Well, yeah, both the Connecticut case that is the primary reason for this article and the generally similar (but somewhat broader in terms of the kinds of wrongs raised) San Francisco case are not just about the initial violations by Twitter, but Twitter’s alleged failure to pay the arbitration fees required by the arbitrator they have required people to use in place of going to court, which is claimed to have stalled all the arbitration cases (and which is the basis for bringing the dispute to court, despite the binding arbitration agreement which would normally foreclose that.)
Is it possible for someone else to fund the arbitration fees so they can proceed without Twitter’s participation? Similar to how Peter Thiel financed the destruction of Gawker via Bollea v. Gawker. Ideally, you get to a judgement as quickly as possible (by any means necessary) before Twitter’s insolvency, even if someone else has to front whatever Twitter was in the hook for to proceed with arbitration.
Strongly agree, but if it’s faster to cough up $3M to force arbitration to start while the enterprise still has value to extract vs waiting for a court to force it because of the bad faith actions of stalling, leaving you with potentially no enterprise value to extract when a court renders a judgement, that might make the path forward more obvious.
Regardless, I hope whatever actions are taken make the plaintiffs whole.