Does Apple have an arbitration clause?

[itcheroni]

I'm in an arbitration program this summer and began wondering if Apple had an arbitration clause in their paperwork. They could also limit class actions. Considering the whole ipod battery class action, I wonder why they wouldn't. Could someone take a look at their macbook documents and see if there is an arbitration clause? I'm just wondering if the million-colors-lawsuit is going to go through.

[iMeowbot]

They use it in limited circumstances. For example, the Applecare terms (http://www.apple.com/ca/support/products/terms.html) provide for arbitration only in Connecticut. The regular hardware warranty does not mention arbitration at all.

See here (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/) for all the software license terms.

[itcheroni]

They use it in limited circumstances. For example, the Applecare terms (http://www.apple.com/ca/support/products/terms.html) provide for arbitration only in Connecticut. The regular hardware warranty does not mention arbitration at all.

See here (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/) for all the software license terms.

That's so strange. They could stop all class action liability with just the addition of a few words.

[iMeowbot]

They can potentially lose quite a bit from arbitration too. Juries, discovery rules, precedent, appeals, it goes on and on. That the customer typically doesn't sign these agreements (warranty and licenses in particular) can make the binding status of arbitration shaky, so what they do may not be so dumb.

[itcheroni]

They can potentially lose quite a bit from arbitration too. Juries, discovery rules, precedent, appeals, it goes on and on. That the customer typically doesn't sign these agreements (warranty and licenses in particular) can make the binding status of arbitration shaky, so what they do may not be so dumb.

From the cases I've been studying, you can have clauses that waive the right to a jury trial, limit discovery, and arbitration does not follow precedent, and appeals to courts have almost always held in favor of the arbitration clause. Starting since the 90's, the Supreme Court has only extended the reach of arbitration. The courts are extremely in favor of arbitration. A signature is not necessary at all. I only know so much about this because I'm studying it now and I'm quite astonished at it all. It sounds unbelievable but I swear I'm not making this up. I think within the next decade, we will see people realizing more and more that consumer arbitration is overreaching. I'm a fan of arbitration but mainly in an international transactions context by two negotiating parties.

[itcheroni]

I guess law school has made me incredibly boring. I thought more people would find this as facsinating as I do.