Hoover streamline floor cleaners are designed to die; liquid flows over electrical contacts

AI Transcript

Hey, everybody. How's it going? Hope you're having a lovely day.

In the United States, we used to have something called the Bill of Rights and the amendments to the United States Constitution. One of them, the Seventh Amendment, goes as follows:

In suits of common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, then according to the rules of common law.

A.K.A. if somebody fucks you, you have the right to take them to court in order to demand restitution. Did they break the law? Did they do something wrong? If they did break the law and do something wrong, you could hold them accountable and responsible for their actions, whether they are an individual or a business.

That is the way this country used to work back when we had laws that were worth a shit, back when we had people who actually had our interests in mind when running for public office, back when things actually worked, and we weren't just stuck with culture war after culture war after culture war and arguing with each other over minutiae while everybody gets fucked.

That is not the way things are today.

And because things are the way they are, you can have an individual die at a restaurant in Disney World, and then because they used a free trial for a streaming app to watch television or something, they're not allowed to actually sue and hold them accountable or responsible for killing their wife. Whether or not you think they should be held accountable or responsible, that is for a court to decide, not somebody that Disney pays to be their own kangaroo court.

This is something that's getting worse and worse, and it's something that came to Uber recently. Somebody had a daughter that ordered food using Uber Eats using their parents' phone. And because of that, they agreed to forced arbitration.

What does that mean?

When their parents get into a car accident because their Uber driver runs a red light and he owns another car, they can't sue. Because apparently, you don't have rights anymore in this country. The Seventh Amendment has been erased by any company that has something in a 147-page end-user license agreement that nobody reads. And even if you did read it, you would have to opt out of most of society nowadays because everything from your sock company to your bank to car manufacturers, everybody has this garbage in there. Video games, baby monitors, everything.

I want to go over the details of this case because in my opinion, they're discussing and they demonstrate why the law needs to change.

So I am going to link the court document down below. I suggest that you read the court's opinion rather than all the news articles on it because you'll get a little bit more information that way. I'm going to read you some of the cliff notes.

So this was at the intersection of State Highway 130 and State Highway 522. Ms. Zhang ran a red light and T-boned vehicle operated by Peralta, which was owned by Feliz del Paz. I'm so sorry for mispronouncing and butchering all your names.

As a result of the collision, Zhang's vehicle sustained extensive damage. Zhang's vehicle was the Uber driver. One of the things you may have heard me say a lot in New York City is that I try to avoid Uber drivers because they are for the most... I'll just say it. They're murderers.

I mean, like... The frequency with which these individuals do not use turn signals. Ever. I always assume when I see certain plates that I am going to die. I stay far away from their cars because I don't want to be a victim of any of this.

The fact that an Uber driver went through a red light and T-boned somebody else does not surprise me one bit. Particularly in New Jersey.

Georgia McGinty suffered cervical and lumbar spine fractures, rib fractures, and other injuries. John McGinty sustained a fractured sternum and fractures to his left arm and wrist. Serious injuries because an Uber driver that wasn't properly vetted, because let's be real, what vetting actually occurs to an Uber driver, went through a red light and almost got them killed.

One of the things I find amazing here is how Uber throws their contractors, which are, let's be real, for the most part are actually like employees, under a bus here. Nowhere in this court document or opinion are they saying that the driver themselves should be the one that is not put into court. They're saying that they're the ones that should not be put into court.

Now, you may think, well, the driver's the one that actually did it, but again, this just comes down to the way the agreement is written. That's the point I'm trying to get across. Uber cares about protecting Uber. They do not care about protecting their employees. They do not care about protecting their contractors or their drivers. They simply want to cover their own ass. If the people that work for them get fucked, who gives a shit? We need to be the ones that don't get fucked.

Again, do I believe, just to be clear here, I believe that they all should have to deal with a court of law, the Uber driver and the company. I'm just trying to get across the complete lack of concern for anybody but themselves that this company has.

Continuing, why is this legal?

The Federal Arbitration Act 9-USC 1-16, this was cited. This is a law that came out in the mid-1920s that most companies just realized right now they can use to fuck over most Americans out of their Seventh Amendment rights.

I imagine when this came out, something tells me when this came out, every single company in the United States was not trying to screw over their consumers all at once. This is why we need Congress to act and amend this, delete this, do something, figure something out here so that Disney cannot say, people can die at restaurants on our properties and you can't hold them accountable because you used a Disney streaming app trial five years ago.

Quote, the motion court denied Uber's motion to compel arbitration. Finding that the arbitration agreement contained in the December terms was unenforceable under Adelise versus U.S. Legal Services Group in 2014. There's a bunch of other random numbers and letters there. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not gonna read that.

The court noted that the arbitration agreement, quote, failed to clearly and unambiguously inform the plaintiff of her waiver of the right to pursue her claims in a judicial forum. The court determined that it was unclear that arbitration is a substitute for the right to seek relief in our court system. And by agreeing to this provision, the parties have waived their right to a court action.

So this was something that was decided by a lower court. It was the appellate court that decided that they must seek arbitration. So the lower court was looking at this and thinking, okay, there's the letter of the law, but there's the spirit of the law. And the spirit of the law says, this is not really that clear.

Now, why did they see it as not that clear? It's because Uber changed their terms of service between January, 2021 and December, 2021. And the lower court's argument is that the agreement changed in a way that was just kind of less clear.

So let's read it.

So in January, 2021, it said very, very clearly in the beginning, you acknowledge and agree that you and Uber are each waiving the right to a trial by jury. Very clear.

December, 2021, you and Uber agree that any dispute, claim or controversy in any way arising out of or relating to continuing your access to or use of these services at any time or incidents or accidents resulting in personal injury that you allege occurred in connection with use of your services will be settled by binding arbitration between you and Uber and not in a court of law.

So they're saying the same thing. Both of these are really kind of saying the same thing, except in one case, it is made blunt and blatantly clear. Whereas in the second one, they're saying it, but it's just not as obvious.

Now, the problem that I have here, to be clear, just to put my, this is my opinion, not what's coming from the trial or any of the court notes. It's not that, it's not that they change it to make it slightly less clear. I don't blame Uber for that. I blame our government for that, for the fact that arbitration in this way, shape or form is legal to begin with.

The fact that you can deny people their Seventh Amendment right, to me, that's the problem. It's not whether Uber said it over here or Uber said it over here. And I do appreciate what the lower court was doing by trying to talk about the spirit of the law rather than just the letter of the law.

And they did cite cases over here to try and make it clear that you need to have this be clear and not ambiguous in any way, shape or form if you want to take away people's Seventh Amendment rights. And I understand that. If you want to just take a part of the Bill of Rights and just take your little eraser and just do this to it, you need to be very, very clear when you're doing that.

So Uber did change their terms, but they changed the wording of it more than they changed the actual meaning of it.

The last point here is the fact that their daughter agreed to it. Again, to be clear, this to me is a red herring. It shows how ridiculous forced arbitration is, but this is going to be controversial here. I actually don't care that it's the daughter that agreed to it, not the mother, because if the daughter was the one that hit agree or accept on these terms, how are you going to prove that the daughter hit it rather than the mother hitting agree?

My problem is not the fact that the daughter hit it versus the mother. My problem is that this is even legal because our United States consumer protection law and our Congress is so bad that they are asleep while the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution is being stepped on by almost every company in the S&P 500. That's the real problem.

Further, if you wanted to prove that I was the one that signed it and not somebody else, how are you going to do that? Are you going to say, every time I sign an end user license agreement, that I need to have this done at a notary for me to use an app? How are you going to do this?

Are you going to require that I put my identification up next to my cell phone? Are you going to have my camera like this? Do I have to have my camera turned on and have a picture of me sent over here next to a picture of today's newspaper and my ID before I agree to an end user license agreement?

That is something that some people do. I believe, I forget, some crypto exchange that required that I do that stuff, but right over here, the mother could clearly just be saying the dog ate my homework to try and deal with getting out of the forced arbitration thing.

I don't think that the court is, that that's something that the court can consider because there's absolutely zero way of proving it. Nor do I think that there should be a way of proving it because that means every single time I click except when I install an application, I have to hold up my ID and a webcam to prove that I am actually me.

That is insanely invasive and I want nothing to do with that if I'm installing a calendar application on my cell phone or I'm buying socks that have a forced arbitration agreement. I don't want to show my ID at Walmart so that I can purchase socks when they have a forced arbitration agreement because I have gone over on this channel how they do have forced arbitration for socks.

The problem at the end of the day is at the top. It's the fact that this even exists. It's the fact that it's legal to begin with. That is the part that I find completely disgusting.

The best part of this case, in my opinion, besides everything else, is something that I haven't seen talked about in any of the news articles which is the third-party beneficiary provision.

This arbitration agreement shall be binding upon and shall include any claims brought by or against any third parties including but not limited to your spouses, heirs, third-party beneficiaries it assigns where their underlying claims arise out of or relate to your use of the services.

This is the part where it just, it comes around full circle to my original point. It doesn't matter who signed this agreement. That is again a red herring because at the end of the day, somebody, like her uncle could have signed this agreement. She still can't sue. It doesn't matter.

They are trying to say that this forced arbitration agreement applies to every Tom, Dick, and Harry in your life regardless of whether or not they had any knowledge of this agreement. I cannot agree to have my Seventh Amendment rights denied to me because somebody else signed an agreement that they didn't even read. That's not how this works.

You cannot, you should not be able to take away the Seventh Amendment right of any American much less this. This is insane.

Let me just reread this.

This arbitration agreement shall be binding upon and shall include any claims brought by or against any third parties including but not limited to your spouses, heirs, third-party beneficiaries, and assigns where their underlying claims arise out of or relate to use of the services.

So if you sign a forced arbitration agreement for your LG refrigerator and there is a little sniper rifle hidden in that refrigerator and it shoots me while I am at your house and now I am crippled because your refrigerator has shot me. I cannot sue LG because you signed a forced arbitration agreement that you didn't even sign that was on the side of the box that was thrown away by the delivery people when you bought the fucking refrigerator.

This is the world that we live in.

I did a video on LG in forced arbitration. Check it out. Because they had the forced arbitration agreement on the side of the box, when you signed for the refrigerator, when they let it into your house, apparently that constitutes agreeing to that in spite of the fact that every delivery man I've ever met when having an LG refrigerator brought in through a standard home doorway throws away the box before you can see it.

If a company can erase elements of the Bill of Rights, does the Bill of Rights actually matter? And if your politicians and the people that you elect locally do not scream about this, if your senators and your house representatives do not care, what does that say for them?

Something to think about. Something to think about.

That's it for today. And as always, I hope you learned something.

I'm going to link to the court opinion down below and you tell me what your thoughts are on all of this. I highly suggest contacting your Senate representative as well as your House of Representatives representative and tell them what you think of this and tell them how it's going to affect your voting, both in the primary and a general election, if they don't do something about it.

See you all in the next video. Bye now.