It's not okay to do what they, Wells Fargo, have done(deceive) period.
Full accounting of moral behavior includes an absolute prohibition on selling with an intend to deceive via an asymmetry of information, since risk can be epistemic/subjective related to ignorance of outcomes that the counterparty already knows about, then they sold you a product/service/contract with an intend to offload risk on you, which is strictly immoral period.
Absolute prohibition on parasitism via exchanges made via an asymmetry of information and they cannot prevent restitution because you agreed to not sue for something else.
I am not making a value judgement on what they did - nor am I excusing it.
This is a legal argument about venue - where and how the case should be heard. Getting angry at Well's Fargo might feel good, but in the end its pointless. Understanding the law itself does have practical use going forward. Perhaps the scope of signing away your right to a class action will be better understood.
> Perhaps the scope of signing away your right to a class action will be better understood.
I don't think there is a lack of understanding, I think (although I have no evidence for this) that MOST consumers, if asked what that clause meant, would say something like "Oh, that's the weasel words that let the company get around legal rules." Which is essentially true.
The problem is lack of power, not lack of understanding. There is no way to avoid these arbitration clauses. The companys' interests are such that they will include them and make no exceptions; consumers cannot even refuse and find a competitor because ALL competitors in the market will insist on it. So long as we offer a "don't have to be subject to the law" clause, everyone will use it.
