If you are having trouble sleeping one night but don’t mind a possible nightmare of being crushed by a multi-billion dollar corporation, you can read Experian’s Terms of Use Agreement here:
 https://www.experian.com/help/terms-and-conditions.html

So to reiterate – if you have a problem with Experian, you would have to air your grievances in arbitration, not any court. If you are not familiar with arbitration, you can think of it as a fake court that has been found to be very unfair in favor of businesses (who pay them). If you’re interested, you can learn more about how unfair forced arbitration is here https://www.consumeradvocates.org/for-consumers/arbitration/ or here
https://www.citizen.org/article/mandatory-arbitration-clauses-are-discriminatory-and-unfair/

This should beg the questions: Why is Experian so worried about you suing them in court? Why are they so worried about class actions? And wait… are they luring you to click through this “agreement” with the promise of a higher credit score? Yes, they are. In exchange for a higher credit score, you have to promise to never sue them in court.

And if you’re wondering whether Experian ever goes so far as to enforce their forced arbitration clauses; yes, they do . . .

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."

Sep11
Vulnerable Nursing Home Patients Need Ability to Sue in Court as Government Agencies Fail to Protect Them
By Leslie Bailey, Staff Attorney, Public Justice

According to a new report just released by the Center for Investigative Reporting and reported by KQED, the failure of California regulators to adequately investigate and pursue claims of abuse and misconduct by nursing assistants and health aids is “putting the elderly, sick, and disabled at risk.” In fact, the regulators that are charged with protecting vulnerable patients in nursing homes and assisted living facilities are either conducting “cursory and indifferent” investigations, or simply closing cases without taking any action at all. The report underscores how critically important it is for people to have the ability to sue when loved ones are harmed by nursing home neglect—or worse.

Take Elsie Fossum. One morning in July 2006, the 95-year-old was found lying in a pool of blood, her arm broken and her face described by the registered nurse in charge at the nursing home as “beaten to a pulp.” Within a few weeks, Elsie died as a result of the wounds she’d suffered. A nurse suspected one of the nursing assistants, and a report was filed with the Department of Health. But according to KQED, the agency shelved the case for 6 ½ years and finally closed it without any investigation. 

The CIR report paints a grim picture. There are approximately 160,000 nursing assistants and in-home health aids working at hospitals, nursing homes, and mental health facilities throughout California. As of 2009, the backlog of reported abuse and theft cases was so high that is was deemed a “crisis.” But rather than prioritize investigating, according to the report, “the state Department of Public Health quietly ordered investigators to dismiss 1,000 pending cases … often without a single phone call.” While the number of cases closed without action is on the rise, the main tool by which the agency is supposed to protect patients from abuse—revoking the licenses of nursing home employees—has plummeted in recent years. In other words, the abusers are permitted to continue working at their jobs, where they can continue to commit more horrific abuse. It’s gotten so bad that even a former Public Health director warns Californians: “do not count on the government taking care of you.” 

Fortunately, we have the civil justice system, and anyone whose loved one is abused in a nursing home can file a lawsuit – right? Think again. As the Wall Street Journal reported, nursing homes—like pretty much all other businesses—are increasingly jumping on the forced arbitration bandwagon.  That is, they’re requiring everyone who checks in to sign a contract forfeiting their constitutional right to sue. Instead, per the fine print, any claims against the home or its employees must be brought in private arbitration, in a secret proceeding before a hired gun chosen by the nursing home. But of course, the last thing on your mind when you’re in the painful process of admitting an elderly parent to a home is the fine print of the nursing home’s multi-page contract. The nursing home, of course, knows exactly what it’s doing: a study done by the nursing home industry itself found that as arbitration has increasingly replaced court as the forum for dispute resolution, the amount of money recovered by abuse victims and their families has decreased—even as complaints about poor treatment have risen.  

If the government agencies charged with protecting our loved ones aren’t up to the task, then the only way to prevent more horrific abuses like that of Elsie Fossum is through private litigation. But the nursing homes know this, and they’re doing everything they can to use forced arbitration to exempt themselves from lawsuits. It’s time to fight back.

If you are facing an arbitration clause in a nursing home case, we can help. Email Leslie at [email protected] or Paul Bland at [email protected]

For more information, you can also read our article, "Combating Abusive Arbitration Clauses in Nursing Home Contracts."

• Today’s Arbitration Outrage: Second Circuit Says Destitute New York Resident Consumer Must Arbitrate Case in Arizona Leave a comment By Paul Bland, Senior Attorney @PblandBland
• Periodically, people ask me rhetorical questions like, "How much worse can the law of arbitration get? I mean, it's so incredibly bad that it has to have bottomed out, right?"
• As Jane Wagner famously wrote [for Lily Tomlin], no matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up.
• The Second Circuit has just issued an opinion that reminds us that it is still possible for the law of arbitration to become even more terrible for consumers. In Duran v. The J. Hass Group, a woman who is essentially on the edge of being destitute alleges (very credibly) that she was the victim of a last-dollar scam, promised services that she didn't receive.
• The defendants allegedly operated a credit repair scheme, under which they took a fee of almost $4,000 from the consumer to settle all of her credit card debt, and then did nothing for her. So her credit card companies were suing her, she owed all the money that she’d owed when she first interacted with the defendants, and she was now completely broke. These allegations make an extremely strong claim under the Credit Reporting Act. The allegations and facts are discussed in greater detail in the district court’s opinion, available at 2012 WL 3233818 (E.D.N.Y. June 8, 2012).
• It probably will not surprise anyone who follows consumer law (although it would come as a surprise to nearly any actual consumer) that the defendant had an arbitration clause. What's striking is that the clause requires consumers (including the New York resident Ms. Duran) to arbitrate their claims across the country IN ARIZONA.  Now, courts have been striking down these kinds of distant forum provisions in decisions going back 20 years.  E.g., Patterson v. ITT Consumer Fin. Corp., 18 Cal. Rptr. 2d 563 (1993). But in the wake of more recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, particularly the catastrophic Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 130 S. Ct. 2772 (2010), a lot of bad actors out there have been experimenting with how unfair they can make their arbitration clauses and get away with it.
• This strategy worked pretty well for the defendants in this case. The Second Circuit required Ms. Duran to arbitrate her claim, and enforced the provision requiring it to take place in Arizona. They noted that there is a "logical flaw" and an "unusual" quality to the result, because if Ms. Duran's only remedy is to argue to the arbitrator that it's unfair and unconscionable to require her to arbitrate in Arizona, she first has to GO to Arizona to do it. Oh well, the Court explains, this is what the Supreme Court would have wanted.
• I think the decision is wrong, and that the better arguments are with the plaintiffs, and I'm very hopeful that a lot of other courts wouldn't go with this conclusion. 
• But the case does show how the U.S. Supreme Court's ongoing adventures in re-writing and expanding the Federal Arbitration Act have a cost. What will the next scam artist put in their arbitration clause? Is there any reason that the Second Circuit would not have enforced a clause requiring the arbitration to take place in New Zealand on Leap Day? After all, why couldn't the New Zealand arbitrator figure out if that's fair?  What if the arbitration clause required that the arbitration take place on the newly non-planet Pluto?
• If bad actors can get away with making arbitration clauses increasingly grossly unfair, and all the courts just wash their hands, do a Pontius Pilate, and say “well, this may SEEM really unfair, but oh well, it’s what the Supreme Court would have wanted,” mandatory arbitration will have no conceivable claim to any sort of legitimacy. It will become a complete joke, an openly rigged deal. 
  
• Because saying that a poor person in New York can only get a refund of money stolen from her if she travels across the United States to begin the process of trying to get it back IS a joke, and it IS a rigged deal.