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

251–260 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#251

Post by vkou »

dragonwriter wrote: post #164
vkou wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

I don't meant to conflate corporatists with libertarians - just that they tend to come to the same conclusion on these issues.

And looking at the American political landscape, there are far more dyed-in-the-wool anti-human corporatists holding power then there are libertarians.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#252

Post by tareqak »

A slightly related issue that I find somewhat unsettling is how easily big companies that are being sued by state or federal governments are able to settle in out of court proceedings.

From my understanding, the argument for allowing settlements is to help one or both parties somehow save face, time, or money. However, what everyone (including people who are not affiliated with either party) loses out on is the possibility to establish a precedent. Some of the cases that come to mind are the HSBC case where some people who were following the court proceedings started to sense and publicly state the real possibility of actual criminal wrongdoing (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hsbc-agrees-470m-settlement-ove...). Compare that to a guilty plea by BNP Paribas here (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/30/bnp-paribas... and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/bnp-paribas-sentenced-conspir...).

In comparison, see what happens to an individual (https://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/19/soc-gen-rogue-trader-kerviel...), and how people try to avoid it (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-09/ex-socgen...).

TL;DR: Big companies get to settle all to easily in cases brought forward by government attorneys without admitting guilt or wrongdoing, which is in contrast individuals (even wealthy ones) who often basically become the targets of what effectively becomes (sometimes faux) moral crusade. Companies end up:

1. Doing something that breaks the law, but in a sufficiently obfuscated manner. 2. Getting caught by government usually via the observation and study by keen citizens and/or outright whistleblowers. 3. Involving their legal team to both prepare for fighting the case, and to give PR guidance and statements. Marketing and salespeople downplay the concerns from both consumers and customers. 4. When the case becomes sufficiently uncomfortable, settle it with government for some fraction of the total estimated damages and not admit to wrongdoing. 5. Write off the settlement amount in the most tax-friendly manner possible via in-house or third-party accountants. 6. Get praise internally and externally for being scrappy and disrupting the establishment/government/noun-used-as-a-pejorative (yes, you too dear HN contributor/lurker). 7. Rinse and repeat 1-6.

I think a few of the things that Uber and AirBnB have had to settle essentially map to the steps I outlined above.

Note: a. The sources above that I cite might not be the best ones to support my claim, but the general issue and the unwillingness to resolve it properly remain. b. I realize that step 6 is mean/snarky/typecasting. My aim was to remind the reader that audible/silent praise/rebuke do have power, and that doing nothing does register as a signal in some situations.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#253

Post by will_brown »

mirimir wrote: post #238
will_brown wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes. But generally, there must have been injury to the government.

The idea of government injury is often invisible. Here is a specific example, and likely 3 of the 6 examples I listed have above are similar factually (anti-kickback):

1. Russians began opening pharmacies in Russian neighborhoods throughout the UD (yes, Russian neighborhoods are a thing);

2. The pharmacies would deliver drugs to the medicare patients and in those deliveries included certain gifts anything from Russian newspapers, magazines, to sometimes Russian caviar;

3. As they do CVS identified the success and bought the network of pharmacies;

4. After the sale a lawsuit was brought, because a pharmacist at just one of these pharmacies mentioned that these additions to the drug deliveries violated anti-kickback laws and as a result the pharmacy took retaliatory action (I believe day shift to night shift and reduced hours)

The US government would never have known if it weren't for the pharmacist, and it's the exact behavior prohibited by the Anti-kickback Statute, but I'd challenge you to articulate the injury to the government (in fairness I know you could, but I think you see the strong counter arguments).

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#254

Post by otterley »

isolli wrote: post #36
otterley wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction: American Arbitration Act (aka AAA).

Wikipedia disagrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

Yikes! I stand corrected. Thank you. I was confusing it with the American Arbitration Association.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#255

Post by mirimir »

will_brown wrote: post #253
mirimir wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. But generally, there must have been injury to the government.

The idea of government injury is often invisible. Here is a specific example, and likely 3 of the 6 examples I listed have above are similar factually (anti-kickback): 1. Russians began opening pharmacies in Russian neighborhoods throughout the UD (yes, Russian neighborhoods are a thing); 2. The pharmacies would deliver drugs to the medicare patients and in those deliveries included certain gifts anything from Russia…

Sure. But the intention is to protect the Medicare and Medicaid programs. And hey, IANAL.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#256

Post by johnvonneumann »

FussyZeus wrote: post #186
iancarroll wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has the FTC.

Whose fines, in the rare instance they're actually fining companies, never come close to the profits reaped by the activities that broke the regulations in the first place. For reference: The judgement against the banks after the 2008 mortgage crisis, the fines levied against Wells after the debacle with phony accounts, pretty much any case involving a collections agency, etc. When the profits are in the billions, ev…

I've never quite understood how this works, I'm trying to imagine a burglar being asked to give back "some" of what he stole, but not everything, that would be "unfair". Fight fire with fire in many cases, start fining them the years profit, or maybe, just maybe, start treating corporates like the criminals they are.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#258

Post by FussyZeus »

johnvonneumann wrote: post #256
FussyZeus wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose fines, in the rare instance they're actually fining companies, never come close to the profits reaped by the activities that broke the regulations in the first place. For reference: The judgement against the banks after the 2008 mortgage crisis, the fines levied against Wells after the debacle with phony accounts, pretty much any case involving a collections agency, etc. When the profits are in the billions, ev…

I've never quite understood how this works, I'm trying to imagine a burglar being asked to give back "some" of what he stole, but not everything, that would be "unfair". Fight fire with fire in many cases, start fining them the years profit, or maybe, just maybe, start treating corporates like the criminals they are.

Because when you're worth several million dollars, the justice system will go to great lengths to pretend your crime wasn't actually a crime. And yeah, this thought is uncomfortable, but I challenge anyone who reads it to prove it wrong.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#259

Post by baddox »

QAPereo wrote: post #222
baddox wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no incompatibility with something being a right and someone choosing to not exercise that right. Your argument is similar to arguing that you should not be allowed to speak while under arrested, or that you should be forced to own property.

Turn it around and it's just a matter of not allowing anyone else to infringe on your rights to that extent; to go back to his example maybe you do have the right to sign yourself away to slavery, but nobody has the right to take up that contract.

Everyone uses the "signing yourself into slavery" example, but it's not clear what that means. If you consent to it, then it's not slavery (you can make arguments about "wage slavery," but I think that's a different issue). If you sign a contract to perform labor for some period of time, then change your mind later, the contract likely has some terms for breaking the contract early, and if it doesn't, it's probably not likely to be enforced by any court.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#260

Post by sitkack »

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…

> McDonald's coffee incident

Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...

Post reply on HN