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

211–220 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#211

Post by hsitz »

stult wrote: post #113
ThomPete wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be down voted for this even though you are wrong. The EU system is very pro-consumer and is doing a lot of things to make life easier for consumers ditching roaming is just one of them. With regards to lawsuits the EU system takes the need out of much of that by having fairly strict rules for corporations and giving consumers much more legal backing when it comes to the return of goods, protection from…

In academic US legal theory, litigation is frequently portrayed as an efficient substitute for regulation, particularly from a libertarian perspective. Our political narratives also tend to reject regulation as government overreach or unconstitutional when carried out at the federal level. So we ended up with a highly litigious system, which (unsurprisingly) resulted in high litigation costs. Corporations have respon…

Yes, to academic idea that efficient litigation can be a substitute for regulation. That gets to the main issue in the linked article, which is that consumer financial contracts often require consumer to use arbitration and prohibit them from joining class actions. The issue isn't that consumers can't sue. It's that suing (or arbitrating) individual cases is inefficient. Claims never get brought because no sane person is going to waste their time going through an individual arbitration to recover a $10 or $20 claim.

It's hard to imagine any legal system where a claim to recover a $10 or $20 injury in an individual lawsuit (or arbitration) could be efficient. Such claims could be aggregated in class actions, if consumer contract terms didn't prohibit it. Class action lawyers often think of themselves as doing "social engineering"; forcing companies to pay for injuries they cause in situations where nobody is likely to bring an individual suit at all (e.g., small harms).

Class actions don't normally result in much of a recovery at all for individual consumers, both because amounts for each individual are typically quite small, and because costs of litigation and attorney fees eat up huge percentage of claims defendant corporations are forced to pay. But at least if there were threat of class actions it could scare corporations into not violating terms of consumer agreements. So even if class action suits do end up mostly enriching lawyers, they still help consumers by giving corporations a strong incentive to honor consumer agreements. Class action lawyers as "social engineers".

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#212

Post by aseipp »

sageikosa wrote: post #168
stult wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In academic US legal theory, litigation is frequently portrayed as an efficient substitute for regulation, particularly from a libertarian perspective. Our political narratives also tend to reject regulation as government overreach or unconstitutional when carried out at the federal level. So we ended up with a highly litigious system, which (unsurprisingly) resulted in high litigation costs. Corporations have respon…

I believe litigation in the United States is based on the idea that access to the courts to redress grievances (against private individuals or public institutions) is fundamental for a civil society. This goes as far as preventing habeas corpus from being suspended in Illinois during the American Civil War as the courts were still in operation, and the "justification" for holding people in Guantanamo. While I have he…

> Snowflake society doesn't like calculating the economic (market) value of risk to life or limb, but the truth is that without reasonable tort the economic impact will still be born, but socialized by non-risk takers subsidizing expanding bureaucracies.

Sounds like you should move to Somalia, land of the free market -- it's quite untouched and unregulated by nanny bureaucracies, in fact. Lots of opportunities to make money, I'm sure. Or perhaps you'll be lucky enough to break both your kneecaps and die on the streets, or get sold into slavery!

I can only imagine the reason you wouldn't do this is due to being a needy snowflake yourself. Hmmm....

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#213

Post by ambrice »

jacquesm wrote: post #157
odabaxok wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just reacting to this: > Given how extreme the American reaction to the VW scandal was I do wonder what the response would have been if that company had been GM, Ford or Chrysler There were recalls related to GM (GM ignition switch recall - 30M cars worldwide) or Chrysler (just recently [1]) too. ..you are right, these are more dangerous things like cheating the emissions. However, I believe they are not showing favo…

So, how many billions were the fines in those cases and which executives went to jail?

The same fines and jail times associated with any foreign carmaker who issues a recall that isn't related to deliberate and intentional fraud.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#214

Post by mikeash »

jacquesm wrote: post #207
mikeash wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, but it probably is as you say. I just dispute that a weirdo begging you not to sue him over a minor crash supports the idea.

There are approximately 500K personal injury cases annually in the United States, roughly 50% of those are related to motor vehicle accidents. The vast majority of those (90%+) are settled out of court. http://www.personalinjurysandiego.org/personal-injury/statis... Whether the man was a weirdo or not is a thing I have no knowledge about (and why you would have knowledge about it is a mystery to me) but it seems that…

All I need to know to conclude that the guy was an outlier is the story you told and a basic understanding of how things work in the US after a car accident. That is super far from the norm. The way you describe things in Europe is exactly how it happens here nearly every time.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#215

Post by david-cako »

thejerz wrote: post #171
s73ver_ wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not usually a choice, and it's not due to monopoly. Just about every company out there is adding these clauses to their contracts. And consumers have no power to combat them.

You have the power not to enter into the agreement. No one is forcing you to download a song from iTunes or open an account at Wells Fargo. If you don't like the terms, don't enter into the agreement.

Your suggestion is effectively a suggestion that anyone who wants to not implicitly agree to such terms simply doesn't participate in the developed world.

This makes zero sense. It's on par with saying "dude just turn off javascript".

Is the answer to political corruption buying a boat and taking refuge in the pacific ocean, or is actually correcting the problem?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#216

Post by jerrac »

rayiner wrote: post #129
jerrac wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... litigation is frequently portrayed as an efficient substitute for regulation ... Can you source, or explain, this? I'm Conservative, and in all the Conservative circles I've run in, I can't recall ever hearing something like this. In fact, I usually hear more about how ridiculous it is that everyone sues about everything.

How do you deal with a negative externality, such as a factory dumping pollutants into the water? Liberals would say: strictly regulate the factory so it limits pollution to an acceptable level. (Statist) libertarians would say that pollution is an infringement of peoples' property rights, and that property owners should sue the polluter. Conservatives tend to reject both approaches as an impingement on business free…

Why do you say "Conservatives tend to reject both approaches as an impingement on business freedoms."? I really do want to know what you are basing your beliefs about Conservatives on.

I, and the circles I've been in, would not necessarily do that. We would reject regulations that are too strict (which, lately, most environmental regulations have been). We would also reject the Federal Government being involved, since it would be a violation of the 10th Amendment in cases that don't cross the state lines. When they do cross the state lines, we'd still prefer it be left to the states, and the Federal government should keep their nose out of it unless the states just can't deal with it. As for State and Local governments, we would accept them implementing regulations when the factory and local residents are unable to come to an agreement on their own.

Note, I'm a US citizen, so I'm referring to that Government. :)

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#217

Post by sageikosa »

aseipp wrote: post #212
sageikosa wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe litigation in the United States is based on the idea that access to the courts to redress grievances (against private individuals or public institutions) is fundamental for a civil society. This goes as far as preventing habeas corpus from being suspended in Illinois during the American Civil War as the courts were still in operation, and the "justification" for holding people in Guantanamo. While I have he…

> Snowflake society doesn't like calculating the economic (market) value of risk to life or limb, but the truth is that without reasonable tort the economic impact will still be born, but socialized by non-risk takers subsidizing expanding bureaucracies. Sounds like you should move to Somalia, land of the free market -- it's quite untouched and unregulated by nanny bureaucracies, in fact. Lots of opportunities to mak…

Thanks for playing

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#218

Post by iamatworknow »

Animats wrote: post #185

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.

I work in an industry tied closely to the actions of the CFPB, and they've had a lot on their plate ever since they were founded. They continuously get attacked by industry groups (formally through lawsuits and informally through what is more or less industry propaganda). I wouldn't be shocked if they spent the majority of their time and resources just defending their right to exist.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#219

Post by skj »

jacquesm wrote: post #197
mikeash wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my point is that a person who reacts to a minor crash by begging you not to sue him is not even remotely representative of how things work here. You described "the most likely response" in Europe, as if it was somehow different in the US. It's not.

So, are you or are you not in agreement that monetary compensation after accidents (or crimes) is more likely to occur in the United States than in Europe regardless of the mechanism of getting such compensation (through the courts or through an insurance company)?

Can you cite any statistics pointing to this? That data would be interesting to see.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#220

Post by sageikosa »

jacquesm wrote: post #200
sageikosa wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe litigation in the United States is based on the idea that access to the courts to redress grievances (against private individuals or public institutions) is fundamental for a civil society. This goes as far as preventing habeas corpus from being suspended in Illinois during the American Civil War as the courts were still in operation, and the "justification" for holding people in Guantanamo. While I have he…

Funny how litigation in the United States being based on the idea that access to the courts to redress grievances being fundamental for a civil society then causes that very same society to go out of its way to deny those rights to others. Fairly incredible actually if you think about it for a while.

Not sure what the subject of that sentence was; it appears to be passive (and actorless) in the first part but the dependent clause (after "then") seems active voice.

What or whom is causing society to go out of its way...? Litigation?

Post reply on HN