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

191–200 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#191

Post by s73ver_ »

thejerz wrote: post #171
s73ver_ wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not usually a choice, and it's not due to monopoly. Just about every company out there is adding these clauses to their contracts. And consumers have no power to combat them.

You have the power not to enter into the agreement. No one is forcing you to download a song from iTunes or open an account at Wells Fargo. If you don't like the terms, don't enter into the agreement.

That's not really power. And again, I see absolutely no valid reason why these terms should be allowed. There is zero reason why a company should be able to ask you to sign over your rights. They're rights for a reason. You're supposed to have them.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#192

Post by jacquesm »

jack9 wrote: post #182
mikeash wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The second one just sounds like a crazy person. There are lots of crazy people, and gaming the courts is way many of them make a living, or garner attention, or just give themselves something to do when they are otherwise put together. I've been 3rd party to multiple frivolous suits in california. It's shocking to see the amount of work put into lost causes, but people still show up and fight speeding tickets too..…

I suspect one of the key differences that enables this is that in the United States lawyers can take cases on a contingency basis.

There are other (some European countries too) places where this is possible but in the United States it seems to be much more common, especially in such cases where outcome is a long shot but the pay-off is large.

If you know for sure that you will lose money (and possibly a substantial amount) for bringing a frivolous lawsuit that works as a deterrent. Of course it isn't perfect and may result in some cases that do have merit also not being brought.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#193

Post by squeaky-clean »

jacquesm wrote: post #180
mikeash wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what that google link is supposed to demonstrate. Is there something in the results showing that people's insurance doesn't protect them?

I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. For all you know the guy was illegally in the United States, it still doesn't matter. In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getti…

> I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process.

From the very top of your Google link:

> There is no guarantee that the person who caused the accident will even have insurance. You may have to file a personal injury lawsuit to facilitate collection of your damages.

You sue when the other person is uninsured. That's why insurance matters. Insurance is legally required to drive in most states (New York is one of them).

It's just a scam in general. If you have insurance, they go after your insurance for as much as they can. Also a claim to sue isn't actually suing. Nobody sued you, they just claimed they would twice. The threat is very common, but it actually happening is not. It's all very overblown, like the McDonald's coffee incident.

> In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getting out of their car, assessing the damage - if any - filling out a form and getting on with their day after taking some pictures and shaking hands.

Is there no form of insurance at all in Europe? You just take the damage to your car and deal with it? What if you're too badly injured to get out of the car and shake hands?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#194

Post by jacquesm »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #193
jacquesm wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. For all you know the guy was illegally in the United States, it still doesn't matter. In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getti…

> I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. From the very top of your Google link: > There is no guarantee that the person who caused the accident will even have insurance. You may have to file a personal injury laws…

> You sue when the other person is uninsured. That's why insurance matters. Insurance is legally required to drive in most states (New York is one of them).

Well, or you don't. See, that was the point. Being insured or not is not relevant, it is relevant for the other party but seeing an accident as an avenue to a payday is a fairly uniquely American thing. So whether you claim from the other party or from the insurance company is immaterial, the point is the claim, not the way in which the claim is eventually settled.

> Is there no form of insurance at all in Europe?

Insurance is mandatory, hence the 'filling out a form'.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#195

Post by mikeash »

jacquesm wrote: post #189
mikeash wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being insured is why the most likely response to such a minimal accident in the US is exactly how you describe it in Europe. You don't jump out of your car saying "omg please don't sue me!" You document the damage, exchange info, call the police if necessary (often legally required), and contact your insurance company. They handle the rest. If I rear-ended somebody and later found out they were suing for whiplash, I'…

> they were suing for whiplash The point is - at the risk of becoming boring and repeating myself - that this has nothing to do with being insured or not but with such a suit or claim being brought in the first place. That's an absolute rarity in Europe and a case would have to be pretty severe to get any compensation. In the United States there are plenty of people who see wrong or harm (imaginary or real) done to t…

And my point is that a person who reacts to a minor crash by begging you not to sue him is not even remotely representative of how things work here. You described "the most likely response" in Europe, as if it was somehow different in the US. It's not.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#196

Post by zerkten »

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 think one element of limiting access to courts is forcing binding arbitration (http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20170605/NEWS/170609...). Are there others?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#197

Post by jacquesm »

mikeash wrote: post #195
jacquesm wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were suing for whiplash The point is - at the risk of becoming boring and repeating myself - that this has nothing to do with being insured or not but with such a suit or claim being brought in the first place. That's an absolute rarity in Europe and a case would have to be pretty severe to get any compensation. In the United States there are plenty of people who see wrong or harm (imaginary or real) done to t…

And my point is that a person who reacts to a minor crash by begging you not to sue him is not even remotely representative of how things work here. You described "the most likely response" in Europe, as if it was somehow different in the US. It's not.

So, are you or are you not in agreement that monetary compensation after accidents (or crimes) is more likely to occur in the United States than in Europe regardless of the mechanism of getting such compensation (through the courts or through an insurance company)?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#198

Post by rayiner »

ScottBurson wrote: post #181
jacquesm wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Demand is relatively inelastic in some markets; less so in others.

Most consumer-goods markets have relatively elastic demand and high levels of competition. Companies have little ability to "pass on costs" in such markets.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#199

Post by vmarsy »

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…

> The customers don't have any recourse to say "no, that's a shitty settlement, we want 100% of what we're owed not 10% of it"

They definitely do, they can decide to opt-out, and retain the right to sue the company on that issue. But those who opt-out would have to go start their own lawsuit. For small matters where you were wronged by $120, and you only get $30 back, this is definitely not worth it to start your own lawsuit, the best action here is to take the money and boycott that company if possible. For bigger amounts, like lemon-law cars, it might be worth it, especially if the payouts look too small. For instance, $300 refund if you had to do multiple transmissions repair on your car doesn't seem that great, given that a transmission repair can cost from $500 to thousands of $ each. In that case it can make sense to opt-out.

> or "hey, 50% is too much for the lawyers, I'd rather take $0 than the shitty deal we were offered".

The article says they usually get $2 for $10, which can still look high I agree, but definitely not 50%.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#200

Post by jacquesm »

sageikosa wrote: post #168
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…

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 he…

Funny how litigation in the United States being based on the idea that access to the courts to redress grievances being fundamental for a civil society then causes that very same society to go out of its way to deny those rights to others.

Fairly incredible actually if you think about it for a while.

Post reply on HN