> There is no expectation that the servicer will act in the interest of the consumer... Navient says its public statements encouraging borrowers to contact the company didn’t mean it would act in their best interest. So, pardon in advance for the vulgar language, but why the fuck is this OK? From any company? I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away" and how we'r…
>I'm getting real damn sick and tired of "what the big print gives, the spidery print takes away" I propose "the bigger the print, the stronger the statement". Therefore, if you make one claim in 24 point and then attempt to rescind or modify it in 8 point, the 24 is legally binding because it was larger and so nullified the smaller. This also means that if you want to place limitations (like 'one per customer' etc)…
More seriously, I think first amendment protections for commercial speech are too generous. Game theory tells us that perverse incentives will often win out, and while it's tempting to fall back on caveat emptor it's also a cop out. The reality is that the huge and increasing information asymmetry between organizations and individuals leads inevitably to inequitable outcomes; further, it's entirely predictable that by swamping the recipient of a contract with reading material they'll just go ahead and agree to it because it's not obvious that it will be worth the effort of analysis. I can't remember the last time I read a EULA, and I like reading contracts and legal documents.
Free business idea: a fiduciary AI that parses contracts, simplifies contractual terms for maximum clarity, and rates contracts on their adherence to/deviation from industry norms.