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

161–170 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#161

Post by DannyBee »

afpx wrote: post #151
DannyBee wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 dam…

"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. "

Yes.

Second, just in in what sense? If the questions affecting everyone are the same, there's no point in having 5 trials about it.

"(b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if: .. (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. "

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#162

Post by DannyBee »

astrocat wrote: post #130
DannyBee wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

>I'd also argue they are not the ideal instrument, as they rarely actually achieve any real gains for the individuals. I can't say whether or not the process is ideal, but I can say that the benefit to individuals is irrelevant. The COLLECTIVE - the whole society - benefits in a big way when the behavior of a large corporation doing very small harm to thousands or millions of individuals is punished and deterred. The…

"but I can say that the benefit to individuals is irrelevant. "

Again, never the original purpose, and while a good goal, class actions are surely ineffective at this.

" The COLLECTIVE - the whole society - benefits in a big way when the behavior of a large corporation doing very small harm to thousands or millions of individuals is punished and deterred."

Also as mentioned, I think this is very true, but class actions have pretty much not had that effect at all. There are very few areas where class actions have been effective at accomplishing this.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#163

Post by jacquesm »

forapurpose wrote: post #160
jacquesm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

You are free to believe whatever you want but that's a quote straight from a conversation with the CEO of a very large manufacturer of consumer goods, who - in my experience - tended not to speak stuff that wasn't true.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#164

Post by dragonwriter »

vkou wrote: post #149
dragonwriter wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more a manifestation of thst problem than merely related. Class action lawsuits are a crappy solution, but often better than the alternative, which is often nothing. (In some cases, mass direct-action lawsuits are superior, but coordinating those also has substantially increased overhead, and they gave some of the same settlement incentives; OTOH, because they are positive approval rather than opt out, it's less…

The alternative is regulatory agencies with teeth, as you see in the EU. 'Doing nothing' is a false dichotomy unless you subscribe to libertarian/corporatist philosophy. (Which would, if it could, abolish the position of the attorney general.)

> The alternative is regulatory agencies with teeth, as you see in the EU.

I was referring to the alternatives available in the status quo legal system in the US, but I disagree that more powerful regulatory agencies are a complete replacement for class actions, though they are perhaps independently desirable.

> 'Doing nothing' is a false dichotomy unless you subscribe to libertarian/corporatist philosophy. (Which would, if it could, abolish the position of the attorney general.)

No, it wouldn't (at least, most libertarians and even more so pro-corporate types recognize a role for government and a role for AGs within that government, though a narrower role than the status quo for each.) It might eliminate state causes of action on behalf of consumers, but those aren't the whole (or even main) thing that AGs, who are the state or federal government's chief legal counsel and law enforcement officer, do.

(Also, you seem to be missing “corporatist” to mean “pro-corporation minarchist capitalist”; corporatism is a disinct politico-economic philosophy that is about as far from libertarianism/minarchism as possible.)

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#165

Post by rhizome »

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…

I believe one of the terms you're looking for is "judicial economy."

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#166

Post by jbg331 »

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…

For purposes of clarity, lawyers don't get 50%, and whatever they do get needs to be approved by the judge. It's often 20-30% depending on work.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#167

Post by Nicholas_C »

wongarsu wrote: post #116
kijin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn't this be fraud if you didn't flag the changes/tell the other party about them?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#168

Post by sageikosa »

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…

I believe litigation in the United States is based on the idea that access to the courts to redress grievances (against private individuals or public institutions) is fundamental for a civil society. This goes as far as preventing habeas corpus from being suspended in Illinois during the American Civil War as the courts were still in operation, and the "justification" for holding people in Guantanamo. While I have heard the vague generalities of "overreach" and "unconstitutionality" levied against regulation by some opponents, the more nuanced economic argument is that regulation creates barriers to entry, slowness to adapt, and governmental bloat (i.e., bureaucracy which can only be reined in by more bureaucracy). The market solutions to regulation are more properly insurance (by producers) to cover claims and tort constraints. Snowflake society doesn't like calculating the economic (market) value of risk to life or limb, but the truth is that without reasonable tort the economic impact will still be born, but socialized by non-risk takers subsidizing expanding bureaucracies.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#169

Post by JetSpiegel »

will_brown wrote: post #140
monksy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 also has Qui Tam lawsuits, meaning on behalf of the king , one of the more well known versions are whistleblower cases. Though the whistleblower only receives a rather small percent (10% is common, but varies), these lawsuits are some of the largest judgments in history, in particular as related to illegal kickbacks in the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries. The common facts are the business is engaging…

Non-AMP second link: https://www.qui-tam-attorney.com/amp/10-largest-qui-tam-whis...

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#170

Post by jacquesm »

mikeash wrote: post #153
jacquesm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 some…

(1) https://www.google.nl/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=whip...

(2) his lawyer did contact us.

WW.com has had a number of such threats of lawsuits for all kinds of reasons, exclusively these were by Americans and they were all looking to get money out of us.

In business circles this is simply seen as a cost of doing business in the USA, if you are large enough to be visible you will get sued.

Post reply on HN