognize that many (most?) people who sign contracts that specify it don&#039;t really have any practical alternative.  For instance, AT&#038;T is still the only reasonably priced phone service available in a large part of the US, so they should not have the right to impose arbitration on their customers.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the concept of arbitration, but the law ought to recognize that many (most?) people who sign contracts that specify it don&#8217;t really have any practical alternative.  For instance, AT&amp;T is still the only reasonably priced phone service available in a large part of the US, so they should not have the right to impose arbitration on their customers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
