• Hannes@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Isn’t it often in both parties to settle things out of court? For the one that’d sue it’s usually more money at less cost and the company gets around possibly having a bad precedent set and the bad publicity to potentially losing in court.

    This is probably aimed at people creating issues in the hopes of getting a settlement for something that has a slim (but Nonzero) chance to hold up in court.

    It’s a company - I think this aims at people only bringing serious claims and reducing the paperwork for them - but since it’s Valve people will glorify everything they do

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s not what arbitration is. This doesn’t stop valve from reaching a settlement, it stops them from using fake privately funded bench trials

      Binding arbitration means the results are legally binding, non-binding arbitration means a judge needs to approve the arbitration results before it’s final. Sometimes it’s with an off duty judge, sometimes anyone can be the arbiter

      Regardless, on one side you have a repeat customer, on the other you have someone who will probably never be back - there’s a built in conflict of interest