12 ms·

In the EU you cannot bind consumers by such arbitration clauses: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31993L0013 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

by flexie 9y ago

In the EU you cannot bind consumers by such arbitration clauses: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31993L0013 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 (usually a percentage of what you ask for), - if the consumers lose they pay not only their own lawyer, but (to an extent decided by the court) also the lawyer representing the corporation, - many European countries have consumer "watchdogs" / ombudsmen, i.e. public entities that have the authority to start cases against corporations, - many European countries have a variety of consumer complaint boards that handle small claims efficiently and at low cost. Few who know consumer matters in both the US and the EU would trade the European system for the American.

dclowd9901 9y ago
The EU system seems to be very anti-consumer. Or is that what your summary statement is intended to elicit? (tough to tell, as it could mean either/or is the better system)
- kogepathic 9y ago
  > The EU system seems to be very anti-consumer. I disagree. It is true that it is harder for EU consumers to sue a corporation, but in general I feel that consumer rights are generally stronger in the EU than in North America (OP's point about consumer watchdogs), so there is less reason for an EU consumer to sue a corporation. IANAL, but I'd say the EU system is anti-litigious, not anti-consumer.
  - odabaxok 9y ago
    > I feel that consumer rights are generally stronger in the EU than in North America I agree with this, I feel the same. However, it seems to me, that if there is a customer related problem already in place, US will find it and react to it faster. To put an example here, all of the major automotive recalls of the last few years were exposed in the US, while Europe reacted to them with a delay (Volkswagen diesels, Takata airbag, Toyota accelerator pedal).
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      The VW scandal is a bad example. They broke the law, but consumers only lost value in their cars indirectly (and there were some health effects). Given how extreme the American reaction to the VW scandal was I do wonder what the response would have been if that company had been GM, Ford or Chrysler. A part of me is really happy that the US brought this to light and made VW pay for their transgression, a part of me feels that the asymmetry between the damage VW has done to Americans and the damage that America has done to other countries is so extreme that it feels as though this is simply a cheap trick to extract some $ from VW and to harm their brand relative to US brands. Even so, stupid on the part of VW and it should have never happened.
      - odabaxok 9y ago
        Just reacting to this: > Given how extreme the American reaction to the VW scandal was I do wonder what the response would have been if that company had been GM, Ford or Chrysler There were recalls related to GM (GM ignition switch recall - 30M cars worldwide) or Chrysler (just recently [1]) too. ..you are right, these are more dangerous things like cheating the emissions. However, I believe they are not showing favor toward US companies. There are recalls of Fiat-Chrysler cars too because of cheating on emissions [2]. However, they are not affecting millions of cars as in VW case. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/fiat-chrysler-recalls-1-point-33-million-vehicles.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/fiat-chrysler-recalls-1-poin... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/business/energy-environment/fiat-chrysler-diesel-emissions.html?mcubz=3 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/business/energy-environme...
        jacquesm 9y ago
        So, how many billions were the fines in those cases and which executives went to jail?
        ambrice 9y ago
        The same fines and jail times associated with any foreign carmaker who issues a recall that isn't related to deliberate and intentional fraud.
- kijin 9y ago
  The EU system doesn't encourage consumers to sue corporations. But as the last two points show, it offers a much easier and cheaper way for consumers to get what they want from corporations, without going through the hassle of a lawsuit. Consumers should be able to sue corporations if they really need to, which is what the article is about. But it's even better if they don't need to sue in the first place.
- gwbas1c 9y ago
  Looks like the EU system is able to better resolve consumer issues without lawsuits; and is better at avoiding frivolous lawsuits. The article doesn't discuss the American problem of frivolous lawsuits.
  - sageikosa 9y ago
    Tort reform. Some things should be kicked out of the courts at the front door by a legal bouncer.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  You shouldn't be down voted for this even though you are wrong. The EU system is very pro-consumer and is doing a lot of things to make life easier for consumers ditching roaming is just one of them. With regards to lawsuits the EU system takes the need out of much of that by having fairly strict rules for corporations and giving consumers much more legal backing when it comes to the return of goods, protection from harmful chemicals in food etc. It's just a different way to look at it than the US.
  - stult 9y ago
    In academic US legal theory, litigation is frequently portrayed as an efficient substitute for regulation, particularly from a libertarian perspective. Our political narratives also tend to reject regulation as government overreach or unconstitutional when carried out at the federal level. So we ended up with a highly litigious system, which (unsurprisingly) resulted in high litigation costs. Corporations have responded (also unsurprisingly) by trying to reduce their litigation costs. Our childishly uninformed political discourse has prevented the libertarian/conservative elements of American society from having to confront this contradiction. It's idiotic. If litigation was efficient it would be cheap. Or at least as cheap as it can be and cheaper than the alternative. It's pretty clear that that isn't true.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Corporations have responded (also unsurprisingly) by trying to reduce their litigation costs. No, they simply pass those costs on to the consumers.
      - wongarsu 9y ago
        And you are more competitive if you have fewer costs that have to be passed on to the consumers. Just because they can pass it on doesn't mean they don't try to reduce it.
      - forapurpose 9y ago
        > No, they simply pass those costs on to the consumers. I believe this is a false narrative spread by those who want to reduce consumer access to courts. Businesses don't price their goods at (cost + profit). They price them at the level that will maximize profit. Sometimes that's at a loss, sometimes that's around break even, sometimes it provides a healthy profit, and sometimes they make extraordinary profits (what do you think the cost is for that $4 soda at the movie theater?). But the price is already set to maximize profits. If the seller's costs increase, raising the price won't increase profit or help them at all - it would merely reduce revenue due to the negative impact on sales volume. And if their costs go down, they of course don't lower the price, they take more profit.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  No, it's anti lawyer. Consumers are doing fine. Consumer watchdogs have actual teeth and when companies are found to have misbehaved the penalties can be quite severe. The difference is that consumers don't usually get rich from suing companies, we don't have a 'legal lottery' for every little thing that spoils your day and that you feel grieved about. That higher barrier keeps the courts free for stuff that is important and at the same time makes sure that we don't end up with a climate where everybody is suing everybody else all the time.
  - skj 9y ago
    I must say your impression of the American legal system seems to be based on upworthy articles.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      I'll give you two little samples of what my impression is based on (besides the thousands of articles read and stories of fellow business people operating in the American market): - when I was in New York I got hit from behind by a guy in a car doing maybe 5 mph. He got out of his car right away, ran over and started pleading with me not to sue him before he thought of asking me how I was. When I told him I'm European and he doesn't have to worry his relief was extreme. - A customer of ww.com had viewed a scene that he considered 'shocking' (a gay couple walking around nude in their house) and that he would sue for emotional distress because of this. When he found out we were located in Canada he promptly forgot about it.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        The first one sounds like an uninsured (maybe unlicensed) driver. This is definitely not the norm. Car accidents are one area where we pretty much don't have to worry about lawsuits at all. Your insurance company talks to their insurance company and they work it out. The second one just sounds like a crazy person. They probably had no intent to sue, and were just trying to stupidly use the threat as leverage for something.
- flexie 9y ago
  It's very consumer friendly, but generally speaking it's also not that bad for corporations since they don't have to fear frivolous lawsuits in Europe. European consumer law is full of mandatory rules (rules that you cannot derogate from in contracts or in your terms of service). Half of the clauses in your standard American terms would be tossed out by a European court. European consumer law is far from perfect but I wouldn't trade it for the US system (and I represent corporations).
monksy 9y ago
> "watchdogs" / ombudsmen, i.e. public entities that have the authority to start cases against corporations, The closest that we have in the US is the attorney general in your state. Don't expect a quick action from them.
- iancarroll 9y ago
  The US has the FTC.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    Whose fines, in the rare instance they're actually fining companies, never come close to the profits reaped by the activities that broke the regulations in the first place. For reference: The judgement against the banks after the 2008 mortgage crisis, the fines levied against Wells after the debacle with phony accounts, pretty much any case involving a collections agency, etc. When the profits are in the billions, even a fine of 600 million is a paltry line item. You either should fine in an amount relative to the amount made by the illicit activity, or even better, go after the executives behind it directly with said fines or prison. As long as these slimeballs can conduct illegal activity and sail away after "resigning in disgrace" with an 80 million golden parachute, while the company pockets several hundred million, they will continue to do so as has been evident so far for anyone paying attention.
    - johnvonneumann 9y ago
      I've never quite understood how this works, I'm trying to imagine a burglar being asked to give back "some" of what he stole, but not everything, that would be "unfair". Fight fire with fire in many cases, start fining them the years profit, or maybe, just maybe, start treating corporates like the criminals they are.
      - FussyZeus 9y ago
        Because when you're worth several million dollars, the justice system will go to great lengths to pretend your crime wasn't actually a crime. And yeah, this thought is uncomfortable, but I challenge anyone who reads it to prove it wrong.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
forapurpose 9y ago
What are the outcomes for consumers, relative to the outcomes in the U.S.?

by flexie 9y ago

dclowd9901 9y ago

The EU system seems to be very anti-consumer. Or is that what your summary statement is intended to elicit? (tough to tell, as it could mean either/or is the better system)

kogepathic 9y ago
> The EU system seems to be very anti-consumer. I disagree. It is true that it is harder for EU consumers to sue a corporation, but in general I feel that consumer rights are generally stronger in the EU than in North America (OP's point about consumer watchdogs), so there is less reason for an EU consumer to sue a corporation. IANAL, but I'd say the EU system is anti-litigious, not anti-consumer.
- odabaxok 9y ago
  > I feel that consumer rights are generally stronger in the EU than in North America I agree with this, I feel the same. However, it seems to me, that if there is a customer related problem already in place, US will find it and react to it faster. To put an example here, all of the major automotive recalls of the last few years were exposed in the US, while Europe reacted to them with a delay (Volkswagen diesels, Takata airbag, Toyota accelerator pedal).
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    The VW scandal is a bad example. They broke the law, but consumers only lost value in their cars indirectly (and there were some health effects). Given how extreme the American reaction to the VW scandal was I do wonder what the response would have been if that company had been GM, Ford or Chrysler. A part of me is really happy that the US brought this to light and made VW pay for their transgression, a part of me feels that the asymmetry between the damage VW has done to Americans and the damage that America has done to other countries is so extreme that it feels as though this is simply a cheap trick to extract some $ from VW and to harm their brand relative to US brands. Even so, stupid on the part of VW and it should have never happened.
    - odabaxok 9y ago
      Just reacting to this: > Given how extreme the American reaction to the VW scandal was I do wonder what the response would have been if that company had been GM, Ford or Chrysler There were recalls related to GM (GM ignition switch recall - 30M cars worldwide) or Chrysler (just recently [1]) too. ..you are right, these are more dangerous things like cheating the emissions. However, I believe they are not showing favor toward US companies. There are recalls of Fiat-Chrysler cars too because of cheating on emissions [2]. However, they are not affecting millions of cars as in VW case. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/fiat-chrysler-recalls-1-point-33-million-vehicles.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/14/fiat-chrysler-recalls-1-poin... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/business/energy-environment/fiat-chrysler-diesel-emissions.html?mcubz=3 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/business/energy-environme...
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        So, how many billions were the fines in those cases and which executives went to jail?
        ambrice 9y ago
        The same fines and jail times associated with any foreign carmaker who issues a recall that isn't related to deliberate and intentional fraud.
kijin 9y ago
The EU system doesn't encourage consumers to sue corporations. But as the last two points show, it offers a much easier and cheaper way for consumers to get what they want from corporations, without going through the hassle of a lawsuit. Consumers should be able to sue corporations if they really need to, which is what the article is about. But it's even better if they don't need to sue in the first place.
gwbas1c 9y ago
Looks like the EU system is able to better resolve consumer issues without lawsuits; and is better at avoiding frivolous lawsuits. The article doesn't discuss the American problem of frivolous lawsuits.
- sageikosa 9y ago
  Tort reform. Some things should be kicked out of the courts at the front door by a legal bouncer.
ThomPete 9y ago
You shouldn't be down voted for this even though you are wrong. The EU system is very pro-consumer and is doing a lot of things to make life easier for consumers ditching roaming is just one of them. With regards to lawsuits the EU system takes the need out of much of that by having fairly strict rules for corporations and giving consumers much more legal backing when it comes to the return of goods, protection from harmful chemicals in food etc. It's just a different way to look at it than the US.
- stult 9y ago
  In academic US legal theory, litigation is frequently portrayed as an efficient substitute for regulation, particularly from a libertarian perspective. Our political narratives also tend to reject regulation as government overreach or unconstitutional when carried out at the federal level. So we ended up with a highly litigious system, which (unsurprisingly) resulted in high litigation costs. Corporations have responded (also unsurprisingly) by trying to reduce their litigation costs. Our childishly uninformed political discourse has prevented the libertarian/conservative elements of American society from having to confront this contradiction. It's idiotic. If litigation was efficient it would be cheap. Or at least as cheap as it can be and cheaper than the alternative. It's pretty clear that that isn't true.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Corporations have responded (also unsurprisingly) by trying to reduce their litigation costs. No, they simply pass those costs on to the consumers.
    - wongarsu 9y ago
      And you are more competitive if you have fewer costs that have to be passed on to the consumers. Just because they can pass it on doesn't mean they don't try to reduce it.
    - forapurpose 9y ago
      > No, they simply pass those costs on to the consumers. I believe this is a false narrative spread by those who want to reduce consumer access to courts. Businesses don't price their goods at (cost + profit). They price them at the level that will maximize profit. Sometimes that's at a loss, sometimes that's around break even, sometimes it provides a healthy profit, and sometimes they make extraordinary profits (what do you think the cost is for that $4 soda at the movie theater?). But the price is already set to maximize profits. If the seller's costs increase, raising the price won't increase profit or help them at all - it would merely reduce revenue due to the negative impact on sales volume. And if their costs go down, they of course don't lower the price, they take more profit.
jacquesm 9y ago
No, it's anti lawyer. Consumers are doing fine. Consumer watchdogs have actual teeth and when companies are found to have misbehaved the penalties can be quite severe. The difference is that consumers don't usually get rich from suing companies, we don't have a 'legal lottery' for every little thing that spoils your day and that you feel grieved about. That higher barrier keeps the courts free for stuff that is important and at the same time makes sure that we don't end up with a climate where everybody is suing everybody else all the time.
- skj 9y ago
  I must say your impression of the American legal system seems to be based on upworthy articles.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    I'll give you two little samples of what my impression is based on (besides the thousands of articles read and stories of fellow business people operating in the American market): - when I was in New York I got hit from behind by a guy in a car doing maybe 5 mph. He got out of his car right away, ran over and started pleading with me not to sue him before he thought of asking me how I was. When I told him I'm European and he doesn't have to worry his relief was extreme. - A customer of ww.com had viewed a scene that he considered 'shocking' (a gay couple walking around nude in their house) and that he would sue for emotional distress because of this. When he found out we were located in Canada he promptly forgot about it.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      The first one sounds like an uninsured (maybe unlicensed) driver. This is definitely not the norm. Car accidents are one area where we pretty much don't have to worry about lawsuits at all. Your insurance company talks to their insurance company and they work it out. The second one just sounds like a crazy person. They probably had no intent to sue, and were just trying to stupidly use the threat as leverage for something.
flexie 9y ago
It's very consumer friendly, but generally speaking it's also not that bad for corporations since they don't have to fear frivolous lawsuits in Europe. European consumer law is full of mandatory rules (rules that you cannot derogate from in contracts or in your terms of service). Half of the clauses in your standard American terms would be tossed out by a European court. European consumer law is far from perfect but I wouldn't trade it for the US system (and I represent corporations).

monksy 9y ago

> "watchdogs" / ombudsmen, i.e. public entities that have the authority to start cases against corporations, The closest that we have in the US is the attorney general in your state. Don't expect a quick action from them.

iancarroll 9y ago
The US has the FTC.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  Whose fines, in the rare instance they're actually fining companies, never come close to the profits reaped by the activities that broke the regulations in the first place. For reference: The judgement against the banks after the 2008 mortgage crisis, the fines levied against Wells after the debacle with phony accounts, pretty much any case involving a collections agency, etc. When the profits are in the billions, even a fine of 600 million is a paltry line item. You either should fine in an amount relative to the amount made by the illicit activity, or even better, go after the executives behind it directly with said fines or prison. As long as these slimeballs can conduct illegal activity and sail away after "resigning in disgrace" with an 80 million golden parachute, while the company pockets several hundred million, they will continue to do so as has been evident so far for anyone paying attention.
  - johnvonneumann 9y ago
    I've never quite understood how this works, I'm trying to imagine a burglar being asked to give back "some" of what he stole, but not everything, that would be "unfair". Fight fire with fire in many cases, start fining them the years profit, or maybe, just maybe, start treating corporates like the criminals they are.
    - FussyZeus 9y ago
      Because when you're worth several million dollars, the justice system will go to great lengths to pretend your crime wasn't actually a crime. And yeah, this thought is uncomfortable, but I challenge anyone who reads it to prove it wrong.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

forapurpose 9y ago

What are the outcomes for consumers, relative to the outcomes in the U.S.?