Cycle: Lintara Reads the Platform. Part 3 of 28.
Section 230 closes the front door. But what if an author still finds a crack? What if there is a cause of action that doesn’t crash into the 1996 immunity?
Then the second layer of armor kicks in.
It’s called the arbitration clause. Mandatory arbitration clause. One paragraph in Substack’s Terms of Use — the one you agreed to without reading when you clicked “I agree” at signup.
That paragraph does three things. Each of them kills a lawsuit independently of the other two.
What the paragraph actually says
Open Substack’s Terms of Use. Find the section titled Dispute Resolution or Arbitration. Read it.
It says, roughly (wording varies, but the structure doesn’t):
- Any dispute between you and Substack will be resolved through arbitration, not litigation. Not in your local court. Not in a court of your choosing. In commercial arbitration under the rules of JAMS or AAA — private organizations that sell dispute-resolution as a service.
- The seat of arbitration is San Francisco, California. Not where you live. Not where it would be convenient. In an arbitration office in San Francisco. If you live in Moscow, Minsk, Berlin, Denver — you fly there. If you don’t fly there, you lose by default.
- You waive your right to class actions. Class action waiver. You cannot join with other banned authors and file a collective claim. Each one stands alone. One author against a corporation.
These three clauses together form a construct that drains the air from any individual lawsuit before it begins.
Why this works
Let’s do the math on “individual arbitration in San Francisco.”
The administrative filing fee at JAMS runs around five to eight thousand dollars. Add the arbitrator’s hourly fee — six hundred to fifteen hundred dollars per hour. The average commercial arbitration takes forty to eighty hours of arbitrator time.
Math: at minimum twenty to thirty thousand dollars just for the procedure. Plus a lawyer who has to be in San Francisco. Plus your travel, hotel, document translation, time off work.
Fifty to a hundred thousand dollars is a realistic floor.
To sue a company that banned you and refused to explain why.
Who actually does this?
The honest answer: almost nobody.
That is the point of the arbitration clause. Not to win cases — to make the case economically irrational. When the cost of the suit is ten times the maximum possible recovery, suits do not get filed. The author walks away. Substack keeps going.
Who invented this
This construct isn’t Substack-specific. It sits in nearly every American consumer agreement since 2011. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, Uber, Airbnb — everywhere.
The breakthrough came in 2011, in a case called AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 5–4, that companies can prohibit their users from bringing class actions via arbitration clauses. A very close vote. But it passed.
From that moment on, American corporations started inserting class action waivers into every contract. Not just tech contracts. Bank agreements, mobile carrier contracts, insurance, nursing homes, schools.
The idea was simple: if you can’t aggregate, you can’t file a suit large enough to make a lawyer’s economics work. And if you can’t file a suit, you can’t create case law. And if there’s no case law, the corporation behaves as it pleases.
This system has been running for fifteen years.
It runs on Substack too.
What this means in my case
I’m banned. I want to sue.
Options:
File in a regular court. Substack files a motion to compel arbitration. Court grants it. I am left without a lawsuit and minus the lawyer’s fee I already paid.
File at JAMS in San Francisco. Fly to San Francisco. Pay fifty to a hundred thousand dollars. For a shot at — what? A possible refund of withheld subscriptions. A few thousand dollars. The suit is economically meaningless.
Aggregate with other banned authors. Class action waiver. Cannot.
Three doors, all locked. That is the second layer of armor.
Where the construct cracks anyway
Good news. The arbitration clause is heavy armor, but not seamless. A few cracks already exist. They’re not enough to break the wall single-handedly, but they exist and they grow.
Crack one. Unconscionability. California law (and Substack, though incorporated in Delaware, is based in California) lets a court declare an arbitration clause unenforceable if it is “unconscionable.” Unconscionability means: the imbalance between the parties is so extreme that enforcing the clause would offend basic fairness. One individual author against a billion-dollar corporation. Arbitration cost ten times any possible recovery. That’s a baseline unconscionability case. Courts don’t always grant it, but they entertain it.
Crack two. Authors from countries without Stripe. This is a subtle and important point. Substack compels arbitration through its Terms of Use. But if you’re an author from a country where Stripe doesn’t operate (and that’s 150+ countries), you never signed any contract with Stripe. Stripe is a separate company with a separate agreement. There is no arbitration clause between you and Stripe. A claim against Stripe by an author from such a country goes to regular court. A separate topic I’ll return to in Part 11.
Crack three. Regulators. The arbitration clause limits lawsuits between you and Substack. It does not limit actions by government regulators. The FTC, the CFPB, a state attorney general, consumer protection bureaus — they can investigate Substack’s practices regardless of what its Terms of Use say. You file a complaint with a regulator — the regulator decides what to do with it. No arbitration clause in that chain.
Crack four. Mass individual arbitration. A new instrument that emerged in 2018–2020. Law firms figured out: if class actions are barred but individual arbitrations aren’t, you can file a thousand individual arbitrations simultaneously. Each one technically conforming to the clause. But in total — millions of dollars in administrative fees the corporation has to pay. Uber, DoorDash, Amazon have been hit with this tactic. Several have offered settlements just to stop the procedure.
What this means for an author writing on Substack right now
Three points.
One. Know what you signed. Open Substack’s Terms of Use. Find the Arbitration section. Read the paragraph that says you waive class actions and agree to resolve disputes in San Francisco. This isn’t a scare tactic. This is your contract. Signed by you at the moment of registration.
Two. Look for the opt-out. Most American consumer agreements include a provision: “If you want to opt out of the arbitration clause, send a letter within 30 days of registration to such-and-such address.” Most people skip this. If you’re only registering on Substack now — find it, send the letter. If you registered long ago — the train has left. Remember it for next time: on signing up for any new service, check for an opt-out in the first month.
Three. Drop the illusion of “I’ll sue.” The standard reflex of a banned author is “I’ll take them to court.” The arbitration clause makes this useless. You won’t file. And neither will any of the people saying “we should sue collectively.” Class actions are barred. Energy spent on these conversations should go elsewhere. Where — is covered in Arc V.
What this part shows
Section 230 closes the door on suing the platform for editorial behavior. The arbitration clause closes the door on suing the platform for breach of contract.
Two independent layers of armor. One does not substitute for the other. One does not insure against the other.
A banned author finds themselves in the position: “I have no claim against the platform because of Section 230. I have no contract claim because of arbitration.” Every direction that comes to mind instinctively is blocked — by law, or by contract.
This is a structural condition. Not a bad day. Not an unlucky case. Architecture.
And there are three more layers to go.
— lintara
Next: The First Amendment. The paradox in which the U.S. Constitution protects the platform’s right to do whatever it wants — and at the same time does not protect the author’s right to publish. How “freedom of speech” operates in one direction only.
Discover more from Lintara
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.