• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT: Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits

Goshin said:
You're such a hoot, Deuce. Very entertaining, other than how I didn't mention anything about a private arbitration clause.
Click to expand...

Too bad, you're legally bound to several of them already.
 
Deuce said:
Too bad, you're legally bound to several of them already.
Click to expand...


I don't claim to be expert on suing people, as I am not a lawyer nor in the habit of filing lawsuits. If that is the case perhaps this is another issue that warrants review.
 
Goshin said:
I don't claim to be expert on suing people, as I am not a lawyer nor in the habit of filing lawsuits. If that is the case perhaps this is another issue that warrants review.
Click to expand...

If you sue your bank over some shady practice, you're probably going to have to go to a private arbitrator of the bank's choosing. The private arbitrator is literally paid for by the bank. Coincidentally, the private arbitrator rules in favor of the bank pretty much all of the time.

These private arbitration clauses are so powerful there was a stretch where female employees gang raped overseas by male employees of the same company (and that company covered it up) had to go to private arbitration. We had to write a new law about that. Al Franken put it into the Senate.

30 Republicans voted against it.
 
Harshaw said:
In none of those did the class action benefit the members of the class by more than a few dollars each.
Click to expand...

Stopping the flow of poison into your drinking water is a pretty darn big benefit! Class-action cases are very important to corporate accountability, and as such they benefit consumers both directly and indirectly.
 
Goshin said:
The point is taken. Here's mine:

Yes, there was a certain limited satisfaction in knowing the corp that screwed me got dinged. Yes, I see the utility in this.

However, the fact that winning the class action suit not only did not make the harm whole for me or anyone involved, nor even came close, was and is a strong disincentive to bother doing it again. The amount of the award, compared to the harm, was in effect adding insult to injury.

In a solo suit at least I have a chance to get compensation that might actually do me some good.


In a class-action suit, the defendant benefits because he isn't actually paying out anything like the real harm he did, and the plaintiffs are disincentivized from participating once they know any compensation they get will not be merely token, but insultingly trivial, and that their offender got away with repaying only a tiny fraction of the harm actually done.
Click to expand...

If you see the utility in creating accountability to the company that wronged you, do you see the advantage in that company paying out many millions of dollars?

Second question: if the individual doesn't see enough money to "make him whole," is that a good enough reason for the Senate to strike down a rule making class action lawsuits? Keep in mind that class action lawsuits are what allow even poor people to pool their resources to go create accountability for an otherwise invincible company.
 
Cardinal said:
If you see the utility in creating accountability to the company that wronged you, do you see the advantage in that company paying out many millions of dollars?

Second question: if the individual doesn't see enough money to "make him whole," is that a good enough reason for the Senate to strike down a rule making class action lawsuits? Keep in mind that class action lawsuits are what allow even poor people to pool their resources to go create accountability for an otherwise invincible company.
Click to expand...



I never said I supported this legislation.


I'd prefer to see class action suits put on the same basis that lawsuits in general are supposed to be used for... making the person(s) wronged whole, as much as possible.
 
Goshin said:
I never said I supported this legislation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification.

Goshin said:
I'd prefer to see class action suits put on the same basis that lawsuits in general are supposed to be used for... making the person(s) wronged whole, as much as possible.
Click to expand...

Philosophically speaking, not being paid out in full for the financial cost of one's suffering isn't necessarily the end of the world when justice occurs. If a murderer kills a man's family, the murderer may not be able to pay the financial burden of that act to the survivor, but his being put in prison for the rest of his life is better than if he had not been incarcerated at all.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Stopping the flow of poison into your drinking water is a pretty darn big benefit! Class-action cases are very important to corporate accountability, and as such they benefit consumers both directly and indirectly.
Click to expand...

That's the supposed theory, which you've bought into. In practice, as I said, it benefits the "corporation" (if a defendant) to have to pay for only one legal case and have only one payout, if it comes to that.

Apparently, you have the idea that class action lawsuits are there to cripple or destroy corporations. But that's not why they exist, and almost never bring about that result.
 
MTAtech said:
[h=1]Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits[/h]I guess this is all in their attempt to make America Great Again -- if "great" means favoring banks and financial institutions over consumers.

Anyone who thinks that Republicans are on the side of the average "Joe" and not the rich, connected and powerful, is just delusional. The GOP just took away the average person's right to band together to start lawsuits over questionable business practices by financial institutions.
Click to expand...

Oh BS, Class action lawsuites dont help the average Joe, never have never will

They're a scam to shake bussineses down and only he attorneys wind up with anything
 
Fenton said:
Oh BS, Class action lawsuites dont help the average Joe, never have never will

They're a scam to shake bussineses down and only he attorneys wind up with anything
Click to expand...

They punish businesses for doing wrong. Private arbitration doesn't.
 
Harshaw said:
That's the supposed theory, which you've bought into. In practice, as I said, it benefits the "corporation" (if a defendant) to have to pay for only one legal case and have only one payout, if it comes to that.

Apparently, you have the idea that class action lawsuits are there to cripple or destroy corporations. But that's not why they exist, and almost never bring about that result.
Click to expand...

They demonstrably protect consumers, and taking that tool away from people will make Americans more vulnerable to corporate fraud and corruption and more dependent on direct government oversight. Or will the world's Enrons will police themselves?
 
Cardinal said:
Thanks for the clarification.



Philosophically speaking, not being paid out in full for the financial cost of one's suffering isn't necessarily the end of the world when justice occurs. If a murderer kills a man's family, the murderer may not be able to pay the financial burden of that act to the survivor, but his being put in prison for the rest of his life is better than if he had not been incarcerated at all.
Click to expand...

I still find getting 1% of what I need to make my harm whole to be insulting and a disincentive to bothering to participate and thus legitimize a process that enriches lawyers and does less harm to the perp than paying out their true liability.
 
Goshin said:
I still find getting 1% of what I need to make my harm whole to be insulting and a disincentive to bothering to participate and thus legitimize a process that enriches lawyers and does less harm to the perp than paying out their true liability.
Click to expand...

Then you went into a class action lawsuit with incorrect expectations. It sounds like if Exxon/Nabisco/Evilcorp every harms you and your family, your best bet would be to take all your resources and duke it out with them mano-a-mano. Keep in mind this could cost you several million dollars.

I don't know why you completely ignored my question.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
They demonstrably protect consumers, and taking that tool away from people will make Americans more vulnerable to corporate fraud and corruption and more dependent on direct government oversight. Or will the world's Enrons will police themselves?
Click to expand...

No, it won't. Any individual would still have the ability to sue individually. What's going to be more damaging to an eeeeeeeevil corporation, a million individual suits, or one group suit?
 
Goshin said:
I still find getting 1% of what I need to make my harm whole to be insulting and a disincentive to bothering to participate and thus legitimize a process that enriches lawyers and does less harm to the perp than paying out their true liability.
Click to expand...

Those who favor class actions, as demonstrated in the thread here, tend to think that the ideal outcome, if not entire purpose, is punishing and damaging the corporation, not equitable recompense for individuals harmed. That, of course, is not what civil suits are supposed to be for.
 
Harshaw said:
No, it won't. Any individual would still have the ability to sue individually. What's going to be more damaging to an eeeeeeeevil corporation, a million individual suits, or one group suit?
Click to expand...

I didn't say corporations are eeeeeevil. But, historically, some have behaved very badly, and class-action lawsuits have a been a key tool righting some of their wrongs. The consumer protection bureau seems to think that this legislation will hurt consumers, which is why they fought it. It's gonna be tough for 1 million individuals to pony up the cash for 1 million legal teams to fight their multi-billion dollar opponents in court. Your also talking about tying up the courts with a million simultaneous lawsuits.

We're gonna need a bigger boat.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I didn't say corporations are eeeeeevil. But, historically, some have behaved very badly, and class-action lawsuits have a been a key tool righting some of their wrongs.
Click to expand...

No, in fact, the way you described it, the outcome was NOT righting wrongs. The people in the class were not made whole. If they were, THAT would be righting a wrong. What you described is punishment and destruction, which is not the same thing.

The consumer protection bureau seems to think that this legislation will hurt consumers, which is why they fought it. It's gonna be tough for 1 million individuals to pony up the cash for 1 million legal teams
Click to expand...

Individuals are able to pay for individual representation all the time. That's the vast majority of litigation.

to fight their multi-billion dollar opponents in court.
Click to expand...

Who would then be fighting a million different court battles instead of just one. The "billions" don't quite go as far as you think.

Your also talking about tying up the courts with a million simultaneous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

You'll note that I said very clearly that the justification for class action suits was to ease the workload on the courts. What it, and you, are saying is "no, all these individuals shouldn't have their day in court because that would too hard on the court system." So you're saying the little guy shouldn't have his day in court, and seek his full restitution instead of the pennies he'll get with the class action.

We're gonna need a bigger boat.
Click to expand...

Then we need a bigger boat, if we want proper justice. Do you have a problem with that?
 
Deuce said:
They punish businesses for doing wrong. Private arbitration doesn't.
Click to expand...

Criminal law is for punishment. Civil and torts law is for restitution.
 
Harshaw said:
No, in fact, the way you described it, the outcome was NOT righting wrongs. The people in the class were not made whole. If they were, THAT would be righting a wrong. What you described is punishment and destruction, which is not the same thing.



Individuals are able to pay for individual representation all the time. That's the vast majority of litigation.



Who would then be fighting a million different court battles instead of just one. The "billions" don't quite go as far as you think.



You'll note that I said very clearly that the justification for class action suits was to ease the workload on the courts. What it, and you, are saying is "no, all these individuals shouldn't have their day in court because that would too hard on the court system." So you're saying the little guy shouldn't have his day in court, and seek his full restitution instead of the pennies he'll get with the class action.



Then we need a bigger boat, if we want proper justice. Do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

It's unworkable and you know it. In reality, this simply limits choices. People already have the choice to opt out of a class suit and bring their own, but it's often prohibitively costly for many of those in the class. Taking class-action off the table for banks simply removes options for the wronged. This is not a good thing for consumers no matter how you try to spin it.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
It's unworkable and you know it. In reality, this simply limits choices. People already have the choice to opt out of a class suit and bring their own, but it's often prohibitively costly for many of those in the class. Taking class-action off the table for banks simply removes options for the wronged. This is not a good thing for consumers no matter how you try to spin it.
Click to expand...

No, I don't know it's "unworkable."

And it isn't a "tool" for consumers. It's a tool for big law firms.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
[h=1]Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits[/h]I guess this is all in their attempt to make America Great Again -- if "great" means favoring banks and financial institutions over consumers.

Anyone who thinks that Republicans are on the side of the average "Joe" and not the rich, connected and powerful, is just delusional. The GOP just took away the average person's right to band together to start lawsuits over questionable business practices by financial institutions.
Click to expand...

Definitely the wrong call made by Republicans on this one. With how pervasive arbitration contracts are becoming the judicial system will soon be a vestigial organ.
 
Kobie said:
People (including myself) get pissed off when Cheeto Mussolini goes off on another half-cocked Twitter rant, and rightfully so, but THIS is the kind of crap we should ALL be REALLY angry about. The Twitter stuff’s just empty calories compared to this.
Click to expand...

Agreed....this was an actual bad thing and you correctly noted the difference between things that matter and things that actually don't. The problem is that every tiny little thing that Trump does get the left freaked out so people just tune it out and ignore it when it matters, like this instance.
 
Fenton said:
Oh BS, Class action lawsuites dont help the average Joe, never have never will

They're a scam to shake bussineses down and only he attorneys wind up with anything
Click to expand...
That statement is at odds with facts. When corporations know that a customer has to hire their own lawyer for a $10 over-charge, they know that nobody will fight corporate bad behavior. However, if they suspect that a class of 10,000,000 customers will sue as a class and each receive $10, it may deter corporate bad behavior -- and does.
 
Goshin said:
I still find getting 1% of what I need to make my harm whole to be insulting and a disincentive to bothering to participate and thus legitimize a process that enriches lawyers and does less harm to the perp than paying out their true liability.
Click to expand...

Oh, that's cute. You thought "paying out their true liability" was one of the options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom