skip to main content
Visitante
Meu Espaço
Minha Conta
Sair
Identificação
This feature requires javascript
Tags
Revistas Eletrônicas (eJournals)
Livros Eletrônicos (eBooks)
Bases de Dados
Bibliotecas USP
Ajuda
Ajuda
Idioma:
Inglês
Espanhol
Português
This feature required javascript
This feature requires javascript
Primo Search
Busca Geral
Busca Geral
Acervo Físico
Acervo Físico
Produção Intelectual da USP
Produção USP
Search For:
Clear Search Box
Search in:
Busca Geral
Or hit Enter to replace search target
Or select another collection:
Search in:
Busca Geral
Busca Avançada
Busca por Índices
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Civil rights: 'White v. Square, Inc.'
Harvard Law Review
Harvard law review, 2020-04, Vol.133 (6), p.2212-2219
[Periódico revisado por pares]
Texto completo disponível
Citações
Citado por
Exibir Online
Detalhes
Resenhas & Tags
Mais Opções
Nº de Citações
This feature requires javascript
Enviar para
Adicionar ao Meu Espaço
Remover do Meu Espaço
E-mail (máximo 30 registros por vez)
Imprimir
Link permanente
Referência
EasyBib
EndNote
RefWorks
del.icio.us
Exportar RIS
Exportar BibTeX
This feature requires javascript
Título:
Civil rights: 'White v. Square, Inc.'
Autor:
Harvard Law Review
Assuntos:
ARBITRATION
;
Arbitration agreements, Commercial
;
CIVIL LIBERTIES
;
Civil rights
;
CONSUMER PROTECTION
;
Court decisions and opinions
;
Law and legislation
É parte de:
Harvard law review, 2020-04, Vol.133 (6), p.2212-2219
Notas:
AGIS_c.jpg
Informit, Melbourne (Vic)
HARVARD LAW REVIEW, Vol. 133, No. 6, Apr 2020: 2212-2219
2020-06-10T02:48:38+10:00
HARVARD LAW REVIEW, Vol. 133, No. 6, Apr 2020, 2212-2219
Descrição:
Over the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions on the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) have increasingly favored mandatory arbitration clauses. This shift has concerned consumer protection groups, as predispute arbitration clauses deny access to important procedural rights, such as the right to an open forum. Because the Court has rejected direct attempts to disfavor arbitration agreements relative to other contracts, state courts and legislatures have looked to alternative methods of expanding access to judicial forums for consumer protection claims. Recently, in the facially unrelated case of 'White v. Square, Inc.', the California Supreme Court held that plaintiffs have standing to bring claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) against online service providers without entering into an agreement if the plaintiff intends to use the website's services but is deterred by discriminatory terms of service. Although the White decision was focused on standing under the Unruh Act, it continued a trend across state courts and legislatures of expanding consumer remedies while evading increasingly pervasive arbitration clauses in businesses' adhesion contracts. Nonetheless, whether White will truly expand access to courts for those who have signed arbitration agreements will depend heavily on further legal developments.
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Voltar para lista de resultados
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.
Buscando por
em
scope:(USP_VIDEOS),scope:("PRIMO"),scope:(USP_FISICO),scope:(USP_EREVISTAS),scope:(USP),scope:(USP_EBOOKS),scope:(USP_PRODUCAO),primo_central_multiple_fe
Mostrar o que foi encontrado até o momento
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript