DISCLAIMER: the arguments described in this topic have already been referenced in multiple posts, yet no official comment on the issue was made that I'm aware of. This post is being made to raise awareness of the problem and to prompt a direct reply from the company.
Also notice that while this is somehow related to the forthcoming implementation of GDPR, the following arguments can be extended to any conflicting local legislature that makes the arbitration clause invalid.
As most readers will probably know by now, the recent TOS update introduced an arbitration clause, which wasn't exactly well received. Multiple users pointed out problems in the original implementation, with most of them being concerned about the opt-out process (30 days, originally requiring users to send in a physical mail).
I won't go over the same topic again, users not yet up-to-date should refer to the above links to get informed. What I am interested in is another somehow serious issue I see that doesn't seem to have yet been addressed or even acknowledged.
Multiple users have noted that the arbitration clause in its current state won't probably hold under many foreign laws. Most posts I found were referencing Europe, but I can only assume other countries may exist that are in the same situation.
As a reference, here are some interesting posts:
The arbitration clause won't hold for any visitors from Europe.
(quoted from: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/309845/274498)
Not going to hold up. Dutch Supreme Court confirmed 2012-09-21 in LJN BW6135 that arbitration is still covered by the right to an independent judge, as established in ECHR 1975-02-21, nr. 4451/70. Stack Exchange can't decide the rules themselves.
(quoted from: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/28183)
I could post some more examples if anyone is interested, but I think this two should already make the point.
So, while the problem has been referenced multiple times, I am not aware of any indication that the company has acknowledged the issue or has made any relevant statement on the problem.
I am therefore writing this post in the hope of getting an official answer. I am not a lawyer and I can't really estimate how accurate the claims that are being made are - but all the sources, with special mention of the question on Law.SE have been pointing in the same direction, so I am inclined to trust them for now.
Considering that StackExchange has users from almost every corner of the world, it is pretty weird to think that this same issue hasn't come up in any internal discussion.
Again, while I would prefer an answer that fully analyzes the problem, I would be fine even with a simple acknowledgment "we are working to sort this out".
Just please remember that the 30 days countdown is still clicking, the moon is still falling and the four giants are nowhere to be seen, so I fear that this is pretty urgent and can't be handled in the usual 6-8 time units.