So just a hypothetical: Let's say StackOverflow sells our data to some other corporate interest in a manner which pretty much violates the laws of every country of every user on this site. Those users have to individually go through arbitration and JAMS decides in StackOverflow's favor in every case (which they should if they want to stay in business). So StackOverflow has managed to avoid a potentially costly, and likely successful, class action suit/settlement.

Ok... but is that the point? I can see an arbitration clause perhaps in place for frivolous class action attempts, or even perhaps weak but meatier class action lawsuits that more cheaply lead to a settlement. Especially when that's an on-going problem. But wouldn't this also protect StackOverflow from valid class action suits where StackOverflow has clearly violated the law and the implicit legal trust of its users? And if so, why have the arbitration clause at all? It seems like it's only purpose is attempting to lay the groundwork for blatantly disregarding legal systems around the world. I'm not sure that's really in StackOverflow's best interest no matter what the lawyers say.

In my opinion, you should tell your lawyers to take a day off and enjoy themselves, your treat. Then get behind some closed doors and discuss amongst yourselves if these people are really acting in your best legal interest. Something like this can potentially kill a website.

So just a hypothetical: Let's say Stack Overflow sells our data to some other corporate interest in a manner which pretty much violates the laws of every country of every user on this site. Those users have to individually go through arbitration and JAMS decides in Stack Overflow's favor in every case (which they should if they want to stay in business). So Stack Overflow has managed to avoid a potentially costly, and likely successful, class action suit/settlement.

Ok... but is that the point? I can see an arbitration clause perhaps in place for frivolous class action attempts, or even perhaps weak but meatier class action lawsuits that more cheaply lead to a settlement. Especially when that's an on-going problem. But wouldn't this also protect Stack Overflow from valid class action suits where Stack Overflow has clearly violated the law and the implicit legal trust of its users? And if so, why have the arbitration clause at all? It seems like it's only purpose is attempting to lay the groundwork for blatantly disregarding legal systems around the world. I'm not sure that's really in Stack Overflow's best interest no matter what the lawyers say.

In my opinion, you should tell your lawyers to take a day off and enjoy themselves, your treat. Then get behind some closed doors and discuss amongst yourselves if these people are really acting in your best legal interest. Something like this can potentially kill a website.