The lawfare revolution grows

Mike Cernovich explains the legal mire into which Patreon and other thought policing platforms have plunged headlong:

Patreon has lost several high profile creators including Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson due to Patreon’s decision to begin censoring creators for ideological reasons.

The belief is that Patreon can ban anyone they want to. Is this true under California law?

“Private companies can do whatever they want,” is an old canard repeated by people who aren’t lawyers or aren’t very good lawyers. But a new legal remedy is available under California’s arbitration law, especially with the adoption of SB-707.

There’s an economic relationship between Creators and their Backers. Patreon, by banning a Creator, disrupts the economic relationship between Creator and Backer. In legal terms this is called tortious interference with a business relationship.

Backers can demand to have the disruption of this relationship sent to arbitration.

Patreon, under California law, must pay the arbitration fees in advance. These fees can be upward of $10,000 per case. If 500 backers demanded arbitration, Patreon would need to put up five million dollars in advance in filing fees alone. Legal fees will ramp those fees up by a factor of ten.

And judges are enforcing the law strictly.

Read the whole thing. The situation he’s describing doesn’t merely apply to Patreon, it applies to every tech company that has a business that depends upon matching two parties together without taking responsibility for the performance of either party.