Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let Consumers Sue Companies

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#181

Post by ScottBurson »

jacquesm wrote: post #163
forapurpose wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, they simply pass those costs on to the consumers. I believe this is a false narrative spread by those who want to reduce consumer access to courts. Businesses don't price their goods at (cost + profit). They price them at the level that will maximize profit. Sometimes that's at a loss, sometimes that's around break even, sometimes it provides a healthy profit, and sometimes they make extraordinary profits (what…

> I believe this is a false narrative spread by those who want to reduce consumer access to courts. You are free to believe whatever you want but that's a quote straight from a conversation with the CEO of a very large manufacturer of consumer goods, who - in my experience - tended not to speak stuff that wasn't true.

Demand is relatively inelastic in some markets; less so in others.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#182

Post by jack9 »

mikeash wrote: post #153
jacquesm wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll give you two little samples of what my impression is based on (besides the thousands of articles read and stories of fellow business people operating in the American market): - when I was in New York I got hit from behind by a guy in a car doing maybe 5 mph. He got out of his car right away, ran over and started pleading with me not to sue him before he thought of asking me how I was. When I told him I'm Europea…

The first one sounds like an uninsured (maybe unlicensed) driver. This is definitely not the norm. Car accidents are one area where we pretty much don't have to worry about lawsuits at all. Your insurance company talks to their insurance company and they work it out. The second one just sounds like a crazy person. They probably had no intent to sue, and were just trying to stupidly use the threat as leverage for some…

> The second one just sounds like a crazy person.

There are lots of crazy people, and gaming the courts is way many of them make a living, or garner attention, or just give themselves something to do when they are otherwise put together. I've been 3rd party to multiple frivolous suits in california. It's shocking to see the amount of work put into lost causes, but people still show up and fight speeding tickets too...so that's just the USA.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#183

Post by tchock23 »

dwyerm wrote: post #175
wongarsu wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can change the contract before signing it, then give it back to them and wait for them to accept it (either explicitly or implicitly). Works in most jurisdictions since both parties have to agree to the contract.

That's difficult to do when your cell provider presents the contract on an LCD screen, or via a web page. On the other hand, the car dealership refused to allow me to redline their contract. I was fortunate that I could -- and did -- walk away, and I was able to find another dealer that didn't yet have a MBA clause.

What is a MBA clause? A quick Google search couldn't find me a clear definition. Just curious...

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#184

Post by mikeash »

jacquesm wrote: post #180
mikeash wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what that google link is supposed to demonstrate. Is there something in the results showing that people's insurance doesn't protect them?

I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. For all you know the guy was illegally in the United States, it still doesn't matter. In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getti…

Being insured is why the most likely response to such a minimal accident in the US is exactly how you describe it in Europe. You don't jump out of your car saying "omg please don't sue me!" You document the damage, exchange info, call the police if necessary (often legally required), and contact your insurance company. They handle the rest.

If I rear-ended somebody and later found out they were suing for whiplash, I'd pass the info along to my insurance company and let them worry about it.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#185

Post by Animats »

In 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which I direct, was authorized to study mandatory arbitration and write rules consistent with the study. After five years of work...

Talk about a schedule overrun. That project should have been finished in 2011.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#186

Post by FussyZeus »

iancarroll wrote: post #114
monksy wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "watchdogs" / ombudsmen, i.e. public entities that have the authority to start cases against corporations, The closest that we have in the US is the attorney general in your state. Don't expect a quick action from them.

The US has the FTC.

Whose fines, in the rare instance they're actually fining companies, never come close to the profits reaped by the activities that broke the regulations in the first place. For reference: The judgement against the banks after the 2008 mortgage crisis, the fines levied against Wells after the debacle with phony accounts, pretty much any case involving a collections agency, etc.

When the profits are in the billions, even a fine of 600 million is a paltry line item. You either should fine in an amount relative to the amount made by the illicit activity, or even better, go after the executives behind it directly with said fines or prison. As long as these slimeballs can conduct illegal activity and sail away after "resigning in disgrace" with an 80 million golden parachute, while the company pockets several hundred million, they will continue to do so as has been evident so far for anyone paying attention.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#187

Post by devdas »

DannyBee wrote: post #25
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this is a situation where we shouldn't let the perfect get in the way of the good. Class actions return money to wronged parties. That's good so we should remove the arbitration cruft that is preventing that.

I guess i don't think the situation was good! They didn't return anywhere near a good amount of money to wronged parties. Lawsuits were being settled for not even pennies on the dollar. (arbitration also isn't cruft, but it's definitely getting an undeserved bad rap) Actually, the situation i long for is before the creation of the LLC, where shareholders were responsible for paying for the corporations lawsuits. LLCs…

Have a law which makes any loss in a class action lawsuit immediately make the company lose limited liability status. Also, settling out of court will do the same thing, with automatic admission of guilt.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#188

Post by rrggrr »

6502nerdface wrote: post #134
rrggrr wrote: post #100

FACT: products liability law reduced accidental deaths in the workplace. (source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm ) There is no reason similar laws wouldn't work for consumers privacy. Tort law needs to be applied aggressively to data privacy.

> FACT: products liability law reduced accidental deaths in the workplace. (source: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm ) There is no reason similar laws wouldn't work for consumers privacy. Tort law needs to be applied aggressively to data privacy. How exactly does that source support the FACT? The words "liable" and "liability" appear nowhere in it. They credit the reduction in workplace fataliti…

Relax sparky. The chart demonstrates the decline only. Don't go looking to government to praise the private sector or free market solutions when their budget depends entirely on the opposite being true.

At 40,000 inspections/yr it wasn't much OSHA with their tiny, often negotiated fines that caused the decline. ANSI is pretty much the gold standard for safety, not OSHA regs, so their non-mandatory standards don't get a lot of credit. It wasn't a magical fairy tapping a gossamer wand atop a dangerous machine.

It was thousands of plaintiffs attorneys suing the shit out of manufacturers who designed and sold products that could be made more safely. It was the tort laws that let them to sue. It was the insurance companies who extracted hefty sums to write products liability policies on manufactured machinery. And it was the innovators who used sensors, locking mechanisms, new training methods and private inspection procedures that have made the US a workplace safety leader.

The government legislated accountability. The free market made it happen. It can be the same with data privacy.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#189

Post by jacquesm »

mikeash wrote: post #184
jacquesm wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what people being insured or not has to do with the fact that people will sue for whiplash claims (even when they don't actually have whiplash) in order to extract some $ from the system, enriching a bunch of lawyers in the process. For all you know the guy was illegally in the United States, it still doesn't matter. In Europe the most likely response to such a minimal accident would be two parties getti…

Being insured is why the most likely response to such a minimal accident in the US is exactly how you describe it in Europe. You don't jump out of your car saying "omg please don't sue me!" You document the damage, exchange info, call the police if necessary (often legally required), and contact your insurance company. They handle the rest. If I rear-ended somebody and later found out they were suing for whiplash, I'…

> they were suing for whiplash

The point is - at the risk of becoming boring and repeating myself - that this has nothing to do with being insured or not but with such a suit or claim being brought in the first place. That's an absolute rarity in Europe and a case would have to be pretty severe to get any compensation.

In the United States there are plenty of people who see wrong or harm (imaginary or real) done to them as a potential payday, whether through the courts or through an insurance company is immaterial.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#190

Post by projektfu »

tchock23 wrote: post #183
dwyerm wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's difficult to do when your cell provider presents the contract on an LCD screen, or via a web page. On the other hand, the car dealership refused to allow me to redline their contract. I was fortunate that I could -- and did -- walk away, and I was able to find another dealer that didn't yet have a MBA clause.

What is a MBA clause? A quick Google search couldn't find me a clear definition. Just curious...

Mandatory binding arbitration
Post reply on HN