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

131–140 of 249 posts

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

#131

Post by howard941 »

chillydawg wrote: post #37

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…

No. Yes. No. But it's not viable. Same-county Giant Bank will still cost anywhere from $55 to $300 to file a small claims action if in my state (FL). Add $40 to pay the sheriff to serve the statement of claim. Who's going to foot the initial $1.8M to file the 150K claims and how's the new type of law firm going to get paid?

If you want to have a small government without an effective consumer protection agency then you'll need to ditch mandatory arbitration and permit the class actions to flow.

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

#132

Post by specialist »

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…

Your proscribed Freedom Markets™ silver bullet remedy reminds me of the left-wing preference for protests, civil disobedience, boycotts, etc.

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

#133

Post by nrmitchi »

x2f10 wrote: post #119
fragsworth wrote: post #107

I'm losing faith in our system of government. Citibank did this to me on a credit card I had with them: 1. I stopped using the card for several months. 2. I then used it once on a small purchase. 3. They stopped sending me an e-mail reminders for my bill. (An "error" in their system disabled e-mails for my account specifically) 4. I racked up about $100 in late fees and interest charges. 5. I called them up and they…

I have an identical situation with Verizon Wireless. I pre-ordered the Pixel 2 and cancelled the order 4 days prior to the release date. I called AGAIN to verify the order was cancelled. I'm told yes. Verizon shipped the order, charged my card for it, and tells me "Sorry - our mistake. Please return the phone for a refund." Since it was 'cancelled', I don't have the ability to print my own return label. I'm told one…

If this was charged against a credit card, you can likely look at issuing a chargeback through your bank. Even if it wasn't a credit card, you should see if there is anything your bank can do.

While I don't typically support a liberal use of chargebacks, a situation where you actually didn't purchase the thing you were charged for, and the vendor is not cooperating, is kind of what they are meant for.

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

#134

Post by specialist »

s73ver_ wrote: post #122
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?

Because collective action would level the battlefield.

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

#135

Post by akvadrako »

alejohausner wrote: post #68
akvadrako wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You may complain that class-action lawyers get much more money than the plaintiffs, but that's the nature of class actions. They are meant for situations where many indiviuals are harmed, but each harm is too small to justify the cost of a court case. So naturally the plaintiffs get small payouts: each of them suffered a small damage. And the lawyers get big payouts: they handled the paperwork of thousands of clients…

I wasn't actually saying class actions are bad, but that it makes a workable political excuse.

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

#136

Post by ProAm »

defined wrote: post #32

> 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 ma…

Wouldn't Equifax fall under gross negligence and that can never be signed away?

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

#137

Post by okreallywtf »

fragsworth wrote: post #107

I'm losing faith in our system of government. Citibank did this to me on a credit card I had with them: 1. I stopped using the card for several months. 2. I then used it once on a small purchase. 3. They stopped sending me an e-mail reminders for my bill. (An "error" in their system disabled e-mails for my account specifically) 4. I racked up about $100 in late fees and interest charges. 5. I called them up and they…

Is it our system of government though that is the problem? There are problems that allow the GOP to have a disproportionate level of control but overall they've been very consistent on consumer protections (being against them that is), they are doing exactly what anyone paying attention to what they do expects. People bicker over politics and make false equivalencies and compare the parties but then complain about this issues like this as if they have no choice. The democrats have their issues, but rather than becoming part of the solution we sit back and complain and generally do very little while the GOP eats your lunch. I'm not saying this describes you, but I think that we find ourselves too easily divided when its pretty clear (to me) which party actually cares more about my interests than the other.

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

#138

Post by moonka »

creaghpatr wrote: post #108
fragsworth wrote: post #107

I'm losing faith in our system of government. Citibank did this to me on a credit card I had with them: 1. I stopped using the card for several months. 2. I then used it once on a small purchase. 3. They stopped sending me an e-mail reminders for my bill. (An "error" in their system disabled e-mails for my account specifically) 4. I racked up about $100 in late fees and interest charges. 5. I called them up and they…

Elect a Democratic congress, like the first Obama administration, who incidentally did not allow class-action lawsuits either? At least this time a bill made it to a Senate vote.

The bill passed by 50 (plus a VP tiebreaker) votes. Take a look at the breakdown of who voted against it.

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

#139

Post by coldcode »

Could as a consumer not add an arbitration clause to every contract you are handed with the same requirements except you get to pick the arbitrator? It seems strange to me that legally only one side of a contract gets to pick all the niceties. I suppose they would have you arrested for impersonating a lawyer to even ask for this.

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

#140

Post by tertius »

tantalor wrote: post #110
tertius wrote: post #79

What's the best argument for this vote?

It's not very good: "the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers." http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/25/559950275/...

So I googled that phrase to see what the context was and what else she said in the briefing.

It looks to come from a statement from the White House:

> Statement Regarding Senate Passage of H.J. Res. 111

> President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing H.J. Res. 111, Disapproving of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Arbitration Agreements Rule. According to a recent report by the Department of the Treasury, the evidence is clear that the CFPB's rule would neither protect consumers nor serve the public interest. Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. Further, the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers. By repealing this rule, Congress is standing up for everyday consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB's uninformed and ineffective policy.

And it seems that the DOT report is more important the the "Further" part. At least that is what "Further" implies in their statement.

What did the DOT report say? I'm reading through it I suggest you (and others) do as well.

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documen...

Post reply on HN