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

241–249 of 249 posts

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

#241

Post by throwawaymanbot »

noobermin wrote: post #184
grellas wrote: post #170

It is entirely superficial to cast this fight as one between good and evil. As much as anything, it was about proper process. Legislative, executive, judicial - those are the three branches under the Constitution that are supposed to check and balance one another. The legislature passed the federal arbitration act almost 100 years ago. It was signed into law by the president. And it has been consistently upheld by th…

>For those who don't like it, that is fine. The ballot box is open as the prescribed means to effect a change. Every single sentence you wrote here is extremely ignorant of the political reality in which that usual proper process has been in the muck for years. You're not realizing the effect that gerrymandering, voter suppression, and money in politics has on the ability of the usual system to work to reflect the de…

You said it. And Gerrymandering is the only way one certain party is electable these days. This is nothing more than a lobbying sop to certain people from a certain party. Lets not pretend people are trying to balance things. Contemptible.

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

#242

Post by zonethundery »

grellas wrote: post #170

It is entirely superficial to cast this fight as one between good and evil. As much as anything, it was about proper process. Legislative, executive, judicial - those are the three branches under the Constitution that are supposed to check and balance one another. The legislature passed the federal arbitration act almost 100 years ago. It was signed into law by the president. And it has been consistently upheld by th…

> (its structure was declared unconstitutional by the D.C. court of appeals)

...which was promptly vacated by the full Circuit and is awaiting an en banc decision. Kavanaugh's opinion wasn't exactly a masterpiece of juris prudence, and there are ways for the full circuit (and scotus if necessary) to make a decision on the issues without touching the constitutional questions.

As another comment notes, the CFPB was required by law to study arbitration and encouraged to issue a rule in line with those findings. The arbitration rule was far from an overreach.

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

#243

Post by tertius »

ksk wrote: post #233
achandlerwhite wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is false. The CFPB rule only prohibited mandatory arbitration. It still allowed for voluntary arbitration if an individual preferred that path in a dispute.

Interesting, can you point to an official document that says that?

Have you read the rule that was proposed?

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

#244

Post by ksk »

tertius wrote: post #243
ksk wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, can you point to an official document that says that?

Have you read the rule that was proposed?

Not sure what you're talking about. In any case, I've found that its always best to go to the source documents. If there is any other official document worth reading, please link to it and the relevant page.

This is what that document from the DOT says.

>Against this background, in July 2017, the Bureau issued its final rule (the “Rule”) prohibiting consumers and providers of financial products and services from agreeing to resolve future disputes through arbitration rather than class-action litigation.

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

#245

Post by dctoedt »

grellas wrote: post #170

It is entirely superficial to cast this fight as one between good and evil. As much as anything, it was about proper process. Legislative, executive, judicial - those are the three branches under the Constitution that are supposed to check and balance one another. The legislature passed the federal arbitration act almost 100 years ago. It was signed into law by the president. And it has been consistently upheld by th…

> The legislature passed the federal arbitration act almost 100 years ago. It was signed into law by the president. And it has been consistently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the face of many and varied court challenges.

The Federal Arbitration Act was enacted to validate B2B arbitration agreements: before then, and also for a considerable time thereafter, many courts were hostile to arbitration agreements — because, it's thought, judges didn't want private arbitrators encroaching on the judges' turf [0]. Also, when the FAA was enacted, consumers and employees generally didn't enter into contracts. The "scope creep" of the FAA has been due largely to the Supreme Court's literal interpretation of the Act, giving it priority over all contrary state statutes and practically any other federal statute that doesn't expressly state otherwise.

[0] See, e.g., http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... (a somewhat-passionate review of the history that generally comports with my own understanding from roughly 25 years of occasional practice in this area).

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

#246

Post by snowwrestler »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #232
snowwrestler wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It harms oil lobbyists and big ag and tobacco and all those industries in exactly the same way it's going to hurt the Sierra Club. It would not, because under your rules an industry executive could draw a salary while talking to government officials because they would be pursuing their own self-interest in doing so. But a Sierra Club employee could not because the sole purpose of the Sierra Club is to represent the…

I think there's a misunderstanding here. >A rule that prohibits a person from getting paid to represent other people That's not the rule. The rule is you can't get paid to lobby. An executive drawing a salary when his job is primarily talking to congress people is obviously lobbying. To put a finer point on it you're making a distinction between (1) a corporate executive who receives compensation from his corporation…

The business person is not getting paid to lobby. They are getting paid because they are a salaried employee with paid time off, so they get paid regardless of what they do.

Meanwhile the entire purpose of advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club is to lobby. So if they can't pay people to lobby, they have no reason to raise money, and no way to spend money if they do raise any. Under a rule that prohibits getting paid to lobby, orgs like the Sierra Club simply cannot exist at all. There's no business model.

Anyway, the law is crystal clear that such a rule would be unconstitutional. People don't give up their rights just because they pool resources or get paid. Paul Krugman and David Brooks still have free speech rights even when they're getting paid to write columns.

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

#247

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

snowwrestler wrote: post #246
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. >A rule that prohibits a person from getting paid to represent other people That's not the rule. The rule is you can't get paid to lobby. An executive drawing a salary when his job is primarily talking to congress people is obviously lobbying. To put a finer point on it you're making a distinction between (1) a corporate executive who receives compensation from his corporation…

The business person is not getting paid to lobby. They are getting paid because they are a salaried employee with paid time off, so they get paid regardless of what they do. Meanwhile the entire purpose of advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club is to lobby. So if they can't pay people to lobby, they have no reason to raise money, and no way to spend money if they do raise any. Under a rule that prohibits getting…

>Meanwhile the entire purpose of advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club is to lobby. So if they can't pay people to lobby, they have no reason to raise money, and no way to spend money if they do raise any. Under a rule that prohibits getting paid to lobby, orgs like the Sierra Club simply cannot exist at all. There's no business model.

Then they do the same thing and go do it on their vacation. To me it seems obvious that the money for lobbying exchange that happens in our society benefits the wealthy more than anyone else so ending it is good. It moves the power dynamic from one where lobbying power is determined by money to one where lobbying power is determined by manpower. Now obviously it doesn't completely shift that dynamic by itself but it seems like a vital reform among others.

>Anyway, the law is crystal clear that such a rule would be unconstitutional. People don't give up their rights just because they pool resources or get paid. Paul Krugman and David Brooks still have free speech rights even when they're getting paid to write columns.

No it's not because it's not limiting your speech, it's limiting your ability to get paid for speaking. Like with the kidney example - our laws against buying/selling a kidney don't make having a kidney illegal - you can walk around all day with a kidney - you just can't sell it. Same thing with my rule - you can speak to congresspeople all day, you just can't get paid for it.

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

#248

Post by katastic »

katastic wrote: post #117
Chathamization wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So surely you're just as angry about the Democrats deregulating the telecoms in 1996 and allowing companies to own entire vertical chains. Looks like that was a bi-partisan effort, but with more Democrats opposing it than Republicans. Senators who voted for the act: 51 Republicans, 30 Democrats. Senators opposed: 2 Republicans, 16 Democrats (one Republican senator didn't vote).[1] House members who voted for the ac…

178 House democrats vote for it and you're acting like they opposed it? While Bill Clinton signed it into law?

HK: When logic and facts fail and you completely lose an argument, use the downvote button.

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

#249

Post by defined »

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.

Nitpick: my word was "corrupt", not "corrupted".
Post reply on HN