Archive for February, 2005

Experian Arbitration Clause

Monday, February 28th, 2005

In the lowdown, dirty trick department, Experian has inserted a Binding Mandatory Arbitration clause in the online agreement that you must accept if you want to buy a copy of your credit report online from experian.com. Here is the text of the clause:

You understand and agree that all claims, disputes or controversies between you and Consumerinfo, and its parents, subsidiaries or related companies, including but not limited to tort and contract claims, claims based upon any federal, state or local statute, law, order, ordinance or regulation, and the issue of arbitrability, shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration at a location determined by the arbitrator. Any controversy concerning whether a dispute is arbitrable shall be determined by the arbitrator and not by the court. Judgment upon any award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered by any state or federal court having jurisdiction thereof. This arbitration contract is made pursuant to a transaction in interstate commerce and its interpretation, application, enforcement and proceedings hereunder shall be governed by the federal arbitration act (“FAA”). Neither you nor we shall be entitled to join or consolidate claims in arbitration by or against other consumers or arbitrate any claim as a representative or member of a class or in a private attorney general capacity. The parties voluntarily and knowingly waive any right they have to a jury trial.

Note that I have converted the clause from all upper case because I want you to be able to read it. This is a very broad clause. Most importantly, it is not limited to disputes relating to your credit report purchase. It appears to apply to any dispute at any time with any entity related to Consumerinfo, apparently the Experian subsidiary that sells credit reports online. I assume that if I were driving past Experian’s facility up in Allen (20 miles north of my office) and was struck by an employee pulling out of their parking lot without looking, they’d argue my personal injury claim was subject to binding mandatory arbitration.

For now, it appears that Experian is the only member of the Big 3 doing this, although if may only be a matter of time before Equifax and Trans Union join in. You can avoid this problem by requesting your report by phone. It also may not be an issue if you request a free or reduced cost credit report available under various state and federal laws.

The irony of all of this is, many people who buy their credit reports online are doing so because they have some problem, which if unresolved by Experian’s dispute resolution procedures, may result in a lawsuit against Experian. How many of these people would imagine that their first step towards protecting themselves from identity theft or an erroneous report would also shut the courthouse door forever?

I wrote about this previously when I first heard that this might be happening, and explained some of the reasons why this is a very bad thing. You can find out about a campaign sponsored by a national coalition of consumer groups to create more awareness about Binding Mandatory Arbitration at givemebackmyrights.com

Yes, It’s a Mess

Monday, February 14th, 2005

If you are visiting the blawg today, you’ll notice that it still looks like crap, despite my promise back in January that things would be cleaned up in a few days. I need to meld the CSS from my main site and the markup that WordPress uses when it generates this page. I’ve been letting that keep me from posting, but no more. I’m just going to post when I feel like it, markup be damned. Hopefully the embarassment of seeing increasing numbers of hits on this page will get me over the hump and back into CSS land.

Jordan Eason and the Bloggers

Monday, February 14th, 2005

I’m certainly just crawling over the edge of the blogging world, but a comment Dave Winer made today made me wonder about unintended consequences. I don’t disagree with Dave’s comment, but underlying the comment seemed to be a belief that increased scrutiny of non-alternative media outlets is always a good thing. I’m not so sure about that. Scrutiny is not always a good thing. Scrutiny increases accountability, but I worry that it decreases creativity and risk-taking. Sometimes new ideas require dark, damp places to germinate. Growth and innovation require a place where mistakes can be made, corrected and learned from. I’m afraid that unbridled scrutiny will dry up those dark, damp places and drive up the price of mistaking-making so much that mistakes become luxuries affordable only to those who truly don’t give a damn.

From what I’ve read about Mr. Eason, he has done some great things for the news business, and if the comments attributed to him are true, he either misspoke or has some unpopular ideas. How bad is either thing? If our scrutiny of mistakes and unpopular ideas makes them career-threatening how much farther have we traveled down the road to conformity and mediocrity?