21–30 of 279 posts
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.
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…
If the government did that, the need for consumers to continue to sue will mostly go away. Once we have real government protection of consumers the need for consumers to take justice into their own hands (so to speak) by suing would go away all by itself.
In the meantime, let consumers protect themselves.
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.
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…
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…
Perhaps this is a situation where we shouldn't let the perfect get in the way of the good. Class actions return money to wronged parties. That's good so we should remove the arbitration cruft that is preventing that.
They didn't return anywhere near a good amount of money to wronged parties. Lawsuits were being settled for not even pennies on the dollar. (arbitration also isn't cruft, but it's definitely getting an undeserved bad rap)
Actually, the situation i long for is before the creation of the LLC, where shareholders were responsible for paying for the corporations lawsuits. LLCs are fairly recent invention, and also one that hurt consumers a lot.
IMHO, No better way to get wells fargo to stop doing illegal things than have the people who own X% be forced to pay for it. That'll change a board right quick.
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…
[0] http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/hot-coffee/synopsis.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The courts actually prefer it as a lower cost alternative.
It's not up to the courts. Congress passed a law, the Federal Arbitration Act, which explicitly instructs the courts to treat arbitration provisions at least as favorably as any other contract provision. In the absence of a conflicting Constitutional provision, the courts have no choice but to enforce the statute Congress passed.
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…
Do you have any stats on "frivolous lawsuits brought by 'shakedown' attorneys"?
https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-di...
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 s…
It mostly fixes the whole "read this and click continue" insanity because it makes any clause that isn't law anyway unviable.