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

121–130 of 249 posts

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

#121

Post by s73ver_ »

dredmorbius wrote: post #90
ambicapter wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fuck WP's nagwall Funny how "Fuck you, pay me" is an acceptable sentiment when you're a freelance software dev, but now when you're a journalistic institution.

Information and markets fundamentally do not work . A topic I've addressed (and cited people who do not manifest on the Internet as Space Alien Cats, including Joseph Stiglitz) numerous times. And you can read for free! https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/search?q=information+ma... Or this yesterday on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15540536

Ok. How do those journalists, web devs, publishers, photographers, etc pay their bills?

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

#122

Post by s73ver_ »

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…

How does that change things? Why does that mean that I should not be able to unite with my fellow consumers to hold them accountable?

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

#123

Post by Chaebixi »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #77
comex wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With (most) arbitration clauses, you can't actually sue at all. You have to go through a private arbitration firm, which can set pretty much whatever rules they want - including things like basing rulings on religious law [1]. Compared to that, I'm pretty sure there'd be nothing illegal about rules to defeat the hypothetical law firm, like requiring complainants to show up in person. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/…

Except they have to get all of those millions of lawsuits dismissed individually by advancing that argument and failing in even a single of those cases through a novel argument on the part of plaintiff, sympathetic judge, etc could open an avalanche of lawsuits against the firms. It also would force the courts dismissing the lawsuits to grapple with the sheer scale of criminality that the dismissals are being used to…

> Except they have to get all of those millions of lawsuits dismissed individually by advancing that argument and failing in even a single of those cases through a novel argument on the part of plaintiff, sympathetic judge, etc could open an avalanche of lawsuits against the firms.

That could only work if people actually filed the lawsuit. However, filing a lawsuit isn't free (as the below random website attests [1]). If it's a near certainty that the lawsuit will be dismissed, few people are going to want to pay $320 (plus any other costs) to file it.

I'd like to hope people have the principle to bang their heads against the courts until they take (the proper) action, but I'm pessimistic.

Honestly, maybe novel political solutions are the answer? Could a state pass a heavy tax on binding arbitration, to be paid by the party that required it?

[1] https://calaborlaw.com/how-much-do-lawsuits-cost/

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

#124

Post by s73ver_ »

JackFr wrote: post #85
CommentCard wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In your view is it ever permissible(enforceable) to forfeit the right to sue as part of a contract? Or are there just certain kinds of contracts or circumstances for which the right to sue is inalienable?

It's not in Europe, so I see zero reason why it should be permissible here.

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

#126

Post by Larrikin »

morley wrote: post #114
dwyerm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was offered over $1000 off to 'just sign the damned contract', but still ended up walking. I was fortunate to find a different dealer that didn't have an arbitration clause, though. I fear I wouldn't find that next time around, and was really hanging my hopes upon legislation like this.

I'm going to ask what might be a dumb question, because I don't know any better. But is there any statistical evidence that arbitration results in worse outcomes for the consumer, or is all the hate theoretical for now? People on HN and otherwise speak about arbitration like it's an auto-loss for the consumer, but it's not like our court systems are guaranteed to be much fairer. EDIT: It looks like the bottom of the…

The normal system is that these civil disputes are done in a court of law. Justify the change.

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

#127

Post by pmyteh »

morley wrote: post #114
dwyerm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was offered over $1000 off to 'just sign the damned contract', but still ended up walking. I was fortunate to find a different dealer that didn't have an arbitration clause, though. I fear I wouldn't find that next time around, and was really hanging my hopes upon legislation like this.

I'm going to ask what might be a dumb question, because I don't know any better. But is there any statistical evidence that arbitration results in worse outcomes for the consumer, or is all the hate theoretical for now? People on HN and otherwise speak about arbitration like it's an auto-loss for the consumer, but it's not like our court systems are guaranteed to be much fairer. EDIT: It looks like the bottom of the…

Per the article: "During the two-year period studied, only 78 arbitration claims resulted in judgments in favor of consumers, who got $400,000 in total relief."

It's not clear what the denominator on that sum is, though it is also stated that the rate of customers taking up arbitration was very low

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

#128

Post by s73ver_ »

sampo wrote: post #12
curiousgal wrote: post #5

What are some arguments for money in politics; lobbying?

That the alternative might be worse?

I can't possibly see how. Limit every American to $500 of political donations a year. Everyone has the right to speech, but no one has the right to more speech than another.

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

#129

Post by s73ver_ »

dwyerm wrote: post #97
xphilter wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at how many YC backed companies have arb clauses in consumer contracts. It's not just a GOP problem.

I've argued before, though, that I can't fault companies for using them. When someone hands you a get-out-of-jail-free card, you take that thing and hold on to it. It would be a special kind of lunatic who wouldn't. The logic is this: "Look, you just need to add this handful of lines to your agreement, and you've instantly got protection against money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing lawyers who would come after you becau…

Why can't I fault them for using a decidedly evil clause? These companies are run by people, who are fully capable of knowing right from wrong.

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

#130

Post by pm24601 »

dwyerm wrote: post #95
wingspar wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I last purchased a car I used accepting the arbitration clause to extract $150 in accessories from the dealer. The sales agent was a bit confused, it’s usually the paperwork guy that deals with the arbitration and at point most people just want it over with..

I was offered over $1000 off to 'just sign the damned contract', but still ended up walking. I was fortunate to find a different dealer that didn't have an arbitration clause, though. I fear I wouldn't find that next time around, and was really hanging my hopes upon legislation like this.

Thanks for giving me another reason to buy only used cars!
Post reply on HN