Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 249 posts

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#31

Post by mtgx »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16
curiousgal wrote: post #5

What are some arguments for money in politics; lobbying?

(1) If you have wealth in a society, you have more to lose from its downfall than the average Joe. Counterpoint: you can now afford to hedge your bets, financially, and flee. (2) It takes skill and savvy to make money. Overweighting their influence will produce a fitter society. (Interesting aside: British university graduates and property owners got double, sometimes triple, votes through 1948 [1].) Counterpoint: th…

But we're supposed to be a democratic country where everyone's vote is "equal". The money is speech thing completely bypasses and greatly skews that rule. It's like a parallel voting system where a wealthy person's "vote" is quantified in the amount of dollars he or she spends to buy politicians.

Also, wealthy people will almost always prefer pro-small taxes politicians, on either party. So they will fund either Republicans or Democrats that think that way (especially with Democrats that have a "public position and a private one").

Allowing money to decide rank in society is what we normally call corruption, because it also bypasses laws, like when rich people get away with crimes, because they have money and influence. That's not how it should work, right? Similarly, I very much doubt that having mostly rich people buying politicians is how a democracy should work, too.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#32

Post by defined »

> Today, it is hard to open up a checking account, rent a car, get cable service or check a loved one into a nursing home without agreeing to mandatory arbitration.

This is the part that gives me ulcers, and it's no exaggeration. So many companies insist on us giving up our 7th Amendment rights that we either give in, or don't fly, buy a car, or get a job. We can't even go to the competition because they also have mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their contracts.

As bad as the Equifax breach is, IMO this is a greater danger to our freedoms.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#33

Post by defined »

hyolaris wrote: post #29

This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP. Deregulation is fine if you strengthen the ability of citizens to obtain redress through the judicial system. If you weaken that ability, or it is weakened, you increase regulation. But they're both deregulating and restricting judicial redress, which only increases power of those who don't need it. Companies either are liable or not; th…

> these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me.

I'd go even further and say corrupt and evil. Yet these baseless clauses have been around long before the modern GOP, so while I agree with your sentiment, I'd broaden it from "GOP" to "greedy corporates and their government puppets from any political party."

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#34

Post by pjc50 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #23
jonny_eh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if the banks had your money, even though you never gave it to them.

> even though you never gave it to them You can argue you were coerced into giving it to them. But at the end of the day, you signed bank and credit card and employment agreements that let your information be transmitted.

Because the alternative would be opting out of employment?

(How many places wouldn't un-hire you as soon as you insist they can't pay your bank account because you don't have one?)

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#35

Post by [deleted] »

rgbrenner wrote: post #17
peterlk wrote: post #4

Pure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the ban…

That is not an apt analogy. The resources of a nation state were not required to hack equifax.. a kid with a laptop could have done it. This is a consumer trust and safety issue because basic care was not taken to protect the data that Equifax was trusted with guarding. If it turns out that a nation state is the one that carried out the hack.. then that's a national security issue AND a consumer trust and safety issu…

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#36

Post by JumpCrisscross »

mtgx wrote: post #31
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) If you have wealth in a society, you have more to lose from its downfall than the average Joe. Counterpoint: you can now afford to hedge your bets, financially, and flee. (2) It takes skill and savvy to make money. Overweighting their influence will produce a fitter society. (Interesting aside: British university graduates and property owners got double, sometimes triple, votes through 1948 [1].) Counterpoint: th…

But we're supposed to be a democratic country where everyone's vote is "equal". The money is speech thing completely bypasses and greatly skews that rule. It's like a parallel voting system where a wealthy person's "vote" is quantified in the amount of dollars he or she spends to buy politicians. Also, wealthy people will almost always prefer pro-small taxes politicians, on either party. So they will fund either Repu…

In America, “one person, one vote” only arose in the 1960s. The Constitution was framed with suffrage for only land-owning white men.

> That's not how it should work, right?

That’s a big question. I don’t think it’s safe to presume it’s answer.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#37

Post by chillydawg »

Is this an opportunity for a new type of law firm that opens up to deal with one type of complaint for one company and offers extremely low fees to file? The idea would be that the paperwork is all the same for the X thousand/million people suing INDIVIDUALLY such that economies of scale take over and the cost of actually filing and pushing the suit through becomes cheap enough for almost anyone.

On the side of Giant Bank, they suddenly have 150,000 lawsuits filed against them and have to act in some way. Is that even allowed? Would a court just tell the law firm to go away and stop spamming it?

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#38

Post by noobermin »

defined wrote: post #33
hyolaris wrote: post #29

This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP. Deregulation is fine if you strengthen the ability of citizens to obtain redress through the judicial system. If you weaken that ability, or it is weakened, you increase regulation. But they're both deregulating and restricting judicial redress, which only increases power of those who don't need it. Companies either are liable or not; th…

> these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me. I'd go even further and say corrupt and evil. Yet these baseless clauses have been around long before the modern GOP, so while I agree with your sentiment, I'd broaden it from "GOP" to "greedy corporates and their government puppets from any political party."

While you're right, Dems recieve a lot of Wall Street cash and do their bidding often, here all D's voted against it.[0] Both are "corrupted" to use your words but I'd say one is "worse" at least on this one issue.

[0] And yes, most did it for political reasons I imagine.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#39

Post by fmihaila »

defined wrote: post #33
hyolaris wrote: post #29

This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP. Deregulation is fine if you strengthen the ability of citizens to obtain redress through the judicial system. If you weaken that ability, or it is weakened, you increase regulation. But they're both deregulating and restricting judicial redress, which only increases power of those who don't need it. Companies either are liable or not; th…

> these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me. I'd go even further and say corrupt and evil. Yet these baseless clauses have been around long before the modern GOP, so while I agree with your sentiment, I'd broaden it from "GOP" to "greedy corporates and their government puppets from any political party."

And yet, this particular law was opposed by all Democrats in the Senate and was supported by every Republican except two. It passed due to Mike Pence's tie-breaking vote.

Re: U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

#40

Post by wmeredith »

rgbrenner wrote: post #17
peterlk wrote: post #4

Pure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the ban…

That is not an apt analogy. The resources of a nation state were not required to hack equifax.. a kid with a laptop could have done it. This is a consumer trust and safety issue because basic care was not taken to protect the data that Equifax was trusted with guarding. If it turns out that a nation state is the one that carried out the hack.. then that's a national security issue AND a consumer trust and safety issu…

“Trusted with guarding” Nope
Post reply on HN