zlacker

>>heshie+(OP)
"Even if I believe that what I'm doing is morally correct and legally protected, legal processes still have a financial cost. I can't afford to take on that financial risk for something that I do in my spare time to help others." - this is very logical and exactly what I would have done but it still makes me very sad that this is the way the world works right now :(

>>jonoc+G9
The process is the punishment. Average Joe cannot go toe-to-toe in the legal system as it stands right now. The one with the most money nearly always wins, and - as in this case - the threat of financially ruinous litigation is enough.

>>all2+vb
> Average Joe cannot go toe-to-toe in the legal system

This is sort of the point of arbitration.

>>JumpCr+Lc
If the arbiter is publicly funded and therefore without bias, sure. In the UK that is ACAS. If the business you have a problem with is paying for its own arbitration service then you are automatically on the back foot.

>>ljm+zg
The problem is more firms having a voice in selecting the arbitrator than them paying for it [1]. TL; DR If you're going into arbitration, don't be passive about the selection process.

[1] https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/19-046_6706ef32-...