4 ms·

They can sue to get the contract voided, just like anyone with a mental disability that prevents them from understanding a contract. The article mentions this,

They can sue to get the contract voided, just like anyone with a mental disability that prevents them from understanding a contract. The article mentions this, but says that they often aren't incapacitated enough to void the agreements -- which puts them in a strange gray area. It's similar to scams that prey on the elderly.

hkmurakami 11y ago
I would suspect that they would have to argue their case for incapacitation in court, which comes with legal fees, which they likely cannot afford. Perhaps a class action lawsuit with many such victims assembled will be compelling enough in size that a law firm will take the case on a contingency basis.
- amenghra 11y ago
  The result of such a class action lawsuit would be a lawyer (or a bunch of lawyers) making a ton of money and the victims getting a coupon for a happy meal at the local fast food chain.
  - hkmurakami 11y ago
    Yes, that is a very good point. Are there any contingency contracts for these class action suits where the lawyers agree to a fixed percentage of the settlement, which would hopefully leave a decent amount for the victims? Perhaps there can be a "bidding" system if the victims can self organize and then look for a law firm to represent them -- kind of like how architecture firms win contracts?
    - amenghra 11y ago
      These people unfortunately have a hard time with basic reading/cognitive skills. Unless the government or a non-profit helps them out they are going to have a hard time self organizing and pull off the best possible deal. Besides ethical reasons, it's in everyone's best interest to make sure that poor people don't get abused in this way because when they end up needing social services (shelter, food, medical aid, etc.) that help comes from every tax payer's money.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      Who would approve the percentage? This seems to be very similar to the deal they are suing about right now. Next up they file suit against the lawyer for taking too big a cut?
  - harryh 11y ago
    That's not really true as these are cases with a relatively small number of plaintiff's each with a relatively high value claim. The kinds of cases where you see plaintiffs getting coupons and lawyers making bank are those with a lot of plaintiffs who were each harmed a very small amount.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      ... which is the purpose of class-action law. When you have a small number of plaintiffs with large claims it's not really the right way to go.
- ploxiln 11y ago
  And the result would be, at best, another structured settlement... and then what prevents the same outcome again?
  - ridgeguy 11y ago
    Part of the settlement would include a requirement that any change of benefit payments be approved only after a court review of the proposed change and an order to that effect. I think this would greatly reduce this kind of exploitation.
    - ploxiln 11y ago
      Well, again, if you read the article... a judge does approve these settlement changes, they're accompanied by signed statements from the victims stating what they need the upfront money for, and yes there is legal forum shopping to get judges and courts that don't require in-person appearances, and are more likely to approve. Also in the article, the victims often have large debts, and one of the main reasons in their signed statement is to get out from under their burden of debt. In some cases they feel like they need $50k now no matter the long-term cost. > That’s how 42-year-old Tarsha Simms recently reconciled her decision to sell a portion of her daughter’s settlement to Access Funding. “I do regret it,” Simms said. “But if it wasn’t for this deal, we would be on the street right now.” So what's the fix? Take away all freedom regarding management and spending of their money?
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        It is the same issue with pay day loans. What is the alternative when someone needs the money now: to tell them no and that they just have to face the consequences of not having the money now?
prawn 11y ago
Half-baked thought: What about a free, opt-in service requiring a second reading of a contract by volunteers? So, nothing can be enacted/fulfilled from a contract with someone registered with that system until the deal has been reviewed. Or even just a service that someone can use to double-check something. I get countless emails/calls from clients checking whether the domain registration letter they've got is legit. They're smart people but they're not familiar with domains. I'd hate to think of how many people fall for those things.
- chejazi 11y ago
  Half-baked response: I like the goal, but I worry that an opt-in system would be too easy to ignore. I imagine the exploiters working for Access Funding could come up with a pretty convincing pitch as to why their client should bypass such a service. Personally, I wish that there was more due process around this sort of thing. So, for instance, as part of the settlement a lawyer had to be there to advise the recipient throughout the process.
  - prawn 11y ago
    Yeah, I think that action from the exploiters would be inevitable. But it pains me to think that there's not a decent solution to this. I get phone calls from people representing businesses that claim to represent major phone providers, or use names very similar to mainstream providers. Must fool a lot of people. If/when a lot are overseas, there's no recourse against them.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Who provides the lawyer? The company? They'll shop around til they find one in their favor. The individual? Good luck being able to find a lawyer, but here are some brochures from the company with lawyers we recommend. A government regulations entity? Now let's add regulatory capture to the mix.

hkmurakami 11y ago

I would suspect that they would have to argue their case for incapacitation in court, which comes with legal fees, which they likely cannot afford. Perhaps a class action lawsuit with many such victims assembled will be compelling enough in size that a law firm will take the case on a contingency basis.

amenghra 11y ago
The result of such a class action lawsuit would be a lawyer (or a bunch of lawyers) making a ton of money and the victims getting a coupon for a happy meal at the local fast food chain.
- hkmurakami 11y ago
  Yes, that is a very good point. Are there any contingency contracts for these class action suits where the lawyers agree to a fixed percentage of the settlement, which would hopefully leave a decent amount for the victims? Perhaps there can be a "bidding" system if the victims can self organize and then look for a law firm to represent them -- kind of like how architecture firms win contracts?
  - amenghra 11y ago
    These people unfortunately have a hard time with basic reading/cognitive skills. Unless the government or a non-profit helps them out they are going to have a hard time self organizing and pull off the best possible deal. Besides ethical reasons, it's in everyone's best interest to make sure that poor people don't get abused in this way because when they end up needing social services (shelter, food, medical aid, etc.) that help comes from every tax payer's money.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Who would approve the percentage? This seems to be very similar to the deal they are suing about right now. Next up they file suit against the lawyer for taking too big a cut?
- harryh 11y ago
  That's not really true as these are cases with a relatively small number of plaintiff's each with a relatively high value claim. The kinds of cases where you see plaintiffs getting coupons and lawyers making bank are those with a lot of plaintiffs who were each harmed a very small amount.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    ... which is the purpose of class-action law. When you have a small number of plaintiffs with large claims it's not really the right way to go.
ploxiln 11y ago
And the result would be, at best, another structured settlement... and then what prevents the same outcome again?
- ridgeguy 11y ago
  Part of the settlement would include a requirement that any change of benefit payments be approved only after a court review of the proposed change and an order to that effect. I think this would greatly reduce this kind of exploitation.
  - ploxiln 11y ago
    Well, again, if you read the article... a judge does approve these settlement changes, they're accompanied by signed statements from the victims stating what they need the upfront money for, and yes there is legal forum shopping to get judges and courts that don't require in-person appearances, and are more likely to approve. Also in the article, the victims often have large debts, and one of the main reasons in their signed statement is to get out from under their burden of debt. In some cases they feel like they need $50k now no matter the long-term cost. > That’s how 42-year-old Tarsha Simms recently reconciled her decision to sell a portion of her daughter’s settlement to Access Funding. “I do regret it,” Simms said. “But if it wasn’t for this deal, we would be on the street right now.” So what's the fix? Take away all freedom regarding management and spending of their money?
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      It is the same issue with pay day loans. What is the alternative when someone needs the money now: to tell them no and that they just have to face the consequences of not having the money now?

prawn 11y ago

Half-baked thought: What about a free, opt-in service requiring a second reading of a contract by volunteers? So, nothing can be enacted/fulfilled from a contract with someone registered with that system until the deal has been reviewed. Or even just a service that someone can use to double-check something. I get countless emails/calls from clients checking whether the domain registration letter they've got is legit. They're smart people but they're not familiar with domains. I'd hate to think of how many people fall for those things.

chejazi 11y ago
Half-baked response: I like the goal, but I worry that an opt-in system would be too easy to ignore. I imagine the exploiters working for Access Funding could come up with a pretty convincing pitch as to why their client should bypass such a service. Personally, I wish that there was more due process around this sort of thing. So, for instance, as part of the settlement a lawyer had to be there to advise the recipient throughout the process.
- prawn 11y ago
  Yeah, I think that action from the exploiters would be inevitable. But it pains me to think that there's not a decent solution to this. I get phone calls from people representing businesses that claim to represent major phone providers, or use names very similar to mainstream providers. Must fool a lot of people. If/when a lot are overseas, there's no recourse against them.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Who provides the lawyer? The company? They'll shop around til they find one in their favor. The individual? Good luck being able to find a lawyer, but here are some brochures from the company with lawyers we recommend. A government regulations entity? Now let's add regulatory capture to the mix.