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

151–160 of 249 posts

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

#151

Post by okreallywtf »

katastic wrote: post #98
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…

>This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP. So surely you're just as angry about the Democrats deregulating the telecoms in 1996 and allowing companies to own entire vertical chains. (Comcast owns everything from the News, to the pipe you get it from. Ever notice how they never mention "big corporations are killing America" anymore?) The GOP hates you. The Democrats _pretend_ not…

>p.s. I voted for Obama, so yeah, I do get to bitch about the disparity between what he said, and what he did.

While I understand this sentiment, you have to understand that it is also necessary to try and inspire people even if you know that you probably won't get everything you want to get done. You can hope that people will act intelligently in their own self-interest and know that you are the best candidate for them, but in reality I don't think that is enough, you have to inspire people and work their emotions. It is manipulative but also, unfortunately, necessary. Given what Obama had on his plate and a totally oppositional congress for the most part, we can't really complain. He tried to be bipartisan and it was a waste of effort for the most part, yeah he could have been better in theory but in reality I'm not so sure.

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

#152

Post by dguaraglia »

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/...

Ah, yeah, the old Republican trick of creating rules that clearly benefit giant corporations and pass it on the basis that it'd hurt "small corporations." I'm sorry, but if your tiny community bank fucked up badly enough to be on the receiving end of a class-action, maybe they deserve to be affected. Same for bigger banks.

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

#153

Post by tertius »

orthecreedence wrote: post #150
tertius wrote: post #144

So I'm trying to figure out why this was even done. Here's the White House statement on it. From https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/24/state... > 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 t…

> Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. This is actually retarded. How is arbitration OR trial less options than just arbitration? Last I checked, 2 > 1 but maybe I need to review my math skills. Just because a company can't force arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still an option. The Whitehouse is just flipping words around to make it see…

> but their reasoning is just a blatant lie.

I would actually try to understand the reasoning from the DOT and then look at the rebuttal from the CFPB before I make statements like this.

If it's as simple as you state, 1 options instead of 2, why hasn't anyone else picked up on this blatant lie?

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

#154

Post by mathiasben »

stult wrote: post #148
coldcode wrote: post #139

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.

> I suppose they would have you arrested for impersonating a lawyer to even ask for this. No, in theory anyone can negotiate the terms of their own contracts. > It seems strange to me that legally only one side of a contract gets to pick all the niceties. These are called "contracts of adhesion" (i.e. take it or leave it terms) and are subject to slightly stricter interpretive standards than fully negotiated contract…

I'd like to think it would be possible to create a platform where blocs of consumers could negotiate, examine, modify these contracts of adhesion as a class action.

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

#155

Post by Chardok »

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…

This is certainly the most important point. You cannot function in society without internet, a cell phone and some sort of transportation, and most if not all force you to sign away rights that should be guaranteed to all US citizens.

Unless you are wealthy enough to do without or fine being homeless, this means you are living under a sub-government that the rules are set by corporations.

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

#156

Post by s73ver_ »

dwyerm wrote: post #149
s73ver_ wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're a customer, then, and as a customer I completely agree with you. But as an investor in the same company, I would fault them for not taking a simple step to protect their profits. Just because you include the clause doesn't mean that you're going to do evil and exercise it. Again, I can't fault you for taking the get-out-of-jail-free card that's offered. But I fault you mightily for doing something that would r…

Again, I'm not buying it. Investors are also people, who are also capable of knowing right from wrong. I absolutely will fault them for taking evil steps to make profit at the expense of others.

And I disagree. Including the clause indicates your willingness to be evil in exercising it.

The fact that the card exists is absolutely a problem that exists and needs to be fixed. But you had the option to take it or not, and you chose to take it. That in itself is an evil step.

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

#157

Post by baseten »

tertius wrote: post #153
orthecreedence wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. This is actually retarded. How is arbitration OR trial less options than just arbitration? Last I checked, 2 > 1 but maybe I need to review my math skills. Just because a company can't force arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still an option. The Whitehouse is just flipping words around to make it see…

> but their reasoning is just a blatant lie. I would actually try to understand the reasoning from the DOT and then look at the rebuttal from the CFPB before I make statements like this. If it's as simple as you state, 1 options instead of 2, why hasn't anyone else picked up on this blatant lie?

Sometimes the truth is an inconvenient barrier to making money.

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

#158

Post by Frondo »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #146
okreallywtf wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I want to echo this and also add that you should either have a ballot at home, or an opportunity to vote at a polling place coming up in a couple weeks. Vote. If you feel like your government doesn’t represent you, then start changing it.

More than that: make it your second job to persuade your friends and loved ones to pay attention to this stuff and vote, too.

The whole "never discuss politics or religion" trope is one of the things that gets society in a place where a few people have a disproportionate voice in how the place is run.

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

#159

Post by xbzbanna »

pjc50 wrote: post #34
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even though you never gave it to them You can argue you were coerced into giving it to them. But at the end of the day, you signed bank and credit card and employment agreements that let your information be transmitted.

Because the alternative would be opting out of employment? (How many places wouldn't un-hire you as soon as you insist they can't pay your bank account because you don't have one?)

Most employers will pay you with a check, which doesn't require a bank account to be cashed.

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

#160

Post by tertius »

baseten wrote: post #157
tertius wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but their reasoning is just a blatant lie. I would actually try to understand the reasoning from the DOT and then look at the rebuttal from the CFPB before I make statements like this. If it's as simple as you state, 1 options instead of 2, why hasn't anyone else picked up on this blatant lie?

Sometimes the truth is an inconvenient barrier to making money.

And that may be the case. But just because it's often/sometimes/always/never the case we can't assume on an individual basis.

Well we clearly can assume, but it doesn't make us right.

Post reply on HN