Amazon Bars Customers from Filing Lawsuits

by: Jeff Smith

Our great government should prevent companies like Amazon from doing this. But Bezos and Consorts have too much money to buy corrupt politicians from not preventing this. At least here in the USA.

by: Rexford

I didn't need yet another reason not to do business with Amazon but here it is.
Since the Federal government under this administration can't be trusted to protect consumers perhaps the states can take action.

by: etectra

"Since the Federal government under this administration can't be trusted to protect consumers perhaps the states can take action."

LOL

What did eBay do during Obama's 8 years in office?

In 2010 eBay negotiated the eBay, China Post and USPS agreement to provide cobranded shipping labels for eBay's Chinese CCP vendors. This was to take advantage of a 1969 Universal Postal Union agreement that gave developing countries a break on postal fees sent to developing countries such as the U.S.

China was still developing country under this agreement. This was sold to the American public as a way for USPS to earn money to replace the revenue lost on declining domestic First Class materials. These Chinese packages could weigh up to 4.4 pounds and were delivered as First Class materials within the U.S., while domestic First Class was limited to 13 ounces at the retail rate or 15.999 ounces at the commercial rate.

In reality USPS was losing money on every such package and they were unable to change the rates they were being paid. Prior to 2010 USPS always made money on international mail as it was a net exporter. In 2010 USPS saw it profits on such drop dramatically due to eBay's agreement. The only reason they made money was that eBay's program only ran half the year. From 2011 onward USPS lost increasing amounts on international mail. Soon Amazon copied eBay's lead.

USPS made this up raising domestic rates, thus forcing all Americans to subsidize eBay and its CCP partners. Obama could have stepped in at any time and put a stop to it, but did nothing. Trump put an end to this in his first term. In Trump's second term he took away import tax free status of these packages.

But how was China empowered in the first place? Clinton gave China most favored trading status on a permanent basis rather than a annual revue. Clinton worked to get China WTO membership, but could not quick finish it so Bush II ended up signing the papers. Clinton gave us NAFTA. Clinton got rid of tax laws for making drugs in Puerto Rico thus production shifted to China and India. Clinton did all this as he was processing bribes from around the world through the Clinton Foundation.

What was Biden's 50 year career built on? Accepting bribes to secure his influence on matters.

"At least here in the USA."

Even worse is when the government becomes the master such as Europe where your entire life from birth to death is controlled via regulations and heavy taxes under the guise of helping you.

by: Twokats

Yeah, it's sooo much better under our current system of corruption. It's the best corruption...corruption like no one has ever seen! Sorry, but the current administration has NO interest in fairness.  

by: Rexford

etectra writes:  "What did eBay do during Obama's 8 years in office?"

I know that it is difficult for you etectra but stay on topic. This is a post about Amazon.   Your obsession with blaming the world's problems on Obama and Biden are showing.  Now get back to Fox News.   Their ratings are way down and they need you.

by: CBW

Fact 1: It doesn't prevent criminal cases.

Fact 2: If you don't like a business's practices then don't use that business. No one is forced to do business with Amazon nor do they have to do business with anyone.  At least not in a Capitalist society.  

by: Snapped

“ If you don't like a business's practices then don't use that business. “

Sometimes that is not practical, or by scale, ineffective.  

What is more effective, is to boycot the businesses that advertise on said business of discontent instead.  And then be sure to TELL said business, AND their advertisers, why.  And your fam, friends and followers too if ya got a sec.

by: Rexford

"Fact 2: If you don't like a business's practices then don't use that business."

I'm good with that but living in a capitalist country doesn't allow companies like Amazon to do as they please.

Restrictions on lawsuits can run into statutory rights and public policy limitations.

1) Unlawful coercion or unfair practice (consumer protection/antitrust-adjacent concerns). If a ban is part of conduct designed to suppress accountability or competition (e.g., deterring complaints/claims), regulators may argue it’s part of an unfair or illegal scheme.

2) Conflict with mandatory consumer-protection statutes. Some laws give consumers certain enforcement rights that can’t be waived or extinguished by contract in the way a lawsuit ban might try to do.

3) Limits on what companies can require customers to sign. In practice, “no lawsuits” arrangements sometimes come through arbitration/class action limits. Courts and regulators scrutinize whether those limits are unconscionable, improperly disclosed, or otherwise not allowed under the relevant federal/state law.

4) If it’s tied to anticompetitive conduct. If the underlying business model relies on blocking rivals/sellers and also blocking recourse, enforcers may view it as exclusionary behavior that helps maintain illegal market power. (That pattern is part of how antitrust cases describe “unfair/exclusionary” tactics.)

by: bh

Please let the states attorney generals know that we need to enforce the holdup form for Amazon.

by: CBW

Snapped
You need hundreds of thousands of people to make a boycott effective. The majority of people don't think they'll ever need to file a civil suit against Amazon so they don't care about the arbitration.
If they actually violate the law you can still go after Amazon, even if they have an arbitration clause.  

by: CBW

Rexford
Amazon, like any other company, has the right to refuse service to anyone. They have the right to refuse service to anyone that doesn't agree to their arbitration clause for civil disagreements. It sucks but it is what it is.  

by: CBW

bh

Enforce a legal binding contract? If you use their platform you are agreeing to their terms of use.

by: Rexford

CBW says "Rexford
Amazon, like any other company, has the right to refuse service to anyone."

Not true.  If that were the case, some businesses (restaurants) might still be trying to keep black people or other minorities from eating at their lunch counters.

by: Snapped

“ You need hundreds of thousands of people to make a boycott effective.“.

Of course.  It’s why I suggested sharing with everybody possible.  But businesses have also been known to at least respond to individual consumer complaints so they don’t ’go viral’ as it were.  

Meanwhile, they count on consumer apathy to get away with this stuff.  One malleable customer at a time.

by: CBW

Rexford says: Not true.  If that were the case, some businesses (restaurants) might still be trying to keep black people or other minorities from eating at their lunch counters.

Absolutely true, You can't use the excuse of color but if you tell someone to leave your business and if they don't you can have them trespassed and you just have to say I just want that person gone.  

by: Snapped

User agreements, no matter how cleverly phrased or ham handedly ‘enforced’ do not convey rights of indenture, the levy of usurious fees, or protect from breaking any law of fair trade or misrepresentation or breaking promise made for compensation.

Any clause within found unenforceable can be ignored and still constitute a binding agreement to the remaining clauses.  

By all means speak to your own legal counsel to determine exactly what any given UA can and can not ‘prohibit’ before agreeing to it.

by: Rexford

CBW, did I mention anything about trespassing?   I guarantee you if a black person, or any person for that matter, sits at a lunch counter to have a meal, breaking no laws, and a business owner asks them to leave using the trespassing excuse, there will be a law suit.   A business is open to the public.

The law is the law, it can't be twisted for one's own benefit.  There are plenty of folks doing that these days but mark my word, they will be held accountable.

FACT:  plaintiffs (both consumers and users) have successfully challenged and won lawsuits against user agreements and terms of service. Courts frequently rule against companies when user agreements fail proper contract formation standards, use deceptive design, or contain illegal, unconscionable clauses.

by: CBW

Rexford this isn't the 50s. As I originally stated, you can go after a business if they commit a crime but they can require an arbitration for civil matters if you want to do business with them.
So long as they are upfront and not hiding their arbitration conditions for doing business then they are fine. Your deny someone just because of color is illegal with laws against it so they can't do that.


"FACT:  plaintiffs (both consumers and users) have successfully challenged and won lawsuits against user agreements and terms of service. Courts frequently rule against companies when user agreements fail proper contract formation standards, use deceptive design, or contain illegal, unconscionable clauses."

In those cases those cases the terms and agreements were not met by the company so they failed. All that means is the company didn't properly follow their own rules in those cases but they did not invalidate the terms for everyone else where they were done correctly.
If something was written wrong they just rewrite the terms. Happens all the time.  

by: Rexford

CBW, your knowledge of the law is like fuzzy math.

You are confusing two separate issues: arbitration clauses may sometimes be enforceable for certain civil disputes, but that does not make illegal conduct lawful or remove anti-discrimination obligations. “Upfront” disclosure of an arbitration requirement doesn’t create a legal safe harbor for discrimination, fraud, or other wrongdoing. Arbitration is about where/how a dispute is resolved, not whether the underlying behavior is permitted under civil-rights or other laws.

And your “so long as they’re upfront… they are fine” leap. Even if arbitration is generally allowable, businesses still must comply with substantive laws, and arbitration provisions can themselves be challengeable or limited in how they affect a person’s ability to vindicate rights. The existence of arbitration doesn’t erase the illegality of discrimination—it just changes the forum for disputes.

by: CBW

Rexford
Amazon’s arbitration clause is enforceable only because you voluntarily enter a contract with Amazon before any dispute occurs.  
But that contract does NOT cover public‑accommodation discrimination scenarios like “refusing service because someone is Black,” because Amazon is not a physical public‑facing business denying entry — it’s a membership‑based service contract you choose to enter.

Below is the full breakdown, structured for your legal style.

1. Amazon’s arbitration clause works because you voluntarily enter a contract
When you create an Amazon account or continue using Amazon after updated terms, you enter a binding service contract.

That contract includes:

an arbitration clause

a class‑action waiver

a “continued use = acceptance” provision
This is a real contract, with:

mutual assent (you click “agree” or continue using)

consideration (you get access to Amazon’s platform)

clear terms

So yes — Amazon can require arbitration for disputes arising from your use of Amazon’s services.

This is fundamentally different from a store refusing service at the door.

2. Why Amazon can require arbitration but a physical store cannot
A physical business refusing service because someone is Black is governed by:

Unruh Civil Rights Act

Title II public accommodations

These laws apply before any contract exists.

There is:

no agreement
no consideration

no mutual assent

no contract

Therefore:
Arbitration cannot be forced.

Amazon, however, is not denying physical entry.
You choose to enter a contractual relationship by creating an account.

3. Amazon’s arbitration clause only covers disputes arising from the contract
This is the key legal distinction.

Amazon’s arbitration clause covers:

billing disputes

Prime membership issues

product delivery issues

seller/buyer disputes

platform‑related claims
It does not cover:

civil rights violations in public accommodations

discrimination unrelated to the contract

criminal conduct

anything outside the scope of the service agreement

If Amazon somehow discriminated in a way covered by civil rights statutes (rare, but hypothetically):

the arbitration clause could be challenged

civil rights claims often bypass arbitration

courts scrutinize arbitration clauses that attempt to block statutory civil rights enforcement

4. “Using Amazon means you agree to arbitration” is legally valid — but only for contract‑based disputes
This type of clause is called a clickwrap or browsewrap agreement.

Courts generally uphold it if:

the terms are accessible

the user has reasonable notice
continued use indicates assent

Amazon satisfies these requirements.

But again — this applies only to contractual disputes, not civil rights violations.

5. The rule in plain English
Amazon: You voluntarily enter a contract → arbitration applies.

Physical store refusing service because of race: No contract → arbitration cannot be forced.

Civil rights claims: Often bypass arbitration even when a contract exists.

So Amazon’s clause is enforceable only because you chose to enter a service contract, not because businesses can force arbitration on discrimination victims.

I hope this makes it more clear for you.