4 ms·
The article is wrong. Wells fargo says customers gave up their right to sue by signing up for an account, which is far more defendable from a legal point of vie
by kutkloon7 10y ago
The article is wrong. Wells fargo says customers gave up their right to sue by signing up for an account, which is far more defendable from a legal point of view.
Unfortunately, this is common practice and it also shows one of the biggest problems of the western world. It is quite profitable for a company to screw over customers. Just discourage them as much as possible to go to court by letting them sign a large page of legal gibberish, and don't screw them over too much, and the company will probably be fine.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago> It is quite profitable for a company to screw over customers. Because companies are beholden to investors and not customers.
- CWuestefeld 10y agoI think the article is opaque on the terms of that waiver. W-F seems to be taking the stance that the signature applies to the entirety of the customer's relationship with the bank - sign this once for any account, and it applies to actions across all your accounts. BoingBoing and others are taking the position that the waiver only applies to actions relating to the specific account that was signed for, each account standing separately. The latter approach seems more sensible to me, but really it all comes down to the language of the statement that they (really) signed, and how courts have chosen to interpret that.