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

61–70 of 249 posts

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

#61

Post by wingspar »

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…

When I last purchased a car I used accepting the arbitration clause to extract $150 in accessories from the dealer. The sales agent was a bit confused, it’s usually the paperwork guy that deals with the arbitration and at point most people just want it over with..

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

#62

Post by imglorp »

naasking wrote: post #58
wallace_f wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's crazy is that since Reagan the GOP is also fine with increased gov spending, among a host of other increasingly authoritarian policies.* So no longer can they even claim to be anti government corruption & spending, and pro business & 'freedom.' They just appear to be 'anti people.' But please don't pretend the Dems are a whole lot better on most of these issues... I really hope our generation can work together…

> They are just anti people. Correction: anti-poor people.

> Correction: anti-poor people.

Correction: anti-middle class people. They can't extract any money from the poor, and clearly not from the rich, so guess who's left?

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

#63

Post by SiempreViernes »

pc86 wrote: post #50
saimiam wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ramachandr.in/2017/10/12/fuck-corporations/ (because I feel this post of mine adds something to your sentiment.)

I may be in the minority here, but I do not come to HN to get linked to a random person's blog. This is a concerning trend, and it's one thing when someone actually provides some level of insight in a few paragraphs and says they've written several pages on the same subject at [link]. But this is just bottom of the barrel "you said something vaguely similar to a blog post I wrote a few weeks ago, here's the link with…

Indeed, HN is all about stealth advertising for some new startup in the form of a blog post, not normal blogs!

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

#64

Post by lightbyte »

chillydawg wrote: post #37

Is this an opportunity for a new type of law firm that opens up to deal with one type of complaint for one company and offers extremely low fees to file? The idea would be that the paperwork is all the same for the X thousand/million people suing INDIVIDUALLY such that economies of scale take over and the cost of actually filing and pushing the suit through becomes cheap enough for almost anyone. On the side of Giant…

>On the side of Giant Bank, they suddenly have 150,000 lawsuits filed against them and have to act in some way. Is that even allowed? Would a court just tell the law firm to go away and stop spamming it?

This sounds fairly similar to how the Church of Scientology blackmailed the US government into giving it tax exempt status. They filed millions of lawsuits against every IRS employee and drowned them in it until they gave in. It worked out extremely well for them, so it may work out the same in your example.

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

#65

Post by kharms »

CommentCard wrote: post #42
ngold wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the banks left all their customers money protected by a wind screen door that was accessible in the alley, I think suing could be justified.

Your example falls under the purview of negligence in tort law. Nevertheless an arbitration agreement may supersede a potential lawsuit. The widespread use of forced arbitration seems ripe for examination by the SCOTUS. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a fairly blatant violation of the 7th amendment.

They looked at a related issue not too long ago.

https://www.classdefenseblog.com/2015/12/supreme-court-holds...

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

#66

Post by acdha »

noobermin wrote: post #38
defined wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me. I'd go even further and say corrupt and evil. Yet these baseless clauses have been around long before the modern GOP, so while I agree with your sentiment, I'd broaden it from "GOP" to "greedy corporates and their government puppets from any political party."

While you're right, Dems recieve a lot of Wall Street cash and do their bidding often, here all D's voted against it.[0] Both are "corrupted" to use your words but I'd say one is "worse" at least on this one issue. [0] And yes, most did it for political reasons I imagine.

… and that’s true on almost every issue of importance (climate change, healthcare, etc.). The main exception is deference to national security agencies on things like encryption or detention.

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

#67

Post by dredmorbius »

self_assembly wrote: post #18

This is probably a dumb question but I would appreciate a serious answer. How am I considered a consumer of Equifax? Aren't the consumers the people that use Equifax to check my credit? When did I ever enter into an agreement with Equifax that binds me to arbitration?

You're not.

Actually, you're a provider to Equifax, in the form of the data trail they're ingesting.

A pretty good WashPo item (by way of Outline because fuck WP's nagwall) spelling this out:

https://outline.com/aKwW2y

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

#68

Post by alejohausner »

akvadrako wrote: post #54
noobermin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you're right, Dems recieve a lot of Wall Street cash and do their bidding often, here all D's voted against it.[0] Both are "corrupted" to use your words but I'd say one is "worse" at least on this one issue. [0] And yes, most did it for political reasons I imagine.

This easily could have been an issue raised during a Democratic majority congress and passed with the same story. After all, everybody hates lawyers that get rich while class members get a coupon. It's not about the issue.

You may complain that class-action lawyers get much more money than the plaintiffs, but that's the nature of class actions. They are meant for situations where many indiviuals are harmed, but each harm is too small to justify the cost of a court case. So naturally the plaintiffs get small payouts: each of them suffered a small damage. And the lawyers get big payouts: they handled the paperwork of thousands of clients.

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

#69

Post by dbingham »

pc86 wrote: post #50
saimiam wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ramachandr.in/2017/10/12/fuck-corporations/ (because I feel this post of mine adds something to your sentiment.)

I may be in the minority here, but I do not come to HN to get linked to a random person's blog. This is a concerning trend, and it's one thing when someone actually provides some level of insight in a few paragraphs and says they've written several pages on the same subject at [link]. But this is just bottom of the barrel "you said something vaguely similar to a blog post I wrote a few weeks ago, here's the link with…

Yeah, to be fair, half the stuff posted (and often voted up) on HN is blog posts that are thinly veiled content marketing.

Plus, it can get exhausting to write the same argument over and over again. Half the reason I write on my blog or on medium is because I find myself repeating a certain argument and I decide to just write it once and for all.

But of course, you could always copy and paste with some small edits rather than linking. And I agree that it would be better to at least summarize the content of the post for us rather than just dumping the link.

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

#70

Post by tertius »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #63
pc86 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be in the minority here, but I do not come to HN to get linked to a random person's blog. This is a concerning trend, and it's one thing when someone actually provides some level of insight in a few paragraphs and says they've written several pages on the same subject at [link]. But this is just bottom of the barrel "you said something vaguely similar to a blog post I wrote a few weeks ago, here's the link with…

Indeed, HN is all about stealth advertising for some new startup in the form of a blog post, not normal blogs!

In comments?
Post reply on HN