It doesn't matter what the rules say-- these companies have legal departments better funded than those of states. They can just tie you up in expensive litigation for the rest of their life. They're largely immune to oversight by the courts as a result, which is presumably a part of why they behave this way.
These companies know very well these independent groups, even if it's on their legal bounds, can't afford a legal defense team and actively exploit that to abuse them away.
They have deep pockets - all they have to do is grind them down, and they win by default. What’s legal or not is practically irrelevant when you’re dealing with individuals vs a corporation.
There is an exception to that where the playing field is so uneven that a small entity would be bankrupted just by trying to get to a legal result in their favour. I don't mean to suggest that applies here, though.
Large corporations are going to play by the rules just because in general it's cheaper than risking going to court eventually over not following them. Sure some small fries who borderline should be paying you may not, but in the grand scheme that won't be losing you a ton of money compared to the big fish who will pay.
These companies are backed by VC money, they can just drag out any court cases for years or decades until they have managed to buy themselves legal immunity. We saw it with Uber, Lyft, AirBNB, etc.
It's pretty obvious the government doesn't like to tangle with big companies unless its necessary. Large corporate legal teams can drag out a fight for several years, earning the ire of state senators voting constituents, and having a negative effect on their re-election possibilities.
I think this may be the case of "too big too fail", that is law does not apply to large companies because they can easily wiggle their way out of anything by pouring money at lawyers or they can stop supporting political party or individual politicians if they won't get their way.
It doesn't matter if the nonsense provisions are ultimately enforceable, so long as they're credible enough to be litigated. The courts provide a battlefield where the army of company lawyers will fight you in a lopsided war of attrition that ends with your financial ruin. Might makes right.
It is already difficult to sue large corporations in general: In other words, there is no change. People already decide not to sue many companies so they aren't financially ruined.
Obviously, the discretion of the courts hasn't been consistent nor has it always been fair. Hence, rules.
The first rule is too easily exploitable. Defensively engage in litigation between a pair of complicit entities that consumes the entire litigation budget, and then go around screwing everyone you can over while going "nah nah nah, you can't sue me"
Even the largest companies are dependent on maintaining their reputations as organizations which uphold their ends of any agreements. A company which no one will contract with might as well not exist. They're not going to just turn outlaw and repudiate their liability as determined by a fair arbitration process; that would be tantamount to corporate suicide.
reply