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

41–50 of 279 posts

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#41

Post by mpweiher »

revelation wrote: post #30
rayiner wrote: post #12

Class actions can be effective where the class members are relatively large, sophisticated entities. E.g. the data-breach class action brought by banks that is mentioned in the article. But in the consumer-protection space, we should consider alternatives. Where the class members are individual consumers, litigation ends up being lawyer-driven. Cases settle for pennies on the dollar of potential damages, and end up s…

There are also laws that mean you can't put whatever in a ToS and have it be a binding contract. If any clause is considered surprising it's void. It mostly fixes the whole "read this and click continue" insanity because it makes any clause that isn't law anyway unviable.

Yup. Seems common sense, really.

And click-through contracts are usually also void, at least in Germany.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#42

Post by durgiston »

will_brown wrote: post #38
slededit wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts actually prefer it as a lower cost alternative.

Im a lawyer, you may be one too as we are a dime a dozen, but if not here is a dirty little secret... The courts don't care what your litigation costs are, the only thing they care about is having as few cases on their docket as possible (i.e. They care about their own costs and their own workload).

I read it as it was a lower cost to the courts, not the litigants.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#43

Post by bradleyjg »

rayiner wrote: post #12

Class actions can be effective where the class members are relatively large, sophisticated entities. E.g. the data-breach class action brought by banks that is mentioned in the article. But in the consumer-protection space, we should consider alternatives. Where the class members are individual consumers, litigation ends up being lawyer-driven. Cases settle for pennies on the dollar of potential damages, and end up s…

It's a chicken and egg problem. Let's the see the effective government regulators start regulating before withdrawing the admittedly flawed class action lawyer-regulators.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#44

Post by kevin_b_er »

waqf wrote: post #37
mxfh wrote: post #27

Just look at how the EU consumer protection directives are working over here. You're simply not allowed to waive your guaranteed rights as a customer in some sort of EULA or TOS. And if you are forced to, the whole contract is void in it's entirety and you're free to walk away from it.

Although bear in mind that class-action law suits, which are the focus of this article, are typically not a right you have in the EU in the first place ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Class_actions_out... ).

At least in Europe a court of law can judge their dispute.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#45

Post by leoharsha2 »

I sued a company where I worked. They were not paying my final dues after I left the company. It took me 1 year and lots of visits to court just to get my final dues. Finally after a year of all such waste of time, they came to me and asked for a settlement to which I agree and I got part of my money.

In India, even if you know you will win the case, it is not worth it. It will take your mental peace. Although I highly recommend to sue companies in other countries, In India we should think twice before suing anyone.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#46

Post by mpweiher »

preinheimer wrote: post #17
redm wrote: post #8

I don't disagree with the sentiment of the article given the examples provided, i.e. Wells Fargo. That said, given the climate for frivolous lawsuits brought by "shakedown" attorneys, it opens the flood gates for something far worse. Maybe a better compromise is to allow for binding arbitration UNLESS the company is found guilty of fraud or other illegal activity, such as Wells Fargo. Alternatively, perhaps tort refo…

I found this Adam Ruins Everything episode on the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit & Tort reform really interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E if you'd like to jump to where they talk about frivolous lawsuits it starts here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9DXSCpcz9E#t=03m15s Some notes: - Tort reform is largely a concept pushed by big business trying to avoid getting sued when they do wrong. - The number…

> only one of many many people burned by McDonalds coffee

And many of these were sequential, so McDonalds had been told multiple times that their coffee was too hot, and they just refused to do anything about it.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#47

Post by darpa_escapee »

ythn wrote: post #29
xphilter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any stats on "frivolous lawsuits brought by 'shakedown' attorneys"?

Couldn't patent trolling also fall into this category (the category of legal "shakedowns")? If so, there are some stats on that. https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-di...

I've never seen patent trolling fall into this category, probably because patent trolling is a viable way for firms to make money and being held liable for consumer injuries isn't.

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#48

Post by darpa_escapee »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #3

Letting consumers continue to sue is not the answer. It only incentivizes more litigiousness, which is part of the things that are ruining American society. What we need instead is for the government to pursue these crimes on our behalf. The fines should be draconian with no options for them to dilute it the way the SEC does. And the fines should go towards some fund that specializes in charities instead of going to…

> It only incentivizes more litigiousness, which is part of the things that are ruining American society.

Can you expound on this? Any examples?

Re: Let Consumers Sue Companies

#50

Post by michaelt »

ythn wrote: post #29
xphilter wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any stats on "frivolous lawsuits brought by 'shakedown' attorneys"?

Couldn't patent trolling also fall into this category (the category of legal "shakedowns")? If so, there are some stats on that. https://www.unifiedpatents.com/news/2016/5/30/2015-patent-di...

While patent trolling is a legal shakedown, I don't see the relevance to binding arbitration?
Post reply on HN