71–80 of 279 posts
“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 ?
In the EU you cannot bind consumers by such arbitration clauses: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A3... Consumers can usually sue corporations at a court in their own jurisdiction. Many European countries also allow class action law suits. Yet, we have few law suits against corporations. There are other reasons for this: - consumers are not awarded punitive damages, - court fees are higher (u…
The EU system seems to be very anti-consumer. Or is that what your summary statement is intended to elicit? (tough to tell, as it could mean either/or is the better system)
I disagree. It is true that it is harder for EU consumers to sue a corporation, but in general I feel that consumer rights are generally stronger in the EU than in North America (OP's point about consumer watchdogs), so there is less reason for an EU consumer to sue a corporation.
IANAL, but I'd say the EU system is anti-litigious, not anti-consumer.
Just look at how the EU consumer protection directives are working over here. You're simply not allowed to waive your guaranteed rights as a customer in some sort of EULA or TOS. And if you are forced to, the whole contract is void in it's entirety and you're free to walk away from it.
Although bear in mind that class-action law suits, which are the focus of this article, are typically not a right you have in the EU in the first place ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_actions_out... ).
So I see hardly any advantage for the individual customer who got some individual issue of magnitude and is forced to choose between this or arbitration outside of the juidical system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. What the documentary left out, was that it happened over a 10 year period where 700 out of 171 BILLION customers got burned from mcdonald's coffee. This is statistically nothing. > Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting s…
Your appeal to this website is just as bad really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. What the documentary left out, was that it happened over a 10 year period where 700 out of 171 BILLION customers got burned from mcdonald's coffee. This is statistically nothing. > Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting s…
That is the problematic thinking right there. You are sacrificing 700 people to be burned so badly by coffee they require skin grafting based on it being statistically insignificant.
While no doubt many cases settled, many didn't and in those cases McDonalds was ordered to turn the temp down so spilled coffee would at least not result in scalding that require skin grafting. It is not small thing or statistically insignificant that McDonalds ignored many court orders, but why did they ignore the court order? Because the same cost benefit analysis you presented, they'd happily continue their practicies of selling 171B coffees and paying out 700 claims, than change the coffee temp and potentially lose any coffee market share.
As I mention above this well known case is unique because it awarded punitive damages, equaling 1 day of coffee sales, solely because the company repeatedly ignored court orders (i.e. Told the court to go fuck itself), further what is never mentioned consistent with the anti-litigation PR is that the judgement was appealed and ultimately lowered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. What the documentary left out, was that it happened over a 10 year period where 700 out of 171 BILLION customers got burned from mcdonald's coffee. This is statistically nothing. > Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting s…
1. There aren't 171 BILLION customers on the planet.
2. So I can run around throwing boiling water over 10 out of the 300 MILLION people in the US, and it's totally cool because it statistically didn't happen? Good to know!
In the EU you cannot bind consumers by such arbitration clauses: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A3... Consumers can usually sue corporations at a court in their own jurisdiction. Many European countries also allow class action law suits. Yet, we have few law suits against corporations. There are other reasons for this: - consumers are not awarded punitive damages, - court fees are higher (u…
The EU system seems to be very anti-consumer. Or is that what your summary statement is intended to elicit? (tough to tell, as it could mean either/or is the better system)
Consumers should be able to sue corporations if they really need to, which is what the article is about. But it's even better if they don't need to sue in the first place.
Capture of the machine of the justice system by the wealthy is one of the most impactful and persistent market distortions in human history. If people cannot bring the power of government to enforce appropriate costs against players with more market power government of the People, by the People, and for the People has failed.
Have the wealthy really captured the courts, or have the government, judges, and lawyers set up a situation in which only the rich get justice?
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.
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.
Somewhat-serious question: If someone hands me a paper that says this, can't I just do the same and hand them a sheet that renders all arbitration bindings null and void?