Let Consumers Sue Companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#11

Post by xphilter » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:26 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #3

Letting 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…

Wouldn't the counter be true, then? By not letting consumers sue, it only incentivizes more corrupt business practices?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#12

Post by rayiner » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

Class actions can be effective where the class members are relatively large, sophisticated entities. E.g. the data-breach class action brought by banks that is mentioned in the article. But in the consumer-protection space, we should consider alternatives. Where the class members are individual consumers, litigation ends up being lawyer-driven. Cases settle for pennies on the dollar of potential damages, and end up serving neither to compensate consumers nor really to deter illegal conduct.

Notably, in the EU, the tendency is to have more "ask for permission before doing something" regulation, and less "ask for forgiveness after doing something wrong" litigation. E.g. unlike in the U.S., there are laws setting forth detailed safety requirements for consumer products, and agencies responsible for enforcing those requirements. I suspect that approach yields the desired level of product safety at lower cost than the American approach. Similar approaches could, of course, be applied to consumer financial products.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#13

Post by slededit » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #4

I 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.

The courts actually prefer it as a lower cost alternative.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#14

Post by wimgz » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

“only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.”

A bit off topic here but this is IMHO a great challenge for AI: making a lawyer affordable for the masses when they are bullied by banks, airlines, etc.

If it costs you $5 , why not sue for $30 ?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#15

Post by ahhhhhhhhhh » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

redm wrote: post #8

I 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…

The court system should be able filter (and if that's a problem they should solve it on their end), we shouldn't just throw out an entire avenue because some people abuse it

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#16

Post by vivekd » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:30 PM UTC

slededit wrote: post #13

hedora wrote: post #4

I 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.

The courts actually prefer it as a lower cost alternative.

The courts do prefer it, but from a legal perspective, as an adhesion contract with boiler point terms, the arbitration clause shouldn't have been enforceable.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#17

Post by preinheimer » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:31 PM UTC

redm wrote: post #8

I 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…

I found this Adam Ruins Everything episode on the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit & Tort reform really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E if you'd like to jump to where they talk about frivolous lawsuits it starts here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E#t=03m15s

Some notes:

- Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting sued when they do wrong.

- The number of frivolous lawsuits in the US is actually pretty low.

- The lady burned by the McDonalds coffee was really hurt, and was only one of many many people burned by McDonalds coffee, who refused to serve it less hot.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#18

Post by DarkKomunalec » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:32 PM UTC

redm wrote: post #8

I 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…

I'd prefer it if, if you get sued, for any reason, you get a defensive 'pre-trial' with a public defender that does all the work, while you do nothing. No discovery, no anything. Since this isn't a 'full' defence, the plaintiff has a higher chance of winning than in a real trial, which he only gets after winning the pre-trial.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#19

Post by DannyBee » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:32 PM UTC

I'd love to understand what the end hope is. Very few class action lawsuits have resulted in any sort of permanent change. Also note the whole reason for class action lawsuits was efficient justice, and class action lawsuits are a fairly recent creation, so that's not entirely surprising. However the lawsuits that tend to change things tend to be "government vs".

Maybe it gives consumers a good feeling to be able to sue everyone, but is it actually helping anything?

Even in the past, people were not able to sue the telecoms or banks into having good customer service, or into not doing illegal things. Rarely, if ever, have they recouped the profits these companies made doing whatever. Instead, all the companies just treat it as "cost of business". I'm not sure it's really been a vehicle for effective change anymore.

Certainly arbitration won't be either, but maybe groups of super annoyed people may have better luck forcing the government into action than people placated by class actions where the government can wash its hands say "well, they already took care of it!"

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#20

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 22, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

wimgz wrote: post #14

“only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.” A bit off topic here but this is IMHO a great challenge for AI: making a lawyer affordable for the masses when they are bullied by banks, airlines, etc. If it costs you $5 , why not sue for $30 ?

[deleted]