I’m going to be speaking with a couple of different attorneys to evaluate my options.” He may have lost this case, but he’s not done fighting. “He said he didn’t want two rulings floating out there,” Lord said. According to Lord, the judge decided to apply the current TOS to all of the transactions in dispute. “I had to give the judge a copy of the first terms of services that clearly show that the arbitration clause was not there for the first few transactions.” “Right off the bat, they assert the arbitration clause applied to everything, even though it plainly didn't,” Lord said. > According to Lord, when RSI’s representatives stood before the judge, they tried to argue the arbitration clause of their TOS. He said RSI’s representatives understood that Lord’s pledges weren’t covered by the arbitration clause, and he offered to settle, again, for $3,800. He had printed out multiple versions of the terms of service, all records of communication with RSI, and a long document recording the 77 promises RSI hasn’t fulfilled in a timely fashion, including citations showing where and when RSI made those promises. “All prior transactions are governed by the TOS in effect on the date of such transactions.” “These Terms of Service (TOS) do not affect any transactions made before its effective date,” RSI’s terms site said. The original terms of service, according to RSI’s own records, make no mention of arbitration before February 2015. > According to Lord, the terms of service when he made the initial pledge aren’t the same terms of service they are today. I'm more disturbed by the parts of the article which say that he never agreed to a forced arbitration clause in the first place because it wasn't in the ToS when he paid, but the judge decided to go with the later ToS anyway:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |