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

151–160 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#151

Post by afpx »

DannyBee wrote: post #105
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…

"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." Actually, you are misunderstanding the purpose of class actions. You may see it as s some ideal, but it's not why they were created. They were created to simpli…

How does that work, then? If I sue a company and then N other people separately sue the company for the same reason, then the courts turn it into a class-action? That doesn't seem just. The parent's perspective seems to make more logical sense. That is, the only reason why I'd want to participate in a class-action was if the damages were so low that it wouldn't be worth the effort to sue separately. If I had high damages, I'd be upset if someone transformed my case into a class action.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#152

Post by forapurpose »

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…

> litigation ... efficient

I don't think anyone who has been involved in litigation would use these words in the same sentence, or paragraph. Whose theory says it's efficient?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#153

Post by mikeash »

jacquesm wrote: post #138
skj wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must say your impression of the American legal system seems to be based on upworthy articles.

I'll give you two little samples of what my impression is based on (besides the thousands of articles read and stories of fellow business people operating in the American market): - when I was in New York I got hit from behind by a guy in a car doing maybe 5 mph. He got out of his car right away, ran over and started pleading with me not to sue him before he thought of asking me how I was. When I told him I'm Europea…

The first one sounds like an uninsured (maybe unlicensed) driver. This is definitely not the norm. Car accidents are one area where we pretty much don't have to worry about lawsuits at all. Your insurance company talks to their insurance company and they work it out.

The second one just sounds like a crazy person. They probably had no intent to sue, and were just trying to stupidly use the threat as leverage for something.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#154

Post by skj »

jacquesm wrote: post #138
skj wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must say your impression of the American legal system seems to be based on upworthy articles.

I'll give you two little samples of what my impression is based on (besides the thousands of articles read and stories of fellow business people operating in the American market): - when I was in New York I got hit from behind by a guy in a car doing maybe 5 mph. He got out of his car right away, ran over and started pleading with me not to sue him before he thought of asking me how I was. When I told him I'm Europea…

The impression is not limited to non-Americans. Filing law suits is tedious and expensive. The common defendants (big companies) like to give the impression that frivolous lawsuits are common because it makes people feel bad about filing them.

That said, of course there are some frivolous lawsuits. There are also many with merit, and it's hard to tell which is which a priori.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#155

Post by jacquesm »

forapurpose wrote: post #150
jacquesm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's anti lawyer. Consumers are doing fine. Consumer watchdogs have actual teeth and when companies are found to have misbehaved the penalties can be quite severe. The difference is that consumers don't usually get rich from suing companies, we don't have a 'legal lottery' for every little thing that spoils your day and that you feel grieved about. That higher barrier keeps the courts free for stuff that is impor…

> Consumers are doing fine. By what measure?

Consumer satisfaction indices are published with some regularity, the United States is usually somewhere between the 20th and the 30th position of such rankings.

Now obviously the United States is huge and there is huge diversity between the various demographics and localities but it is beyond dispute that consumers in Europe are doing fine (and that consumers in the United States are not doing much worse on average).

It would be strange to find anything different, taking into account that we're talking about the wealthiest segment of the world.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#156

Post by jayess »

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…

Written like a true class action plaintiffs' attorney.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#157

Post by jacquesm »

odabaxok wrote: post #139
jacquesm wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The VW scandal is a bad example. They broke the law, but consumers only lost value in their cars indirectly (and there were some health effects). Given how extreme the American reaction to the VW scandal was I do wonder what the response would have been if that company had been GM, Ford or Chrysler. A part of me is really happy that the US brought this to light and made VW pay for their transgression, a part of me fe…

Just reacting to this: > Given how extreme the American reaction to the VW scandal was I do wonder what the response would have been if that company had been GM, Ford or Chrysler There were recalls related to GM (GM ignition switch recall - 30M cars worldwide) or Chrysler (just recently [1]) too. ..you are right, these are more dangerous things like cheating the emissions. However, I believe they are not showing favo…

So, how many billions were the fines in those cases and which executives went to jail?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#158

Post by asdfffsdjnn78 »

This is not a good answer. It'll keep ending up a run around in the courts and deals will be cut, "business as usual" abstractions will be allowed to stand as excuses for unethical, and often ruinous behavior.

Let consumers sue people involved directly.

This isn't magic. People are going in a room and making decisions that, in scenarios where its ending up in court, damaging to others.

They should not be shielded by "business as usual", or fines, that they 1) have a direct hand in setting limits of 2) pass off the company (often endangering workers futures).

This suing abstract ideas doesn't hold white collar criminals accountable directly. It protects them directly. Which is be design.

We decided there is no divine right under-pinning our leaders claims to power. See how there is no relying on abstract ideas as shields or "just following orders" when it comes to how we persecute the proles.

This isn't magic. People go in a room, make decisions, fallout occurs. It's un-elected bullshitters that don't actually build the things we need, telling us how it is.

It's allowing a certain segment special privilege where none has been bestowed.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#159

Post by sliverstorm »

a_c_s wrote: post #144
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…

You missed the most critical points of the parent though. To use your example, Comcast has been overcharging by $10/month for years. A just resolution would be for each customer to get $120/year they were with Comcast PLUS Comcast should have some penalty for their fraud. Instead what happens is Comcast agrees to a "huge" $30 million fine that works out to $12/customer per year if everyone opts in to the lawsuit and…

You actually can remove yourself from a class action and retain the right to sue independently, if you think you will do better and win your 100%. (Or for any other reason)

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#160

Post by forapurpose »

jacquesm wrote: post #119
stult wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I believe this is a false narrative spread by those who want to reduce consumer access to courts.

Businesses don't price their goods at (cost + profit). They price them at the level that will maximize profit. Sometimes that's at a loss, sometimes that's around break even, sometimes it provides a healthy profit, and sometimes they make extraordinary profits (what do you think the cost is for that $4 soda at the movie theater?).

But the price is already set to maximize profits. If the seller's costs increase, raising the price won't increase profit or help them at all - it would merely reduce revenue due to the negative impact on sales volume. And if their costs go down, they of course don't lower the price, they take more profit.

Post reply on HN