Not only is Chase forcing me to opt into a 125 page agreement [0] in order to log in to my account—say, to pay my bill or check my balance—but that agreement has a new arbitration clause. The arbitration clause says you can opt out within 60 days but gives no instructions for how to do so. Not even an email address to contact.
I would love to log into my account tonight but won't until I know I can opt out of arbitration.
This upsets me, maybe more than it should, and I'm thinking of dropping Chase. Anyone else?
There's a weird legal issue that I don't get why it is widely accepted. Why is an average person expected to understand legalize? There is absolutely no reason to believe the average person a) reads that whole thing (clear dark pattern) and b) understands the whole thing. Even intelligent people! Because it is lawyer language written for lawyers. It is like expecting the average person (not on HN) to be able to tell you what metadata is or how machine learning models work (okay maybe HN too ;). How do we not see these as patterns of deciept and taking advantage of people? We live in a highly specialized world and that has been great, but we can't reasonable expect people to comprehend these decisions. It comes down to some combination of trust, naivety, and arm twisting in the end, and this shouldn't be seen as okay.
I suggest that you file a complaint. It is not very difficult to do, and your case is very strong. Even the 125 page agreement is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe this would be upheld in court. There simply no way that customers are reading the full document before agreeing.
> but gives no instructions for how to do so. Not even an email address to contact.
Yes it does, under: Can I (customer) cancel or opt out of this agreement to arbitrate?
"If you want to opt out, go to the Legal Agreements and Disclosures section of your chase.com or jpmorganonline.com profile or on Chase Mobile or JP Morgan Mobile."
On the lower left side bar of the desktop/full site in small print is the legal agreements and disclosures link. That page has the link for the Arbitration opt-out
Oh and let's be clear - Chase is an absolute trash bank. I have no idea why anyone would waste time with their retail deposit or savings products.
However Chase does offer some of the best travel Credit Card products in the US, the only one directly competing with them is Amex and they are not a great worldwide traveling card, Capitol One is close but not quite. Chases' customer service is a mixed bag, but it's on par or better than most of the competition (say, Citi, ugh).
If you don’t need lending products (mortgage, auto), I recommend Fidelity. Cash Management account is a better checking account, and you can hold money market funds instead of a savings account. Wires in and out are free. Checks are free. Easy to buy brokered CDs and US treasuries (which you buy will depend on your investment objectives and if your state has an income tax). Customer service is domestic and helpful. Branches are not everywhere, but you should be able to accomplish everything online or via mail (ie depositing a check that exceeds mobile deposit limits of $100k daily). No Zelle though, will need to hold an account elsewhere to have that capability.
I switched to Capital One recently. Have a friend who works there.
However the best bank I ever used was I believe a smaller bank, 5/3rd.
5/3rd had the best service a non bloated mobile app and good rates on loans/mortgages. Moved out of the country so I closed the account but I do miss that bank
Wishful thinking: Why can’t consumers create a reciprocal TOS that undoes all of this like, an email response that says “by continuing to send emails to this address you agree to xxxxxx, otherwise the only form of acceptable correspondence is certified mail…”
Honestly I prefer arbitration agreements. My lazy ass aint making it down to the court house but you bet your ass I can fill out a form online. But yeah they and every other company are basically counting on no one ever doing anything.
I'm really hoping it blows up in some company's face where there are a lot of individuals with claims and it goes viral. Would tickle me funny if a Fortune 500 company got bankrupted by some zoomer on tiktok doing a stupid dance while telling people how to file for arbitration. AFAIK it is actually FAR FAR more expensive than a class action lawsuit if a non-trivial number of people actually file for arbitration.
Some judges have forced individual arbitration for whole classes when companies cite this clause during class action cases. The companies quickly regret the forced arbitration.
The mandatory arbitration provisions are actually bad for 'lazy ass' people like you, since they mean that you can't join in on a class action lawsuit.
The arbitration DDOS attack is literally the only positive thing I can say has come from the explosion of arbitration provisions in consumer and employment contracts.
Otherwise, consumer arbitration is a shitshow, a kangaroo court, a mockery of the idea of justice. Arbitrators’ livelihoods depend on the repeat business of - you’ll never guess - corporate defendants. Their award stats bear this out.
Sounds like an opportunity for one of those “we fight your parking ticket” style of company. Download the app and they automate filing for arbitration on your behalf. Maybe they take a cut out of the proceeds.
I hate that this has been normalized, we can't seem to pass legislation to get rid of mandatory arbitration. The courts uphold this crap because it's supposed to be agreed upon by your own free will, but withholding service unless you give up your right to a jury trail is a bastardization, especially when this has become so commonplace you either live as a luddite or cede your rights. This is especially true for labor. We should have laws that say you can't withhold service or employment based on acceptance of arbitration.
Some highlights
- Employee win rates in mandatory arbitration are much lower than in either federal court or state court, with employees in mandatory arbitration winning only just about a fifth of the time (21.4 percent), which is 59 percent as often as in the federal courts and only 38 percent as often as in state courts
- Differences in damages awarded are even greater, with the median or typical award in mandatory arbitration being only 21 percent of the median award in the federal courts and 43 percent of the median award in the state courts
- average outcome in mandatory arbitration is only 16 percent of that in the federal courts and 7 percent of that in state courts
- The mandatory arbitration–litigation gap in outcomes has a direct effect on the ability of individual workers to recover compensation for the injuries they have suffered.
- ""The fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy.""
While this relates to employee vs employer arbitration - similar effects apply to consumer arbitration.
mandatory arbitration and class-action waivers are two of the most pernicious terms allowed in modern contracts of adhesion and must be fixed.
fyi, it was in the roaring 20's that the federal arbitration act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16) was passed (i.e., before our first crash). It says essentially that courts cannot intervene when arbitration clause is valid, and indeed must enforce the results of arbitration.
More recently, the Supreme Court held that a district court had to stay proceedings just because an appellate court was considering whether the arbitration clause was valid. So a hundred years later, it's being enforced to its fullest extent.
The FCC has regulations against negative options, i.e., making a contract if you don't do something, but online companies seem to get away with changing terms and prices, and requiring you to cancel your subscription or reject new terms.
To me it seems like a violation of contract to make a contract and then change the terms -- after the other party relies on the contract. But without any real damages, there's no money for attorneys to go up against the corporate attorneys, so the law continues to evolve in their favor.
The better behavior is not much better: my french bank sends terms and conditions updates regularly. Each time it says you are very welcome to reject the new terms and you should simply let them know and they will simply close your account, no hard feelings. Heh.
> In arbitration, there is no option to combine cases into a class action suit
In literally every case other than potential criminal activity directed at you or class actions, arbitration is better for non-1% consumers. In courts, a wealthy adversary can starve you—delay and run in circles with the object of running up legal time. They can't do that in arbitration.
This is obviously a shit way to present anything to a customer. But mindlessly opting out of arbitration will reduce the average American's ability to fight large companies.
Interesting. Amazon did the opposite back in 2021. They were hit with 75,000 arbitration claims, at once, regarding allegations of the Echo device secretly recording customers [1]. Now, all disputes of this nature are handled in federal court.
Did a quick google search and saw someone talking about this in 2019, and it raised a few eybrows then as well.
I don't like arbitration agreements generally, and I don't think they should be allowed be used so universally, but this doesn't seem especially obnoxious. It is just the terms for using their "digital services," and so it should not impact the terms you agreed to when you signed up for your account, which probably already have a separate arbitration agreement.
> Is arbitration a bad thing in the context of personal banking?
If you can afford the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars taking a case against a well-heeled adversary costs (together with a proper legal PR campaign), yes. If you can't, no. Arbitration massively levels the field between adversaries of different wealth.
Perhaps this only applies if you have a bank account with Chase? I have a credit card with them, but am not presented with an arbitration agreement when I log in.
[+] [-] iamdamian|2 years ago|reply
Not only is Chase forcing me to opt into a 125 page agreement [0] in order to log in to my account—say, to pay my bill or check my balance—but that agreement has a new arbitration clause. The arbitration clause says you can opt out within 60 days but gives no instructions for how to do so. Not even an email address to contact.
I would love to log into my account tonight but won't until I know I can opt out of arbitration.
This upsets me, maybe more than it should, and I'm thinking of dropping Chase. Anyone else?
[0]: https://static.chasecdn.com/content/dam/legal-agreements/lib...
[+] [-] godelski|2 years ago|reply
There's a weird legal issue that I don't get why it is widely accepted. Why is an average person expected to understand legalize? There is absolutely no reason to believe the average person a) reads that whole thing (clear dark pattern) and b) understands the whole thing. Even intelligent people! Because it is lawyer language written for lawyers. It is like expecting the average person (not on HN) to be able to tell you what metadata is or how machine learning models work (okay maybe HN too ;). How do we not see these as patterns of deciept and taking advantage of people? We live in a highly specialized world and that has been great, but we can't reasonable expect people to comprehend these decisions. It comes down to some combination of trust, naivety, and arm twisting in the end, and this shouldn't be seen as okay.
[+] [-] throwaway2037|2 years ago|reply
HOWTOs from official US gov't websites:
https://ask.fdic.gov/fdicinformationandsupportcenter/s/artic...
https://www.usa.gov/bank-credit-complaints
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/credit_12666.htm
[+] [-] k0k0|2 years ago|reply
Yes it does, under: Can I (customer) cancel or opt out of this agreement to arbitrate?
"If you want to opt out, go to the Legal Agreements and Disclosures section of your chase.com or jpmorganonline.com profile or on Chase Mobile or JP Morgan Mobile."
On the lower left side bar of the desktop/full site in small print is the legal agreements and disclosures link. That page has the link for the Arbitration opt-out
https://imgur.com/a/6QRp4vJ
Oh and let's be clear - Chase is an absolute trash bank. I have no idea why anyone would waste time with their retail deposit or savings products.
However Chase does offer some of the best travel Credit Card products in the US, the only one directly competing with them is Amex and they are not a great worldwide traveling card, Capitol One is close but not quite. Chases' customer service is a mixed bag, but it's on par or better than most of the competition (say, Citi, ugh).
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaw1yyy|2 years ago|reply
However the best bank I ever used was I believe a smaller bank, 5/3rd.
5/3rd had the best service a non bloated mobile app and good rates on loans/mortgages. Moved out of the country so I closed the account but I do miss that bank
[+] [-] nathanaldensr|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] datavirtue|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3abiton|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balderdash|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thatguy0900|2 years ago|reply
It's certainly something that works occasionally
[+] [-] nimos|2 years ago|reply
I'm really hoping it blows up in some company's face where there are a lot of individuals with claims and it goes viral. Would tickle me funny if a Fortune 500 company got bankrupted by some zoomer on tiktok doing a stupid dance while telling people how to file for arbitration. AFAIK it is actually FAR FAR more expensive than a class action lawsuit if a non-trivial number of people actually file for arbitration.
[+] [-] cosmotic|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnicholas|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anon373839|2 years ago|reply
Otherwise, consumer arbitration is a shitshow, a kangaroo court, a mockery of the idea of justice. Arbitrators’ livelihoods depend on the repeat business of - you’ll never guess - corporate defendants. Their award stats bear this out.
[+] [-] teeray|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jph|2 years ago|reply
Related guidance for Chase arbitration policy opt out:
https://www.creditkarma.com/insights/i/chase-binding-arbitra...
[+] [-] casualscience|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eadler|2 years ago|reply
Some highlights - Employee win rates in mandatory arbitration are much lower than in either federal court or state court, with employees in mandatory arbitration winning only just about a fifth of the time (21.4 percent), which is 59 percent as often as in the federal courts and only 38 percent as often as in state courts
- Differences in damages awarded are even greater, with the median or typical award in mandatory arbitration being only 21 percent of the median award in the federal courts and 43 percent of the median award in the state courts
- average outcome in mandatory arbitration is only 16 percent of that in the federal courts and 7 percent of that in state courts
- The mandatory arbitration–litigation gap in outcomes has a direct effect on the ability of individual workers to recover compensation for the injuries they have suffered.
- ""The fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy.""
While this relates to employee vs employer arbitration - similar effects apply to consumer arbitration.
mandatory arbitration and class-action waivers are two of the most pernicious terms allowed in modern contracts of adhesion and must be fixed.
[+] [-] w10-1|2 years ago|reply
More recently, the Supreme Court held that a district court had to stay proceedings just because an appellate court was considering whether the arbitration clause was valid. So a hundred years later, it's being enforced to its fullest extent.
The FCC has regulations against negative options, i.e., making a contract if you don't do something, but online companies seem to get away with changing terms and prices, and requiring you to cancel your subscription or reject new terms.
To me it seems like a violation of contract to make a contract and then change the terms -- after the other party relies on the contract. But without any real damages, there's no money for attorneys to go up against the corporate attorneys, so the law continues to evolve in their favor.
[+] [-] creer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dangus|2 years ago|reply
Law firms have caught on and have figured out how to spam claims at corporations.
In arbitration, there is no option to combine cases into a class action suit.
[+] [-] procrastitron|2 years ago|reply
From a consumer perspective it really is a no-win situation. The agreements are specifically designed to make the process as one sided as possible.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
In literally every case other than potential criminal activity directed at you or class actions, arbitration is better for non-1% consumers. In courts, a wealthy adversary can starve you—delay and run in circles with the object of running up legal time. They can't do that in arbitration.
This is obviously a shit way to present anything to a customer. But mindlessly opting out of arbitration will reduce the average American's ability to fight large companies.
[+] [-] gzer0|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/business/amazon-arbitrati...
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pyrophane|2 years ago|reply
I don't like arbitration agreements generally, and I don't think they should be allowed be used so universally, but this doesn't seem especially obnoxious. It is just the terms for using their "digital services," and so it should not impact the terms you agreed to when you signed up for your account, which probably already have a separate arbitration agreement.
[+] [-] iamdamian|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logN_2|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexfromapex|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
If you can afford the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars taking a case against a well-heeled adversary costs (together with a proper legal PR campaign), yes. If you can't, no. Arbitration massively levels the field between adversaries of different wealth.
[+] [-] FFP999|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cebert|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notyourwork|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] creer|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulkon|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] renegat0x0|2 years ago|reply
- https://www.visualcapitalist.com/terms-of-service-visualizin...
- https://www.zzzuckerberg.com/
- https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/terms-of-... ... and yet people read terms of service
[+] [-] effbanks|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] datavirtue|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]