Let Consumers Sue Companies
nytimes.com
Let Consumers Sue Companies
1–10 of 279 posts
Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies
#2This is a great idea. Contracts of adhesion that dominate our lives should not automatically and totally be stacked in favor of companies.
Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies
#3Letting consumers continue to sue is not the answer. It only incentivizes more litigiousness, which is part of the things that are ruining American society.
What we need instead is for the government to pursue these crimes on our behalf. The fines should be draconian with no options for them to dilute it the way the SEC does. And the fines should go towards some fund that specializes in charities instead of going to government coffers so that we don't incentive behavior like civil forfeiture.
Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies
#4I never understood why binding arbitration was legal for non-negotiated contracts.
Also, by reading this you agree all disputes between us will go through an arbitration firm of my choosing.
Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies
#5I was under the impression that class-action lawsuits were already a possibility for consumers.
Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies
#6Letting consumers continue to sue is not the answer. It only incentivizes more litigiousness, which is part of the things that are ruining American society. What we need instead is for the government to pursue these crimes on our behalf. The fines should be draconian with no options for them to dilute it the way the SEC does. And the fines should go towards some fund that specializes in charities instead of going to…
Written by a lawyer, what do you expect...
Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies
#7Letting consumers continue to sue is not the answer. It only incentivizes more litigiousness, which is part of the things that are ruining American society. What we need instead is for the government to pursue these crimes on our behalf. The fines should be draconian with no options for them to dilute it the way the SEC does. And the fines should go towards some fund that specializes in charities instead of going to…
Regulatory capture?
Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies
#8I don't disagree with the sentiment of the article given the examples provided, i.e. Wells Fargo. That said, given the climate for frivolous lawsuits brought by "shakedown" attorneys, it opens the flood gates for something far worse.
Maybe a better compromise is to allow for binding arbitration UNLESS the company is found guilty of fraud or other illegal activity, such as Wells Fargo.
Alternatively, perhaps tort reform to prevent frivolous lawsuits would remove the need for arbitration.
Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies
#9I don't disagree with the sentiment of the article given the examples provided, i.e. Wells Fargo. That said, given the climate for frivolous lawsuits brought by "shakedown" attorneys, it opens the flood gates for something far worse. Maybe a better compromise is to allow for binding arbitration UNLESS the company is found guilty of fraud or other illegal activity, such as Wells Fargo. Alternatively, perhaps tort refo…
Do you have any stats on "frivolous lawsuits brought by 'shakedown' attorneys"?
Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies
#10Letting consumers continue to sue is not the answer. It only incentivizes more litigiousness, which is part of the things that are ruining American society. What we need instead is for the government to pursue these crimes on our behalf. The fines should be draconian with no options for them to dilute it the way the SEC does. And the fines should go towards some fund that specializes in charities instead of going to…
So letting people who were legitimately wronged receive justice and fair compensation in court for that wrong is "litigiousness" and therefore bad?
First, I think you misunderstood what litigiousness means.
Second, merely labeling something as litigious doesn't make it a bad thing.
Litigiousness refers to frivolous lawsuits not legitimate ones. However large corporations have done a campaign of trying to label everything litigious to try and save money.
Personally, I like the fact that courts exist to let people redress wrongs. If regulation was so effective at stopping bad behavior, how did banks, one of the most regulated industries in the world, manage to open up phony bank accounts for customers with no regulatory involvement? In fact how did they cause the financial crash with no regulatory intervention?
Regulation is a bad joke and I'm convinced it's just a PR stunt by the government to make it look like it's doing something.