In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, Eric Wemple explains:
A 2015 investigative series [by the New York Times] documented how such clauses have become increasingly common in many kinds of contracts, leaving consumers at the mercy of an arbitration regime often predisposed against their interests. Subsequent coverage, on both the news and editorial sides, has kept a spotlight on the practice.
Perhaps the Times can extend this focus by writing about the decision by the New York Times Co. to embrace the trend. “We have updated our Terms of Service to add an arbitration clause that covers any disputes relating to our policies, your relationship with us as a subscriber, and your use of our products and service,” noted a December “update” from the Times.
The clause itself makes clear, in all-caps, that “YOUR AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATION MEANS THAT FOR ALL COVERED CLAIMS, YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO FILE A LAWSUIT IN COURT AND THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY.”
The full piece is here.
