Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let Consumers Sue Companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#81

Post by gwbas1c »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #62
flexie wrote: post #51

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)

Looks like the EU system is able to better resolve consumer issues without lawsuits; and is better at avoiding frivolous lawsuits.

The article doesn't discuss the American problem of frivolous lawsuits.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#82

Post by neoeldex »

mxfh wrote: post #27

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.

That would defeat the purpose, since it's usually not possible to go against EULA's or TOS. If you're forced to sign a contract the contract is void, but when a specific line in a contract (or similar) is not correct according to law, not the entire contract is void, just the lines which are wrong.

One can never be forced to sign a contract.

F.I, in the Netherlands it's often stated in rent agreements that pets are not allowed, but this is not permitted to be in the contract by a judge, since such statements are too generic and restrictive.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#83

Post by ameister14 »

Sangermaine wrote: post #54
rayiner wrote: post #12

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…

>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. You're completely misunderstanding the purpose of class actions, and are using an oft-repeated error. The article itself explains the value of class actions. Class actions are an i…

I don't think you should assume Rayiner doesn't understand what a class action is. He's an appellate lawyer, I'm pretty sure he gets what a class action is.

He's basically saying class actions don't work the best if your goal is greater consumer protection. There are other ways to do it that are more effective.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#84

Post by xphilter »

ythn wrote: post #29
xphilter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any stats on "frivolous lawsuits brought by 'shakedown' attorneys"?

Couldn't patent trolling also fall into this category (the category of legal "shakedowns")? If so, there are some stats on that. https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-di...

As the other commentator mentioned, how is this related to consumer lawsuits?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#85

Post by neoeldex »

mxfh wrote: post #73
waqf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... ).

One caveat you typically have with them, is that you forfeit your right to file a lawsuit for individual damages. 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.

IANAL, but I don't think it's possible to forfeit your right to sue. Maybe under some conditions, but never in the generic way.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#86

Post by JamesBarney »

Sangermaine wrote: post #54
rayiner wrote: post #12

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…

>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. You're completely misunderstanding the purpose of class actions, and are using an oft-repeated error. The article itself explains the value of class actions. Class actions are an i…

Everyone in my family growing up was a lawyer, and the saying I always heard was "in class action lawsuits only the lawyers are getting rich". I've also heard this from many other lawyers outside my family. So it's at least a widely held belief.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#87

Post by Sangermaine »

ameister14 wrote: post #83
Sangermaine wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. You're completely misunderstanding the purpose of class actions, and are using an oft-repeated error. The article itself explains the value of class actions. Class actions are an i…

I don't think you should assume Rayiner doesn't understand what a class action is. He's an appellate lawyer, I'm pretty sure he gets what a class action is. He's basically saying class actions don't work the best if your goal is greater consumer protection. There are other ways to do it that are more effective.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that he's misunderstanding the purpose and value of class actions based on the content of his comment, and am not impressed by attempts at arguments from authority. Appellate lawyer or not, his points were not good ones.

I mean, the very article he's commenting on directly refutes his points about class actions resulting in less compensation for consumers and only or largely benefiting lawyers.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#88

Post by uiri »

mikeash wrote: post #79
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.

I don't understand why binding arbitration is legal for anything ever. Having your disputes resolved in court is a fundamental right. Signing away that right in a contract should be impossible, like signing yourself into slavery.

I agree with you in principle that you shouldn't be forced into binding arbitration a priori before any dispute arises. I disagree with you on the point that I think binding arbitration can be a useful alternative remedy to the traditional legal system.

Binding arbitration serves to resolve the dispute. If you can go through binding arbitration and then still go on to sue in court, then it isn't really very binding, is it? So, in order for binding arbitration to be binding, it has to be possible to legally contact too resolve a dispute by binding arbitration. In doing so, you contract to abide by the judgement and waive your right to pursue further legal action (with potentially a handful of exceptions). It is often beneficial for both parties to go through the accelerated process of binding arbitration rather than drag disputes through the overworked court system.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#89

Post by Sangermaine »

JamesBarney wrote: post #86
Sangermaine wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. You're completely misunderstanding the purpose of class actions, and are using an oft-repeated error. The article itself explains the value of class actions. Class actions are an i…

Everyone in my family growing up was a lawyer, and the saying I always heard was "in class action lawsuits only the lawyers are getting rich". I've also heard this from many other lawyers outside my family. So it's at least a widely held belief.

But that's the point: what does that comment mean? Class actions, like any court action, isn't meant to make the plaintiffs rich. It's to obtain restitution for their harm. If they were ripped off $10, then they should get something around that. The lawyers who got them that compensation should of course be paid for their work.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#90

Post by [deleted] »

innocentoldguy wrote: post #78
clavalle wrote: post #69

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.

It isn't just a capture of the justice machine by the wealthy, though I agree this is the case too. It is also an issue with the government, courts, and the laws themselves. How is a citizen supposed to petition the government over injustices and grievances, and be dealt with fairly according to the law, when the government itself sets the financial barriers to entry so high? How can a poor person get justice when th…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN