- Highlight
- #1
Patreon just sent out an email stating that they are removing the forced arbitration clause from the Dispute Resolution section that mandated that any legal disputes had to be handled through arbitration instead of the courts.
This comes after Owen Benjamin (Note: Not Carl Benjamin) famously got 72 of his followers to force Patreon into arbitration after they suspended him from their platform, citing tortious interference with a business relationship. Per Patreon's TOS at the time, disputes couldn't be handled in court, and instead each case had to be administered by JAMS. JAMS Streamline Arbitration Rules and Procedures states that when forced in arbitration, the company pays the fees ahead of time - which can be upwards of $10,000 per case.
Benjamin's movement therefore put a cash burden of three quarters of a million dollar's on Patreon's plate without even saying a single word. Patreon then motioned that the duty to pay fees ahead of time be waved, and a judge more or less said "Get fucked. You're the one who wanted to force them into arbitration. You're going to play by the rules and pay for the arbitration".
It looks like Patreon has been forced to kneel and has now removed the forced arbitration clause from its TOS. Now the TOS states that any dispute will be remedied in either Federal or State Courts in San Francisco CA. This is both good and bad for the average consumer because, on one hand, we can't just get Patreon to come up with $1,000,000 cash by having 100 people file 100 different claims; however, on the other hand, now class action and federal suits can be brought against them which can significantly increase Patreon's legal fees and liabilities. I would be really interested in hearing any Legal Kiwi's opinion on what this means.
I wonder how this will impact Californians interested in Arbitration and Law
This comes after Owen Benjamin (Note: Not Carl Benjamin) famously got 72 of his followers to force Patreon into arbitration after they suspended him from their platform, citing tortious interference with a business relationship. Per Patreon's TOS at the time, disputes couldn't be handled in court, and instead each case had to be administered by JAMS. JAMS Streamline Arbitration Rules and Procedures states that when forced in arbitration, the company pays the fees ahead of time - which can be upwards of $10,000 per case.
Benjamin's movement therefore put a cash burden of three quarters of a million dollar's on Patreon's plate without even saying a single word. Patreon then motioned that the duty to pay fees ahead of time be waved, and a judge more or less said "Get fucked. You're the one who wanted to force them into arbitration. You're going to play by the rules and pay for the arbitration".
It looks like Patreon has been forced to kneel and has now removed the forced arbitration clause from its TOS. Now the TOS states that any dispute will be remedied in either Federal or State Courts in San Francisco CA. This is both good and bad for the average consumer because, on one hand, we can't just get Patreon to come up with $1,000,000 cash by having 100 people file 100 different claims; however, on the other hand, now class action and federal suits can be brought against them which can significantly increase Patreon's legal fees and liabilities. I would be really interested in hearing any Legal Kiwi's opinion on what this means.
I wonder how this will impact Californians interested in Arbitration and Law
We encourage you to contact us if you have an issue. If a dispute does arise out of these terms or related to your use of Patreon, and it cannot be resolved after you talk with us, then it must be resolved by arbitration. This arbitration must be administered by JAMS under the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures, except as expressly provided below. Judgment on the arbitration may be entered in any court with jurisdiction. Arbitrations may only take place on an individual basis. No class arbitrations or other other grouping of parties is allowed. By agreeing to these terms you are waiving your right to trial by jury or to participate in a class action or representative proceeding; we are also waiving these rights.
For creators and patrons who are consumers, we also follow the JAMS Policy on Consumer Arbitrations Pursuant to Pre-Dispute Clauses Minimum Standards of Procedural Fairness for consumer arbitrations done under these terms. For the purpose of an arbitration subject to the consumer standards, if any portion of these terms do not follow that standard, that portion is severed from these terms.
This clause does not limit either party’s ability to file an action in a court with jurisdiction to seek injunctive or other equitable relief for disputes relating to intellectual property, proprietary data or to enforce this dispute resolution clause, including your agreement not to assert claims related to the suspension or termination of another person’s account. In any such action, the court rather than an arbitrator must decide whether such a claim is arbitrable and must decide whether the party is entitled to the requested injunctive or other equitable relief.
For creators and patrons who are consumers, we also follow the JAMS Policy on Consumer Arbitrations Pursuant to Pre-Dispute Clauses Minimum Standards of Procedural Fairness for consumer arbitrations done under these terms. For the purpose of an arbitration subject to the consumer standards, if any portion of these terms do not follow that standard, that portion is severed from these terms.
This clause does not limit either party’s ability to file an action in a court with jurisdiction to seek injunctive or other equitable relief for disputes relating to intellectual property, proprietary data or to enforce this dispute resolution clause, including your agreement not to assert claims related to the suspension or termination of another person’s account. In any such action, the court rather than an arbitrator must decide whether such a claim is arbitrable and must decide whether the party is entitled to the requested injunctive or other equitable relief.
We encourage you to contact us if you have an issue. If a dispute does arise out of these terms or in relation to your use of Patreon, then the dispute will be resolved in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco, California. Both parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the San Francisco courts for the purpose of resolving any such dispute.
California law, excluding its conflict of law provisions, governs these terms, all other Patreon policies, and any dispute that arises between you and Patreon.
California law, excluding its conflict of law provisions, governs these terms, all other Patreon policies, and any dispute that arises between you and Patreon.
Last edited:
