Paul Bland on Spotfiy's Arbitration Clause: Spotify Hits a Sour Note with Secretive Fine Print

Here, in the Daily Kos.  An excerpt:

If Spotify does something illegal, no one can ever know that a consumer is challenging it. And then, if an arbitrator did find that Spotify acted illegally (which is asking a lot, since Spotify will pick the private arbitration company that will, in turn, select the arbitrator to hear the case), whatever the result is must be kept secret.

Spotify’s timing couldn’t be worse. Large corporations are trying to keep big secrets from their consumers and the public. Volkswagen, for example, has been exposed for having rigged their cars to pass emissions tests, and then, shortly afterward, begin polluting at up to 40 times (!?) the amount allowable by law. And there’s a case right now in Pennsylvania federal courts, involving a software company that installed malware permitting the guys at the company to turn on a customer’s computer, activate their camera, and watch people in the presumed privacy of their own homes.  

(HT: Gregory Gauthier)

Comments

[Bill Weinstein]

Paul, I saw in your post that there has been some success in challenging a total secrecy/gag provision on unconscionability grounds.

But don't you think more fundamentally that if Hall Street prevents the parties from changing the level of review under FAA Section 10 to plenary, that this provision would be equally unenforceable because it seeks to modify the confirmation/vacatur/entry of judgment provisions in a comparable way and thus violates or is prohibited by the statute? I think that is the more fundamental challenge.