How to opt out of Venmo’s new arbitration clause

Keep your rights to class action
By Barbara Krasnoff  Apr 25, 2022, 2:52pm EDT

. . .  We’ll tell you how you can opt out — but first, a little info about arbitration clauses.
Arbitration clauses have become extremely popular in agreements between companies and consumers. (For example, here’s a 2019 article explaining how to opt out of the arbitration clause that emerged when Apple added a credit card.)

It’s not surprising. When you agree to arbitration, you are basically putting most of the advantages in the company’s court.

For example, most arbitration clauses deny you the opportunity to become part of a class action suit or to individually sue the company. Instead, an arbitrator (often chosen by the company) reviews the case and then makes a ruling that cannot be appealed.


MOST ARBITRATION CLAUSES DENY YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME PART OF A CLASS ACTION SUIT

And, in fact, this is exactly what the arbitration clause that Venmo is adding is meant to do.

. . .

here’s the short version of what you need to do:

• 
  
• Download and print out the Venmo Opt-Out Notice Form
  
• Fill out the entire form
  
• Mail it (yes, the kind of mail with an envelope and a stamp) to:
  

PayPal, Inc.
Attn: Litigation Department
Re: Venmo Opt-Out Notice
2211 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95131


1) .... if you accepted the user agreement for the first time on or after May 23rd, 2022, then your form has to be postmarked up to 30 days after that date.

If you’ve been a Venmo member for longer, you have until June 22nd, 2022.

2) ... Send it so it can be traced or, even better, so somebody has to sign for it.

This will cost more, but if you foresee yourself possibly needing to take Venmo to court anytime in the future (especially if you plan to use the service extensively), then it pays to be sure.

Wells Fargo pushes wrongly accused N.J. pastor toward arbitration

         A New Jersey pastor who was falsely arrested because of errors made by Wells Fargo employees may be forced to resolve legal claims against the bank in arbitration, renewing questions about banks' use of the process.
 . . .

Edwards deposited four checks in an ATM one afternoon in April 2018. Later, a photo of Edwards depositing his checks was falsely linked to a series of fraudulent checks deposited in the same machine on the same day. The photo of Edwards was posted on a New Jersey State Police Facebook page, prompting one of his parishioners to point him to the page, telling him he had a twin. The actual owner of the account into which the fraudulent checks were deposited was a 20-year-old woman.

The bank later admitted it was at fault and offered an apology. Edwards asked the bank to explain what happened and pay his legal fees; the bank refused.

...
For his part, Edwards is angry the bank is now trying to take the case to arbitration.
“It's a frustrating sense of not being able to get justice and having it all postponed,” Edwards said in an interview. “They threatened my reputation and put me through a great deal of angst and anxiety about the threat and the uncertainty of where this all was headed. So I would like some compensation for that. I would like an explanation for how they could have allowed this to happen. And then there’s the fact that they made a mistake initially and they seemed to just double down when they were asked about the mistake. There should have been ample reason to call into question their initial discernment that I was the person who cashed the fraudulent checks.”

Edwards also said he worries that this could happen to someone who doesn't have the means to hire a lawyer or who has a criminal record.

“In my experience dealing with the state police, I was pressured to confess to something I did not do,” Edwards said. “I can easily imagine how someone would cave in to that, if they did not have my advantages.”

From Paul Bland of Public Justice:

There are a couple of things about this case, as explained in the video, that are striking. 

First, the corporate behavior – a payday lender misleading customers, getting them into a cycle of debt, lying about its nature, abusing the law – is truly ugly. Nearly every American should hate this kind of behavior, and see why it’s important for the legal system to address it.

Second, the video explains how the civil justice system, and class actions, got real justice for the consumers: tens of millions of dollars in refunds to consumers, illegal debts wiped away, and peoples’ credit records fixed. 

Third, the video focuses a great deal on Mr. Inetianbor, showing that the class action wasn’t just a lawyer-driven thing, but that the consumer played a huge role in protecting other consumers and working to fight this problem.

Finally, the video helps explain how vile a system forced arbitration is, and why the defendants’ efforts to use forced arbitration were a real scam.
 

Emily Bazelon's explanation of a recent Obama executive order is posted on Slate.
One expert put it this way:

    "This is as clear and well-written an explanation as we're going to see of President Obama's Executive Order saying that corporations can't get federal contracts if they force their workers to submit to forced arbitration of civil rights claims. Emily Bazelon, a very widely read blogger, has done a terrific job of putting the executive order into context and explaining why it is so important.

    "If there is one piece that everyone should read to understand this issue, this is it. If you have friends who don't understand why forced arbitration is a problem or don't realize that President Obama has actually done something really important, this is the best story I've seen to set it all out."