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

51–60 of 249 posts

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

#51

Post by nerdponx »

iamleppert wrote: post #19
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…

The way to get better security is to let the free market system work as its intended: Equifax should die a painful death by the masses, if necessary piecemeal one lawsuit at a time until the company coffers have been emptied (and preferably any directors, agents, vested entities, and anyone else within a legally-defensible stone's throw). It may sound harsh, but that's life and life ain't fair. That's the only way to…

This is a good point, and it highlights where “corrupt and evil free-market economics“ diverges from the idealized Hayekian free-market economics that these politicians are pretending they adhere to.

If you have no choice of where to shop, and you have no recourse for making yourself whole when your only vendor abuses their monopoly power, that is not an “efficient“ free market.

Because that is ultimately the cover they use for all of this deregulation. “Deregulation hurts business“ is the only argument I have ever heard in favor of this kind of policy. But that is such an obvious lie at this point. That it seems they aren’t even trying t pretend policy has an economic basis anymore. But apparently the damage to the public’s ability to form an opinion has already been done.

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

#52

Post by nerdponx »

unchocked wrote: post #30
iamleppert wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to get better security is to let the free market system work as its intended: Equifax should die a painful death by the masses, if necessary piecemeal one lawsuit at a time until the company coffers have been emptied (and preferably any directors, agents, vested entities, and anyone else within a legally-defensible stone's throw). It may sound harsh, but that's life and life ain't fair. That's the only way to…

Your claim sounds good the way you put it, but less so when you consider that retributive justice seems ineffectual at deterring violent crime... unless you're also going to claim that shitty companies are generally smarter than felons.

The analogy does not work. People commit violent crimes for very different reasons than shitty companies commit economic crimes.

And at the end of the day, there is some amount of basic deterrence for people who are not in some kind of adverse mental state. How many more crimes of passion would there be if murder, or assault, were not so harshly penalized? The “deterrence does not work“ line as a matter of degrees, not absolutes, and only applies to a subset of the population. For the rest of us, it works just fine.

So to re-join the topic at hand, think of it this way: there will always be outright criminal corporate actors, and deterrence by corporate death will never stop them. These are the Bernie Madoffs and Jeffrey Skillings of the world. Their corporate actors, however, only act the way they do because they are simply are no consequences for doing otherwise, and upper management has evidently quashed their consciences entirely: AT&T (selling deanonymized data with token, non-retractable consent), BP (Gulf oil spill), Equifax (not caring about your security). Lest we forget that these businesses are in the business of making money, and they do so with terrifying efficiency, and their management is soullessly shrewd. If something is risky and expensive because it entails a high chance of a lawsuit or some other penalty, they will think twice about it.

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

#53

Post by nerdponx »

freeone3000 wrote: post #49
Shivetya wrote: post #48

this was not about protecting consumers but instead about protecting the interest of trial lawyers who saw their money slush fund about to dry up. this is a group that notoriously donates to one party over another and exerts incredible control over that party. this rule would have done far more than just smack financial institutions as it was only a first move by the bureau which operates too far outside of what shou…

So instead of an unaccountable government agency, your only option for redress is an arbiter that the company you're complaining against hired. "Unaccountable" is another word for "provably uninfluenced". Arbitration is provably influenced. (For your other points: "rich" trial lawyers that make, on average, less than software developers? "partisan" isn't the dirty word you think it is, ideas should be judged on merit…

“Unaccountable" is another word for "provably uninfluenced"

What? No. “Unaccountable” means “can’t hold them accountable for their actions”.

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

#54

Post by akvadrako »

noobermin wrote: post #38
defined wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This easily could have been an issue raised during a Democratic majority congress and passed with the same story. After all, everybody hates lawyers that get rich while class members get a coupon.

It's not about the issue.

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

#55

Post by craftyguy »

lostdog wrote: post #22
self_assembly wrote: post #18

This is probably a dumb question but I would appreciate a serious answer. How am I considered a consumer of Equifax? Aren't the consumers the people that use Equifax to check my credit? When did I ever enter into an agreement with Equifax that binds me to arbitration?

Did you freeze or lock your credit with Equifax? Have you ever checked your credit report with Equifax so you knew it would be in advance? Congratulations. You no longer have access to the court system.

Cool, I have never done any of those things with equifax! Where do I sign up for the class action lawsuit?

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

#56

Post by zimpenfish »

CommentCard wrote: post #42
ngold wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the banks left all their customers money protected by a wind screen door that was accessible in the alley, I think suing could be justified.

Your example falls under the purview of negligence in tort law. Nevertheless an arbitration agreement may supersede a potential lawsuit. The widespread use of forced arbitration seems ripe for examination by the SCOTUS. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a fairly blatant violation of the 7th amendment.

> The widespread use of forced arbitration seems ripe for examination by the SCOTUS.

Given the current makeup of SCOTUS, I wouldn't hold your breath, sadly.

(Although I would like to hear Gorsuch claim that since the constitution didn't say anything about forced arbitration, it's out of the purview of SCOTUS. If only to hear him slapped down by RBG again.)

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

#57

Post by wallace_f »

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…

What's crazy is that since Reagan the GOP is also fine with increased gov spending, among a host of other increasingly authoritarian policies.*

So no longer can they even claim to be anti government corruption & spending, and pro business & 'freedom.' They just appear to be 'anti people.'

But please don't pretend the Dems are a whole lot better on most of these issues... I really hope our generation can work together and do something about this failing two-party system.

*a short list: domestic surveillance, police militarization, civil forfeiture, anti net netruality, military expansion, pro Wall St, hand outs to healthcare lobbysits, etc..

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

#58

Post by naasking »

wallace_f wrote: post #57
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…

What's crazy is that since Reagan the GOP is also fine with increased gov spending, among a host of other increasingly authoritarian policies.* So no longer can they even claim to be anti government corruption & spending, and pro business & 'freedom.' They just appear to be 'anti people.' But please don't pretend the Dems are a whole lot better on most of these issues... I really hope our generation can work together…

> They are just anti people.

Correction: anti-poor people.

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

#59

Post by kalleboo »

noobermin wrote: post #38
defined wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To expound on your [0], remember that Republicans voted on repealing Obamacare when they knew it was going to be vetoed, but once they were actually in control, suddenly they didn't have enough votes.

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

#60

Post by kbrwn »

akvadrako wrote: post #54
noobermin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This easily could have been an issue raised during a Democratic majority congress and passed with the same story. After all, everybody hates lawyers that get rich while class members get a coupon. It's not about the issue.

Democrats passed the law that created the agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Post reply on HN