those who “use” New York Times products and applications — mainly subscribers, that is. A look at previous legal complaints against the Times provides a glimpse at the sorts of court fights that the Times is looking to avoid. In June 2020, a California subscriber brought a class action against the company citing an alleged Times practice of collecting charges for automatic subscription renewals without first obtaining “affirmative consent.
, the Times Co. assesses that pending legal actions against the company are not “likely to have a material effect on the Company’s financial position.”The Erik Wemple Blog asked the Times what cases prompted its arbitration clause, as well as what sorts of future cases it’s looking to avoid. The newspaper issued this statement: “We’ve updated our terms of service to add an arbitration clause that covers disputes relating to the use of our products and services.
The company’s statement didn’t respond to another question we posed, about how the arbitration clause jibes with the paper’s history of critical coverage regarding this corporate legal maneuver. “I think it’s incredibly hypocritical for the Times to have a forced arbitration clause for its readers,” says F. Paul Bland Jr.,.
The New York Times, which has reported on the evils of companies requiring customers to submit to arbitration in case of a dispute, adds today a mandatory arbitration clause requiring its subscribers to submit to arbitration.
대한민국 최근 뉴스, 대한민국 헤드 라인
Similar News:다른 뉴스 소스에서 수집한 이와 유사한 뉴스 기사를 읽을 수도 있습니다.
출처: verge - 🏆 94. / 67 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »
출처: wttw - 🏆 520. / 51 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »
출처: ABC7Chicago - 🏆 284. / 63 더 많은 것을 읽으십시오 »