2. 外语
  3. Eighty-one of the 100 largest companies in the U.S. have policies that bar customers from bringing claims of wrongdoing in front

Eighty-one of the 100 largest companies in the U.S. have policies that bar customers from bringing claims of wrongdoing in front

admin2022-06-09  69
问题     Eighty-one of the 100 largest companies in the U.S. have policies that bar customers from bringing claims of wrongdoing in front of a judge or a jury, according to a new study published in the University of California Davis Law Review on Wednesday.
    That means that millions of consumers who interact with companies such as Amazon, Apple, Walmart, Best Buy and Coca-Cola cannot sue these corporate giants over anything, from fraud or personal injury to harassment or discrimination. A full 78 of these 100 companies also prevent consumers from banding together in a class action if they feel they’ve been wronged.
    Customers typically agree to this when they sign (or click to "accept") a company’s terms and conditions, but people often have no idea what they’re doing. Hidden in the middle of these long terms and conditions documents are policies known as arbitration agreements. When people accept an arbitration agreement, they are generally giving up any right to bring a civil lawsuit against the company at any time.
    "Arbitration agreements make it harder to hold companies accountable for wrongdoing, " says Imre Szalai, a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans and author of the new study. "It destroys our consumer rights."
    Arbitration is a private process that does not involve courts, judges or juries. There is no requirement to follow the same procedures that lawyers would in court, and there is no real appeals process, meaning the arbitrator’s decision is almost always final. There is also virtually no government oversight.
    Companies who use arbitration say that it is efficient and cost-effective. From their perspective, this is helpful—studies have shown that very few consumers win in arbitration, and that when they do, they often get much less money than they would in court. Critics argue that arbitration takes power away from the consumer.
    Arbitration has received increased attention over the last year or so as various tech companies have come under fire for imposing these policies on their employees and on consumers in cases of sexual assault. Last May, Uber said it would stop requiring victims of sexual assault and harassment to pursue claims through arbitration. A slew of companies including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Airbnb also announced last fall that they were ending their policies requiring employees to handle sexual harassment claims through arbitration. Just this month Google ended forced arbitration for all its employees.
    But even as companies are starting to feel pressure to let their workers take disputes to court, this has largely not extended to their dealings with customers. Progress on the issue has been slow in Congress. Grassroots pressure like what Uber faced may start to make a difference, Szalai says, but for now, millions of Americans have unknowingly given up their rights to publicly pursue claims against many of the companies they interact with on a daily basis.
    "Every one of our rights are at risk if they’re being sent to these secret tribunals, " Szalai says. "All of your rights become meaningless if you can’t enforce them. And these tribunals are designed so you don’t have robust enforcement."
选项
答案 加州大学(University of Calm3rnja)戴维斯法律评论(Davis Law Review)周三发表的一项新研究表明，美国最大的100家企业中，有81家制定了禁止消费者针对企业违法行为向法院提起诉讼要求索赔的政策。 这意味着，与亚马逊(Amazon)、苹果(Apple)、沃尔玛(Walmart)、百思买(Best Buy)和可口可乐(Coca-Cola)等公司打交道的数百万消费者，不能就欺诈或人身伤害、骚扰或歧视等问题起诉这些企业巨头。在这100家公司中，有78家还禁止消费者在受到了不公正对待时联合起来进行集体诉讼，消费者通常在签署或点击“接受”公司的服务条款时默认同意这一点，但他们往往并不了解具体的内容。而这其中就隐藏着关于仲裁协议的条款。一旦消费者接受仲裁协议，这通常意味着他们放弃了在任何时候对公司提起民事诉讼的权利。 新奥尔良洛约拉大学(Loyola University New Orleans)法学教授伊姆雷.绍洛伊(Imre Szalai)的最新研究报告指出：“仲裁协议加大了追究企业违法行为责任的难度，它剥夺了消费者的权利，”仲裁是一个不涉及法院、法官或陪审团的非公开程序。它并不需要遵循法庭上的审判程序，并且通常一裁终局不得上诉。实际上它也缺乏政府监督。 采用仲裁解决争议的公司表示，仲裁经济高效。对于企业来说，仲裁对他们有利。研究表明，很少有消费者在仲裁中获胜，即使获胜，他们得到的赔偿也往往比通过诉讼所得少得多。批评人士认为，仲裁剥夺了消费者的权力。 在过去一年左右的时间里。仲裁受到越来越多的关注。多家科技公司因对其员工以及顾客采用强制仲裁的方式解决性骚扰事件而受到猛烈抨击。去年5月，优步(uber)表示它将不再要求性侵犯和性骚扰的受害者通过仲裁来获得赔偿。去年秋天，包括谷歌(Google)、脸书(Facebook)、微软 (Microsoft)和爱彼迎(Airbnb)在内的许多公司也宣布，它们将废除要求通过仲裁解决职场性骚扰的条款。 就在本月，谷歌将终止针对其员工的强制仲裁政策。允许员工将纠纷诉诸法庭让企业倍感压力，但这一改变并未涉及消费者。国会在解决这个问题上进展缓慢。绍洛伊说，公众施加的压力可能会开始发挥作用，比如优步的这个例子，但就目前来说，数百万美国人仍在不知不觉中放弃了对他们每天接触的许多公司提起诉讼要求索赔的权利。绍洛伊说：“如果我们在秘密法庭中解决争议，我们的每一项权利都将受到威胁。如果你不能行使权利，它们将变得毫无意义。而这些法庭正是为了使得你不能充分地行使自己的权利而设立的。”
解析     1.第1段claims为多义词，有“声称”“索赔”等义项。根据本文语境，该段提及美国许多大公司在条款中禁止消费者将他们告上法庭，故此处第2个义项更为合适，译为“索赔”。
    2.第2段第一句interact with为固定搭配，意思是“彼此交流、共同工作等”。结合本文语境，此处译为“与……打交道”更为合适。
    3.第5段第一句private有“私下的”“不公开的”“秘密的”等义项。根据本文语境，该段提及仲裁的性质，故此处将private process译为“非公开程序”更为合适。
    4.第5段第二句若直译为“仲裁不要求遵循与律师在法庭上相同的程序，也没有真正的上诉程序。这意味着仲裁员的决定几乎总是最终的。”则显得冗余，在翻译时可对原文意思进行提炼，译为“它并不需要遵循法庭上的审判程序，并且通常一裁终局不得上诉。”，这会使译文更为简洁明了。
    5.第7段第一句come under fire为固定搭配，意思是“因为所做的事而受到严厉的批评”，故此处可译作“受到猛烈抨击”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/1EgO777K
本试题收录于： CATTI二级笔译实务题库翻译专业资格（CATTI）分类
0

CATTI二级笔译实务

翻译专业资格（CATTI）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)