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

91–100 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#91

Post by ThomPete »

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)

You shouldn't be down voted for this even though you are wrong.

The EU system is very pro-consumer and is doing a lot of things to make life easier for consumers ditching roaming is just one of them. With regards to lawsuits the EU system takes the need out of much of that by having fairly strict rules for corporations and giving consumers much more legal backing when it comes to the return of goods, protection from harmful chemicals in food etc.

It's just a different way to look at it than the US.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#93

Post by coolaliasbro »

"First, opponents claim that plaintiffs are better served by acting individually than by joining a group lawsuit."

Then why should it matter if plaintiffs want to act collectively (ie, put themselves at a disadvantage according to the quote above)--wouldn't that benefit the opponents?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#94

Post by yorwba »

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 ?

In some cases you don't need to solve any new AI problems, an expert system is enough: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/28/chatbot-a...

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#95

Post by monksy »

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…

> "watchdogs" / ombudsmen, i.e. public entities that have the authority to start cases against corporations,

The closest that we have in the US is the attorney general in your state. Don't expect a quick action from them.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#96

Post by ameister14 »

Sangermaine wrote: post #87
ameister14 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bene…

It's not an argument from authority. It's an attempt to sidestep the breaking things down into basic parts for non-technical discussion, by pointing out that the person you responded to is capable of having a technical discussion on the subject.

You make some statements here that are arguable - for example, that 'class actions are an ideal instrument for redress of harm where the harm to any individual is small, but the harm is widespread, meaning that a company is cheating or hurting many people but it's not worth any one individual's effort or expense to sue them.'

That's not always true. Legislation or regulatory oversight are often better solutions as they occur faster and have broader implications. You even acknowledge that later in your comment as you agree that regulation is better.

I don't think anybody in the thread is arguing that individual arbitration is a better method. The question is whether class-action suits is the final method or if we should be considering different regulatory controls.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#97

Post by damnfine »

leoharsha2 wrote: post #45

I sued a company where I worked. They were not paying my final dues after I left the company. It took me 1 year and lots of visits to court just to get my final dues. Finally after a year of all such waste of time, they came to me and asked for a settlement to which I agree and I got part of my money. In India, even if you know you will win the case, it is not worth it. It will take your mental peace. Although I high…

If they also had to hire consuel and appear in court, the burden was equally large on them. If everyone sued, the burden would cause change. Acceping things as they are is how you keep things bad.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#98

Post by guntars »

throwaway76543 wrote: post #33
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 ?

Because the risk of paying litigation expense is in the four, five or six figures. Chasing a return with a potential risk of loss several orders of magnitude higher is insane.

It's not if the other side is using AI lawyers, too. Heck, throw in an AI judge and you got yourself very efficient dispute resolution.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#99

Post by DannyBee »

matt4077 wrote: post #68
DannyBee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess i don't think the situation was good! 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…

Who do you think ends up paying, if not the owners of the company? As long as the company isn't bankrupt, incorporation doesn't change anything. Full liability of owners isn't feasible in the current system, because it would expose every single investor to unlimited liability.

"Who do you think ends up paying, if not the owners of the company?"

Errr, the company is liable as a separate entity from the owners. That's the whole point. Ignoring insurance, etc, the owners/shareholders will not be liable. The entity will be, completely and legally separate from the people you are talking about.

If I own a company, and my bank account has a billion dollars in it, and the company has 1 million, and they end up fined for 2 million, even as the owner, i don't pay.

"As long as the company isn't bankrupt, incorporation doesn't change anything."

Of course it does. Your argument is a very indirect one, since the owners/shareholders quite literally don't pay. Thus, any payment by shareholders comes in lost money in the market or something, which is both a very indirect thing, and rarely matches the actual cost.

"Full liability of owners isn't feasible in the current system, because it would expose every single investor to unlimited liability."

The first part seems very disconnected from the second. The fact that every investor has unlimited liability does not make it infeasible. Maybe unwanted by the investor, but not infeasible. Right now, the risk of them going bankrupt/etc has been foisted on everyone else who they may injure. I get why the investors don't want that risk. That's their problem.

I'd be fine with "LLC up to some amount of revenue/profit, you must convert to liable corp afterwards".

Post reply on HN