61–70 of 279 posts
This isn't already possible? That's not right that companies can hack the law like this. Consumers should be able to sue.
Citizens United was the end of democracy in Americal, and this is yet another piece of the fallout.
In the EU you cannot bind consumers by such arbitration clauses: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A3... Consumers can usually sue corporations at a court in their own jurisdiction. Many European countries also allow class action law suits. Yet, we have few law suits against corporations. There are other reasons for this: - consumers are not awarded punitive damages, - court fees are higher (u…
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.
“only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30.” A bit off topic here but this is IMHO a great challenge for AI: making a lawyer affordable for the masses when they are bullied by banks, airlines, etc. If it costs you $5 , why not sue for $30 ?
That isn't a great challenge for AI. That's a rotten legal and regulatory system. Why band-aid over society's real problems with software?
I never understood why binding arbitration was legal for non-negotiated contracts. Also, by reading this you agree all disputes between us will go through an arbitration firm of my choosing.
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…
Full liability of owners isn't feasible in the current system, because it would expose every single investor to unlimited liability.
If people cannot bring the power of government to enforce appropriate costs against players with more market power government of the People, by the People, and for the People has failed.
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…
[1] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-federal-law-may-lim...