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

111–120 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#111

Post by mikeash »

uiri wrote: post #88
mikeash wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I see how it could be advantageous. It just doesn't seem worth it.

For just about any fundamental right, you can come up with scenarios where it would be advantageous in that scenario to be able to sign them away. But we generally don't allow this, because those fundamental rights are more important than whatever advantage might come from signing them away.

I don't see that the "binding" in "binding arbitration" is necessarily in conflict with the ability to sue. Contracts themselves are considered to be "binding," yet we can still sue over them. If binding arbitration were similar to that, then you could still sue over the result, and the court's job would be to look at the result of arbitration and decide whether it was correct or not. If the arbitration is truly beneficial to both parties then neither one will sue.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#112

Post by s73ver_ »

There is no valid reason why a company should require someone to sign away their rights, and it absolutely should not be allowed. Otherwise individuals might as well not have those rights at all.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#113

Post by stult »

ThomPete wrote: post #91
dclowd9901 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In academic US legal theory, litigation is frequently portrayed as an efficient substitute for regulation, particularly from a libertarian perspective. Our political narratives also tend to reject regulation as government overreach or unconstitutional when carried out at the federal level. So we ended up with a highly litigious system, which (unsurprisingly) resulted in high litigation costs. Corporations have responded (also unsurprisingly) by trying to reduce their litigation costs. Our childishly uninformed political discourse has prevented the libertarian/conservative elements of American society from having to confront this contradiction. It's idiotic. If litigation was efficient it would be cheap. Or at least as cheap as it can be and cheaper than the alternative. It's pretty clear that that isn't true.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#114

Post by iancarroll »

monksy wrote: post #95
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.

The US has the FTC.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#115

Post by flexie »

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)

It's very consumer friendly, but generally speaking it's also not that bad for corporations since they don't have to fear frivolous lawsuits in Europe.

European consumer law is full of mandatory rules (rules that you cannot derogate from in contracts or in your terms of service). Half of the clauses in your standard American terms would be tossed out by a European court.

European consumer law is far from perfect but I wouldn't trade it for the US system (and I represent corporations).

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#116

Post by wongarsu »

kijin wrote: post #80
dclowd9901 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You signed the paper the bank handed you. The bank is unlikely to sign the paper you hand them.

You can change the contract before signing it, then give it back to them and wait for them to accept it (either explicitly or implicitly).

Works in most jurisdictions since both parties have to agree to the contract.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#118

Post by s73ver_ »

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.

Nobody is saying that arbitration shouldn't be available, or an option. What is being ragged on is the idea that a company should be entitled to put a mandatory binding arbitration clause into a contract that isn't negotiated, that in reality, a consumer has zero power to change.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#119

Post by jacquesm »

stult wrote: post #113
ThomPete wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In academic US legal theory, litigation is frequently portrayed as an efficient substitute for regulation, particularly from a libertarian perspective. Our political narratives also tend to reject regulation as government overreach or unconstitutional when carried out at the federal level. So we ended up with a highly litigious system, which (unsurprisingly) resulted in high litigation costs. Corporations have respon…

> Corporations have responded (also unsurprisingly) by trying to reduce their litigation costs.

No, they simply pass those costs on to the consumers.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#120

Post by ryanbrunner »

Sangermaine wrote: post #89
JamesBarney wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but if we take his statement at face value, and a significant portion of the money changing hands in a class action is going towards lawyers, it's at the very least a massively inefficient system.
Post reply on HN