[zymhan]

What scenario is Google worried about where they will face a massive, costly class action lawsuit over their internet service?

[mikeash]

Maybe there are no specific scenarios, and it's just to be safe. If you were Google, why wouldn't you add such a clause? It's not like it's going to scare customers away.

[ocdtrekkie]

Shouldn't it scare away customers that a company will only do business with them if they cannot be held in court for misdeeds regarding that business? I sadly understand that consumers don't read the fine print. But really, this clause should be treated as a dealbreaker.

[fgonzag]

It won't because usually your options are 50 Mbit line (maybe 100 if you're really lucky) or a 1Gb line for the same price.

I'd happily take the arbitration clause for 10x and probably 20x the speedup.

[heroprotagonist]

Beyond that, your other options will also usually include arbitration clauses. If it's a deal-breaker for choosing Google, it'll be a deal-breaker for choosing anyone else.

[ocdtrekkie]

That's a fair point. As the article's title points out, Comcast does the same.

[deadowl]

Does FairPoint?

[lostcolony]

Yes, it will scare them into the arms of one of the many other ISPs in town offering reasonable service without the arbitration agreement.

OHWAIT.

[mikeash]

Maybe it should be, but it isn't. Google probably doesn't care about losing the three tenths of one thousandth of a percent of customers who will 1) read the terms and 2) care enough about the arbitration clause to abandon ship.

[Cuuugi]

Data collection is my guess.