The new forced arbitration clause was a hot topic a while ago. I'm wondering whether Monica's current situation and her plans to possibly sue Stack Exchange are a good example for why you should always opt out of forced arbitration?

Can someone shed light on what could happen if she didn't opt out, versus if she did (which I am really hoping she did)?

Feel free to move this to Law.SE if it's more appropriate there.

  • 3
    Can you link to something that summarises the forced arbitration controversy please, for those of us unfamiliar with it? Oct 30, 2019 at 11:18
  • @user56reinstatemonica8 meta.stackexchange.com/q/310061/155659
    – OrangeDog
    Oct 30, 2019 at 11:21
  • @user56reinstatemonica8 I've added a link. Oct 30, 2019 at 11:23
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because law question
    – Unihedron
    Oct 30, 2019 at 11:47
  • @Unihedron - anything about Monica is “off-topic” unfortunately.
    – Gio
    Oct 30, 2019 at 12:08
  • Forced arbitration doesn't protect the company from intentional malice or fraud, like, you know.... slander, libel, etc
    – cegfault
    Oct 30, 2019 at 12:21
  • 15
    This question is about the relationship between SE and its users, so it is very much on topic here. This is the site where we discuss how the community and SE can work together and a question about a company policy seems very much on topic.
    – terdon
    Oct 30, 2019 at 12:28
  • @StopHarmingMonica The "We don’t want things to come to litigation, ever" part of the post you link to is ironic in light of recent events, given that there's now significant discussion of doing exactly that. Oct 30, 2019 at 13:08
  • @EJoshuaS-ReinstateMonica not just discussion, I know both jhpratt and Monica currently are.
    – OrangeDog
    Oct 30, 2019 at 13:10
  • 1
    @StopHarmingMonica I can't say that SE should be surprised by it, given how outrageous their behavior has been lately. And now their primary reaction has been to try to gaslight the rest of us too. Oct 30, 2019 at 13:15
  • 1
    @DeNovosupportsGoFundMonica I'm no lawyer, but I've dealt with issues in the past where arbitration clauses were flat out ignored by courts because of malice or fraud. Without getting into details, I had this happen with an ISP, and day one the judge through out the arbitration clause. Just because there's a TOS doesn't mean the court will enforce it. Hell, judges routinely through out prenuptial agreements. It's my understanding that if you sue SE because of a problem with the service it has to go to arbitration, but if you sue SE for intentional malice it may or may not.
    – cegfault
    Oct 30, 2019 at 14:07
  • 3
    Again, I don't know, I'm no lawyer, but it's worth a lawyer looking into. I'm sure SE wants us to think arbitration is absolute, but case law tells a different story
    – cegfault
    Oct 30, 2019 at 14:08
  • 3
    @cegfault in all cases you are better off opting out of forced arbitration. Even in the best case scenario, if it is thrown out, you still had to spend the money and time to go through an additional step. In these cases, the company was protected by the additional barrier to you, the individual, bringing a claim against them
    – De Novo
    Oct 30, 2019 at 15:21
  • 20
    I did opt out, FYI. Oct 30, 2019 at 17:03
  • 1
    @MonicaCellio really glad to hear that! Oct 30, 2019 at 17:18


Browse other questions tagged .