ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, May 11, 2019

Uber settles arbitration claims

This settlement of a series of arbitrations might prove educational for some readers here:
Uber Settles ‘Majority’ of Arbitrations for at Least $146M

Total settlements are between $146 million and $170 million A “large majority” of the more than 60,000 Uber Inc. drivers filing arbitration claims for employment misclassification will receive settlement payments as part of agreements reached by the company, Uber said in a regulatory filing May 9.
12,501 arbitration claims filed out of a potential 60,000. The filing fees alone could have cost Uber $75 million. Since the arbitrators can get paid as much as $9k a day, well, it's not exactly hard to figure out why Uber quickly decided to settle for 2x the amount of the filing fees.

Interestingly enough, Uber initially tried to avoid paying the filing fees for the very process they contractually required. Check out this article from December 2018.
Uber fought as hard as any company in America in the past few years to assure the enforceability of its contractual arbitration provisions. When drivers who had signed contracts with Uber attempted to sue the company for wage and hour violations, Uber and its lawyers at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher won key rulings from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that effectively ended the drivers’ quest to litigate their claims in court – or even to arbitrate their claims as a class. For Uber drivers, the only way to go after the company for alleged state and federal employment law violations was to file an independent arbitration claim.

Amazingly, thousands of Uber drivers did just that. Between August and November of this year, about 12,500 drivers, many of whom had been class members in cases in which Uber successfully moved to compel arbitration, served individual arbitration demands on Uber, claiming the company failed to pay them the federally-mandated minimum wage and failed to pay overtime wages. These thousands of drivers filed their arbitration demands at JAMS, as mandated in Uber’s contracts.

But nothing has happened in almost all of the drivers’ cases. Of the 12,500 arbitration demands filed by Uber drivers, the company has paid the requisite JAMS initial filing fee in just 296 cases, according to a newly filed petition by drivers seeking to compel Uber to pay the fees JAMS requires to launch arbitration. So far, arbitrators have been appointed in only 47 of the cases drivers have brought against Uber – and Uber has paid the arbitrator’s nonrefundable $1,500 retainer fee in a mere six cases.
In other words, Uber caved after paying out $67,750, then doing the relevant math and realizing that they were already on the hook for an absolute minimum $34,375,000, which would almost certainly have exploded into at least $318 million even if every single arbitration was kept to three days or less... not including legal fees.

More interesting information, courtesy of an exhibit that quotes the JAMS general counsel and explicitly points out that corporations can't avoid playing by the rules they impose on their employees and users.
In a Jan. 23 notice to Uber and the drivers, JAMS general counsel and national arbitration committee cochair Sheri Eisner noted Uber’s request that JAMS review the role of the drivers’ firm Keller Lenkner in a consolidated proceeding, before Uber is required to pay initiation fees in all of the cases.

Eisner said that’s not how JAMS procedures work. “While it is not our preference to force the parties to litigate these issues seriatim, our policies and procedures, absent party agreement otherwise, require that we collect a filing fee in each case to be pursued,” she wrote. “Further, the parties’ arbitration agreement appears to clearly prohibit collective determination of any issue absent party agreement … Therefore, absent party agreement otherwise, JAMS must proceed in the normal course, following receipt of filing fees by commencing and appointing an arbitrator to each case.”

As Eisner said in the notice, JAMS had put a hold on arbitration demands for about 8,500 drivers in California while a single arbitration weighed Uber’s opposition to the post hoc vice admission of Keller Lenkner in 40 cases in which Uber has already paid initiation fees. The hearing officer, according to the JAMS notice, has determined that his decision on the pro hac vice application will apply only in the 40 cases before him, not across all of the 8,500 arbitration demands. The JAMS GC said that the hold on thousands of other California arbitrations is now lifted.

Eisner’s notice ended with language that’s extremely important for the future of mass arbitration. “JAMS is mindful of the significant resources (both in time and expense) expended by all parties and counsel in determining the best path forward to resolve these matters in multiple jurisdictions,” she wrote. “JAMS strongly encourages the parties to consider engaging a third party (whether a mediator, arbitrator or administrative representative) to assist the parties in addressing the variety of process issues presented by numerous cases proceeding in multiple jurisdictions.”

JAMS, in other words, isn’t going to help Uber out of the jam it’s facing as a result of imposing mandatory individual arbitration agreements on its drivers. Based on Eisner’s notice, Uber can’t rely on a consolidated JAMS proceeding to decide even recurring threshold issues, such as whether the drivers can rely on the law firm that filed their arbitration demands. For Uber – and any future mass arbitration defendant - hoping to cut the cost of litigating thousands of individual arbitrations by resolving across-the-board concerns in one proceeding, the JAMS letter makes it clear that the arbitration service isn’t going to bend its rules and overlook contract language to allow that.
The lesson, as always, is this: even if you write the contract and stack everything in your favor, you'd better not break it with thousands of people or you're going to pay a lot of money for the privilege.


Labels: ,

55 Comments:

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 May 11, 2019 12:01 PM  

Interesting. Didn't Uber go public yesterday as well?

Blogger VD May 11, 2019 12:04 PM  

That's the only reason we know about it. The arbitration settlement was disclosed as part of its required filings. If it had stayed private, we still wouldn't know about it.

Blogger liberranter May 11, 2019 12:19 PM  

AFAIK, Uber is still hemorrhaging money and isn't even close to breaking even, let alone being profitable. This settlement must be agonizing to their balance sheet.

Blogger Theproductofafineeduction May 11, 2019 12:31 PM  

It almost seems like this news release is an act of provedence given that Vox announced his desire for YouTube to make their move against him

Blogger David Ray Milton May 11, 2019 12:42 PM  

The question is if Chateau has enough loyal fans who will front the $250 and go through the filing process to really cause some damage.

Just as significant though, (and I know Uber’s IPO went terrible yesterday) but Uber probably had the liquid to cover those settlements without too much damage to the company. If they have to pay drivers as hourly laborers, then they’ll just be another cab company in the future. But Wordpress? I doubt Wordpress ever got valued at $50 Billion and had the type of cash flow that Uber had. If Chateau can rally enough radicals, they could probably ruin Wordpress.

This is not my area of expertise at all. I’m just speculating.

Blogger sammibandit May 11, 2019 12:42 PM  

Thanks SDL! Some great breadcrumbs in the articles. Bless you and yours.

Blogger NO GOOGLES May 11, 2019 12:44 PM  

It amazes me the lengths that some of these companies will go to just to screw people. Uber hired these people as contractors, forced them to sign arbitration agreements (that Uber defined the contract for), and after thousands of drivers lose their chance to file in superior court they file individually for arbitration and Uber is STILL trying to shirk the very responsibilities it went to great lengths to define.

I get that it is just business but if your business model relies on screwing your "employees" (actually contractors) and you're STILL not making money maybe you need to rethink your whole enterprise.

Blogger VD May 11, 2019 12:44 PM  

You're banned, DraveckysHumerus. Demoralizers are not tolerated here and this is your second offense today.

Blogger VD May 11, 2019 12:46 PM  

Wordpress has annual revenue of $137 million. They can afford it. Indiegogo has annual revenue of ~$10 million.

Blogger pyrrhus May 11, 2019 12:50 PM  

Beautiful...Making these corporate criminals abide by their own arbitration language (which was written under the theory that individuals never arbitrate, apparently) has unleashed those dreaded unforeseen consequences.

Blogger pyrrhus May 11, 2019 12:51 PM  

Now it seems likely that some of the other 48000 drivers might file arbitration claims as well, doesn't it....

Blogger David Ray Milton May 11, 2019 12:57 PM  

Oh, I see. Rest in pieces Indiegogo.

Blogger Great White May 11, 2019 1:04 PM  

JAMS, eh? What a small, small world. Many thanks for digging that and the fine print up.

Blogger James Dixon May 11, 2019 1:08 PM  

> Now it seems likely that some of the other 48000 drivers might file arbitration claims as well, doesn't it....

It's possible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayFZvxbxWMQ

Blogger Jack Ward May 11, 2019 1:21 PM  

Demoralizers are not tolerated here and this is your second offense today.
Can someone define for me just what a 'demoralizer' is and how that gets one banned?

Blogger Dave May 11, 2019 1:33 PM  

Also drivers are beginning to organize and hold strikes, however, the impact to date has been minimal.

Blogger dh May 11, 2019 1:39 PM  

This is exactly right - anytime I find a company I do business with has a newly minted arbitration agreemnnt in place, I take note that I can make them do whatever I want for up to about $1000. I had a contract with Sprint for server for 4 phone lines, the service was terrible, and they wanted a lot of money to break the the term agreement. Customer service was unhelpful.

They had a mandatory arbitration clause, which I filed for. Two days later a paralegal was buying my phones back from me for retail and ending the contract with no stipulations except that I withdraw the request.

These big companies are so afraid of class action suits that they will compel themselves to pay huge sums under poorly thought legal theories of binding arbitration.

Another company I tangled with basically allowed me to have a phone hearing or an in-person at my election. I requested that we have the hearing while I was planning on being in Japan for work for a few weeks. The incredulity they had when I requested my hearing to be in person in Osaka was worth the price of the $250 initial filing fee I had to pay (which I recouped).

Like with liberals, always make them live up to their own ideals.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 11, 2019 1:39 PM  

David Ray Milton wrote:The question is if Chateau has enough loyal fans who will front the $250 and go through the filing process to really cause some damage.

I was a regular reader at the Chateau and have $250. Where do I send the money, and what tort do I allege?

Blogger Dave May 11, 2019 1:39 PM  

Of the 12,500 arbitration demands filed by Uber drivers, the company has paid the requisite JAMS initial filing fee in just 296 cases, according to a newly filed petition by drivers seeking to compel Uber to pay the fees JAMS requires to launch arbitration.

This is sure to become a common tactic used in these mass arbitration cases; not paying the initial filing fee until compelled to do so, if ever.

Blogger Wraithburn May 11, 2019 1:42 PM  

This reminds me of an off hand comment on this blog a few years ago. Someone mentioned how they had a dispute with being paid as a contractor so they went to a lawyer. He suggested they go to the local mall, get as many cheap guys as they could, then start proceedings.

The much more expensive corporate lawyers tried to match number of bodies in the room. So he went back and hired more from the mall. Soon he was hiring friends of the mall men. And each time they sat down for the next bit of work, the small mob on each side had grown and the fees were rapidly racking up.

The company decided to settle and pay all the lawyer fees and his back pay rather than continue on to court, lose, and still have to pay everything.

Blogger VD May 11, 2019 1:50 PM  

Can someone define for me just what a 'demoralizer' is and how that gets one banned?

Attempting to blackpill or otherwise remove hope from one's fellow commenters. I let them know they've been banned and the moderators subsequently spam their comments.

This is sure to become a common tactic used in these mass arbitration cases; not paying the initial filing fee until compelled to do so, if ever.

Don't be ridiculous. Both Chipotle and Uber already tried that. Both got spanked, hard, in US District Courts in California and Colorado. All that tactic will do is drive up the corporation's expenses while postponing the inevitable.

Blogger Mike May 11, 2019 2:04 PM  

I happen to know that Uber has many drivers who are illegals working for them. I also happen to know that legal drivers “sell” or “give” their driver profile (for a percent of the fares” to illegals. If I know this, surely Uber has actual, constructive, or implied knowledge.

Blogger Jack Ward May 11, 2019 2:06 PM  

@21 VD
Attempting to blackpill or otherwise remove hope from one's fellow commenters. I let them know they've been banned and the moderators subsequently spam their comments.
Thanks:
An aside: It's hard for me to imagine most if any of the regulars here having their 'hope' dashed by a 'demoralizer.' If anything the effort, by demoralizer, is just amusing; almost popcorn amusing.

Blogger Steb May 11, 2019 2:06 PM  

Given how important the tech sector is for California, can we expect them to start rebalancing these laws in the companies' favour?

It's to late for Indigogo, but other companies looking at stories like these must be looking at their options for incorporating somewhere else.
Although maybe the critical mass of industry there makes moving impossible.

Blogger sammibandit May 11, 2019 2:21 PM  

OT

@dh, congrats! If I may ask did you contact a lawyer to help you file?

Blogger VD May 11, 2019 2:35 PM  

Given how important the tech sector is for California, can we expect them to start rebalancing these laws in the companies' favour?

No. In fact, the laws are moving more in the consumer/employee favor. Remember, the left-wing vote hates corporations and the politicians need it in order to win the Democratic primaries that are the real elections there.

Blogger NO GOOGLES May 11, 2019 2:35 PM  

@17
I worked doing legal research for a large automaker for years and you're not wrong. In 99% of cases if the cost to take the case to arbitration (or court) is potentially larger than just settling before hand then these corporations will settle - regardless of the facts of the case. The 1% is basically only really egregious cases or repeat offenders that are trying to game the system.

The only problem with this is if you are required to do arbitration with the BBB. The BBB is relatively cheap and the BBB actively tries to have complainants settle before arbitration. In those cases it doesn't cost much to have a BBB case until it actually goes to an arbitration hearing - then it costs about $1000 (keep in mind this was several years ago, might have changed since then).

For a lot of businesses that have these arbitration clauses most of the cases make no sense to take to arbitration - it's cheaper just to cave regardless of the actual facts of the case. It's silly because these businesses put arbitration clauses into their contracts because they thought it would save them money on lawyers but in a lot of cases (automakers are one of the rare exceptions because of how state lemon laws work) it would be cheaper not to. Most bad faith filings can be remedied with summary judgment and most consumers aren't going to find a lawyer to work on contingency (and aren't willing to pay lawyer up front) for all but the most ironclad cases with decent stakes.

Blogger Dave May 11, 2019 2:41 PM  

VD wrote:This is sure to become a common tactic used in these mass arbitration cases; not paying the initial filing fee until compelled to do so, if ever.

Don't be ridiculous. Both Chipotle and Uber already tried that. Both got spanked, hard, in US District Courts in California and Colorado. All that tactic will do is drive up the corporation's expenses while postponing the inevitable.


Are you referring to this ruling:

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-federal-court-enforces-arbitration-provision-uber-agreements

From OP link to Bloomberg Law article; Cole Williams, lawyer for Chipotle class action agrees with you:

The feet-dragging is a terrible strategy, Cole said.

“I don’t get how that’s going to work because I’m an arbitrator and if somebody isn’t going to respond, I’m going to order default judgment against them at some point,” she said.


Question: if the corporation never pays the initial filing fees can the arbitrator eventually award a default judgement against them? That would appear to give them incentive to act sooner or later.


Additional background: https://www.fisherphillips.com/gig-employer/see-saw-world-of-ubers-arbitration-agreement

Blogger VD May 11, 2019 2:46 PM  

Question: if the corporation never pays the initial filing fees can the arbitrator eventually award a default judgement against them?

Yes. Alternatively, the claimant can pay the initial filing fee to get the process rolling, and the delay involved in not responding will preclude the respondent from responding or offering any affirmative defenses.

Blogger David Ray Milton May 11, 2019 2:47 PM  

@Ominous Cowherd

Here’s a start:

https://www.jamsadr.com/about/submit-a-case

Not familiar with the process, at all. But if it’s like anything requiring paperwork, I would imagine it will take a lot of patience and persistence.

Blogger Matt May 11, 2019 2:52 PM  

I hate rideshare companies. I dont know what it's like in other cities, but in NYC, its 90% Indians/Middle Eastern who stink to high havens, dont know where they are, can barely drive, and they absolutely flood the streets and highways. They're everywhere. Most cars you see are car service vehicles. And they refuse to go over the speed limit, unlike yellow cabs and normal car service drivers. Uber and Lyft make sure they drive under or at the limit, I guess. The only upside is they can sometimes be cheaper , and you dont have to dig for your wallet. And you see how far away they are on your phone.

Blogger Balam May 11, 2019 3:04 PM  

Wow! For only $250 I can send a heat seeking fire-and-forget missile at practically any corporation. Corporate sabotage has never been cheaper. I don't even need any fancy legal knowledge, their own arbitrators will handle that.

Blogger David Ray Milton May 11, 2019 3:44 PM  

@balam

It seems like you may have misunderstood. $250 is the filing charge for Jams claims with Wordpress. Specific company. Specific contract.

This would not apply at all to different companies with different contracts, especially if they do not have mandatory arbitration. If they don’t, you have to file a suit through the US legal system and have your own legal team ($$$).

Blogger sammibandit May 11, 2019 3:47 PM  

Thanks!

Blogger dh May 11, 2019 3:50 PM  

> @dh, congrats! If I may ask did you contact a lawyer to help you file?

No absolutely not. It's great because there are no nits-to-pick. It's actually very consumer friendly in that it's just plain English complaints, with a simple form, and you have a decent chance.

With Sprint, my claim was just "I was promised service, I can't make a phone call for hours at at time, this isn't cell phone service". They didn't want any part of fighting it. Not small money. The filing fee they'd have to pay alone was more than the entire cost of what I was asking for. Even if they use in-house counsel or paralegals, by the time we have a few hours of work into it, plus the AAA fees, it wasn't even close to worth it for them, and we both knew it.

Honestly, if you have any dispute at all, work it with customer service as far as you can, build a reasonable case, and roll the dice on arbitration. In most agreements, you literally can't lose. In California, as Vox points out, you literally have nothing to lose.

Blogger James Dixon May 11, 2019 4:10 PM  

> And you see how far away they are on your phone.

That would be fairly simple for any cab company to implement. They could also set up their app to hail a cab and prepay an agreed upon fee with your credit card. There's no reason they can't compete with Uber and Lyft on that front.

Blogger Gregory the Great May 11, 2019 4:41 PM  

The question when you demand arbitration is also: What kind of damages could people claim when their favourite blogger or youtuber gets deplatformed:
- emotional distress
- relapse of alcoholism and/or porn addiction
- violation of the right to access information freely
- got so angry, I kicked the wall and broke my foot
- depression caused by loss of many good friends on the blog that are hard to find otherwise
- hardship as the online equivalent of a cable TV access was taken away from the person
I do not know much about US law, so I am asking: how would an ambulance chaser phrase a request for arbitration in a deplatforming case?

Hopefully we will soon see the birth of the SDPLC (Save the De-Platformed Law Center), then I could go to them with this question. The "SDPLC" would probably break even after a few weeks just focussing on arbitration.

Blogger pyrrhus May 11, 2019 4:45 PM  

I've been both an arbitrator, on numerous occasions, and an attorney (corporate) representing the defendant....a tactic I have used if there is an unsupportable award for plaintiff is to offer a reasonable settlement, and if they don't like that, feel free to file in Federal court to enforce the award...They generally take the settlement...The threat of long delay and high legal expenses works both ways...

Blogger pyrrhus May 11, 2019 4:47 PM  

My tactic would not make sense, of course with respect to relatively small awards....

Blogger pyrrhus May 11, 2019 4:49 PM  

My question with respect to WordPress is whether readers of CH would have standing to file a claim...If so, I would file in a minute..

Blogger Alfred of Wessex May 11, 2019 5:03 PM  

@18 I'm not sure that readers of CH would have standing to sue or demand arbitration. The Wordpress contract is between CH and Wordpress, not between Wordpress and their readers. So every blog owner that gets banned by Wordpress for politica wrongthink gets to file for arbitration, but the readers.

On the other hand, maybe that's a problem that could be fixed? There are employee-owned businesses where the employees also own a share of the business. Condo owners also own a share of the public space in their condo communities. It would take some lawyer legal work, but why couldn't a blog be a type of member-owned organization, for the specific purpose of giving legal standing to each and every commenter? Of if Unauthorized was structured in a way that paying the subscription fee also made one a member of the group with the power to file for arbitration? I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know.

But I know Vox is right that these companies don't have the money to fight thousands of legal actions. I think going forward we should see ways to amplify their risk.

Blogger Jack Amok May 11, 2019 5:04 PM  

I hate rideshare companies. I dont know what it's like in other cities, but in NYC, its 90% Indians/Middle Eastern who stink to high havens

So, not quite as many Indians/MEs' than the average taxi company.

I'm sure the people running Uber and Lyft are cultural enemies and I don't weep for them, but the service they offer is far superior to every cab company I've ever used. The idea is great.

Blogger Daniel May 11, 2019 6:35 PM  

@31 Matt

>>And they refuse to go over the speed limit, unlike yellow cabs and normal car service drivers. Uber and Lyft make sure they drive under or at the limit, I guess.

Umm. That's a feature, not a bug.

Blogger sammibandit May 11, 2019 7:14 PM  

@dh

Thank you. Also to everyone here and SDL. Just great.

Blogger LAZ May 11, 2019 7:56 PM  

"And they refuse to go over the speed limit, unlike yellow cabs and normal car service drivers. Uber and Lyft make sure they drive under or at the limit, I guess."

You can set the app to alert you if you go 5, 10 or 15mph over the speed limit.

Blogger Matt May 11, 2019 8:25 PM  

If my cab driver doesnt drive like me, I have no use for him.

Blogger The Depolrable Podunk Ken Ramsey May 11, 2019 10:13 PM  

I used to drive for Uber and Lyft back when the rideshare thing got hot. The best rideshare company was called SideCar, and they were first ones out of the box in a big way with this concept, too. They had a very sweet system for drivers. Drivers could set up which areas of the city they were willing to service, and also set up which RATE they were willing to drive for.

Users requesting rides then simply agreed upon this or that driver and this or that rate. That's how driver-friendly the space can be, and market-based, too.

Uber was always the worst, totally against this. They went out and secured $40 billion in venture capital from their Silicon Valley friends right off the bat. That's more than the capitalization of Hertz Rent-A-Car, which has capital invested all over the place in the form of actual automobiles that they paid for. That is CRAZY. None of these rideshare companies have much capital invested beyond a cell phone app. And none of their apps to this day beat SideCar, but the folks at SideCar did not have the venture capital buddies in Silicon Valley so they lost hard and they are out of business.

Uber and Lyft made sure that happened. They both took their big "angel investor" money-bombs and embarked on a brutal price war to capture market share. They intentionally lost billions and billions of dollars, each of them, to create this space that they are in today.

My God it hurt as a driver. Once I could make $1,000+ a week easy, on the side. Very rapidly they blew all that down to a minimum wage level job. And they set up schemes to help drivers buy new cars, new cell phones, and so forth that were just terrible con-jobs. Drivers who were foolish enough to take them up on their offerings faced bills of $200+ per week. Easy.

They both hooked millions of drivers to either front their own capital or borrow on horrible terms (on which they booked profits) to be able to ... ANSWER A PING ON THEIR STUPID APP. THEN FOLLOW DIRECTIONS FROM GOOGLE MAPS (for which they paid NOTHING).

It really was a con-job for the ages.

Blogger Jack Amok May 11, 2019 10:53 PM  

If my cab driver doesnt drive like me, I have no use for him.

You take a cab in your own home town?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 11, 2019 10:58 PM  

David Ray Milton wrote:Here’s a start:

https://www.jamsadr.com/about/submit-a-case


OK, thanks.

What do I claim? Do I just have to say I'm not happy, or do I need to point out some specific breach of their agreement with me? Or, do I have standing to ask for arbitration over their breach of their agreement with Heartist?

Blogger RedJack May 11, 2019 10:58 PM  

Uber has been ignoring the law for Taxis for a long time, it doesn't surprise me that they thought they could do so for their own contracts.

What is interesting to me is that it didn't work. I suspect Uber's day in the sun is drawing to a close.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 11, 2019 11:07 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:My question with respect to WordPress is whether readers of CH would have standing to file a claim...If so, I would file in a minute..

I'm trying to figure out how they have breached their agreement with me. I'm pretty sure they never promised that any specific blog would continue to be available.

I may have to start a blog ...

Blogger Roddie Piper May 11, 2019 11:10 PM  

If the costs of complying with US law make ride-sharing services like Uber infeasible, you could set up a server outside US jurisdiction that connects passengers to drivers. Drivers would pay a small membership fee while passengers would pay drivers in cash. It would be hard to vet drivers, but Uber and Lyft aren't very good at that either.

I never figured out why websites of dubious legality like Backpage are always hosted in the USA or its vassal states.

Blogger David Ray Milton May 11, 2019 11:37 PM  

@ominous cowherd

No idea. There’s is some interesting discussion above regarding the matter.

If it were me, I would tell JAMS that as a customer of one of WP’s blogs, that I felt discriminated against because my favorite blogger could not express his views on their platform.

I would utilize two simple tactics:

1. Harass JAMS with correspondence until they either act or block my number/email. Remember the parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8).
2. Use some variant of the word “discriminate” at least 10 times in any form of correspondence/conversation with JAMS.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 12, 2019 1:35 AM  

David Ray Milton wrote:If it were me, I would tell JAMS that as a customer of one of WP’s blogs, that I felt discriminated against because my favorite blogger could not express his views on their platform.

I'll sleep, and pray, on this one. It might work.

Blogger Paul M May 12, 2019 2:32 AM  

Here in Oz, Uber was declared to be an illegal, unregistered taxi service. Because that's exactly what it is. Since then, the laws have been updated and adjusted. "Ridesharing" is a thing that the law now recognises. But let's understand that Uber's comfort with illegality goes right back to the very inception, the very idea of the company.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts