21–30 of 37 posts
The money quote from the plaintiff... ""As an analogy," Devine wrote, "if a shoplifter is caught on video stealing a $400 iPad from the Apple Store, would a fair and just resolution be for the shoplifter to pay Apple $40, keep the iPad, and walk away with no record or admission of wrongdoing? Of course not.""
That does happen though. Apple could choose to not press charges and let him walk away free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, does your last sentence turn 180 from the (otherwise excellent) analysis. If class actions don't help plaintiffs enough, shouldn't we be looking for a stronger solution?
"Strength" is not a metric here. There is a principal-agent problem because the lawyers are able to convince a court to give them the right to represent the class. They then have a much lower standard of responsibility to the class. You need a solution that aligns the plaintiff's interests and the lawyer's interests - one way to do that is to have them negotiate with the plaintiff rather than the defendant to get pai…
Strength is not a metric if your goal is to require moral perfection from those representing workers before placing any burden on law-breaking capitalists -- a not uncommon perspective among those concerned about "fiatmoney". If, on the other hand, your goal is to allow the rare employment market in which workers actually have some power to function as a free market, then you might treat legal principal agent problems as issues to be managed rather than excuses to allow capitalists to break the law with effective impunity.
I'm glad that Michael Devine has the courage to turn down the settlement. I think it helps that there seems to be clear evidence of wrongdoing. Also, maybe I am misunderstanding something, but does the plaintiff have to ask for the settlement to be rejected? I thought that for a settlement to go through, all parties have to agree, otherwise it goes to court.
Class action lawsuits are either opt-out (23b3) or in some cases (23b1-2) mandatory with no choice but to be bound. This is especially problematic because the actor in the driver's seat -- the lawyers that bring the suits -- have very different incentives from thier nominal clients. In fact, thier incentives are more closely aligned with the defendant. The defendant wants a quick resolution and global peace, the lawy…
I think the lawyers of plaintiffs thought they could 'manipulate' their 'clients' so that the lawyers could simply cut and run with their outsized fee case but little did they know their 'clients' are not some easily manipulated people who really need some cash now.
These clients are well educated and have the money to wait out AND can get a great job anywhere.
I really wish to hear the real story of this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Strength" is not a metric here. There is a principal-agent problem because the lawyers are able to convince a court to give them the right to represent the class. They then have a much lower standard of responsibility to the class. You need a solution that aligns the plaintiff's interests and the lawyer's interests - one way to do that is to have them negotiate with the plaintiff rather than the defendant to get pai…
[Edit: I misunderstood fiatmoney.] Strength is not a metric if your goal is to require moral perfection from those representing workers before placing any burden on law-breaking capitalists -- a not uncommon perspective among those concerned about "fiatmoney". If, on the other hand, your goal is to allow the rare employment market in which workers actually have some power to function as a free market , then you might…
For what it's worth, I hope Devine is successful. It would have been better had there been prosecutions all around with appreciable jail time, but unless a state AG wants to get involved, remitting the full damages and a significant penalty will have to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does happen though. Apple could choose to not press charges and let him walk away free.
The question isn't whether it happens but whether it would be considered a just outcome. He is drawing a comparison between something that is easily recognized as "getting off easy" to something that is harder to conceptualize because of the absolute size of the amounts involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Class action lawsuits are either opt-out (23b3) or in some cases (23b1-2) mandatory with no choice but to be bound. This is especially problematic because the actor in the driver's seat -- the lawyers that bring the suits -- have very different incentives from thier nominal clients. In fact, thier incentives are more closely aligned with the defendant. The defendant wants a quick resolution and global peace, the lawy…
Class actions work well when a great number of people are harmed for a relatively small sum each. Let's say company XYZ screwed up something in their product that is worth about $100 damage per incident, but it impacts 250k customers. It's really not worth it for any one person to sue XYZ for $100. But with a class action at least XYZ will feel some pinch for their wrong-doing.
324 mln divided by 64K people is about 5K. So, you didn't hire me because of your little shitty agreement, I didn't get a 30-40K or more salary a year (not to mention possibly better benefits) and you give away 5 grand to sing "don't worry be happy?" Great math. When someone downloads a song it gets smacked with 100K bill and a jail time. But when you don't get a job, 5K sounds just about right.
The money quote from the plaintiff... ""As an analogy," Devine wrote, "if a shoplifter is caught on video stealing a $400 iPad from the Apple Store, would a fair and just resolution be for the shoplifter to pay Apple $40, keep the iPad, and walk away with no record or admission of wrongdoing? Of course not.""
That does happen though. Apple could choose to not press charges and let him walk away free.
The concept of "pressing charges" is basically a myth.