dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
share rss forum feed

MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Mediacom
reply to jhboricua

Re: What should the percentage be, if not 95%?

said by jhboricua:

said by MyDogHsFleas:

What would the percentage have to be for you to consider the arbitration not to be "stacked against the consumer"?
0%. The mere fact that big corps want to erode consumer rights by trying to impose binding arbitration by a company they PAID says enough.

Wow. Just wow.

said by MyDogHsFleas:

How do you justify that number?
How do you justify 95% in favor of the business?

I don't have to. I was commenting on a supposed "news report" that ASSUMED that 95% was biased. My simple question is: how do you justify that? Still no answer.

said by MyDogHsFleas:

How do you know that 95% of the cases should not have been decided against the consumer?
So you're saying the reviewer that averaged 7 minutes a case was being objective? Common sense dictates otherwise. The fact that the Minneapolis NAF unit agreed to give up that part of their business rather than let the AG investigate them should tell you enough.
You really don't know. I suspect the average case goes like this:

Business: Here's our billing and payment records. Here's what the customer agreed to (signed and dated). They owe us $XXX according to our records.

Consumer: They are wrong. (No data to back it up.)

How hard is that to decide?


jhboricua
ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN

2 edits

said by MyDogHsFleas:

You really don't know. I suspect the average case goes like this:

Business: Here's our billing and payment records. Here's what the customer agreed to (signed and dated). They owe us $XXX according to our records.

Consumer: They are wrong. (No data to back it up.)

How hard is that to decide?
You don't know either, but you must be pretty naive or just a shill to believe that a 95% judgement award to the company paying the arbitrator is fair.

That's part of the problem with the system too. There was no way to verify the fairness of the process by the regular Joe since the system is designed to prevent exactly this.

But again, the fact that the Minneapolis NAF unit decided to give up such lucrative business as soon as the Minnesota AG started requesting documentation for their investigation speak volumes about the so called 'fairness' of their process. As one columnist put it, is the equivalent of McDonalds agreeing to stop selling burgers.

It took 3 days from the moment the AG filed suit against the Minneapolis NAF unit to reach a settlement.
--
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Jose A. Hernandez * System Admin * MPLS, Minnesota, USA *

moonpuppy

join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
reply to MyDogHsFleas

said by MyDogHsFleas:

You really don't know. I suspect the average case goes like this:

Business: Here's our billing and payment records. Here's what the customer agreed to (signed and dated). They owe us $XXX according to our records.

Consumer: They are wrong. (No data to back it up.)

How hard is that to decide?
And I suspect this is the conversation between a corporation and the arbitration service they hire.

Corporation: "We are going to hire you as our arbitration service with a guaranteed amount of business."

Arbitration service: "Great!"

Corporation: "Just one thing, for us to keep you as a service, you need to decide at least 95% of the cases in our favor."

Arbitration service: "No problem."

Arbitration is nothing more than paid judges and when one side pays for it, their neutrality has to be questionable.