4 ms·

"Class actions are an ideal instrument for redress of harm where the harm to any individual is small, but the harm is widespread, meaning that a company is chea

"Class actions are an ideal instrument for redress of harm where the harm to any individual is small, but the harm is widespread, meaning that a company is cheating or hurting many people but it's not worth any one individual's effort or expense to sue them." Actually, you are misunderstanding the purpose of class actions. You may see it as s some ideal, but it's not why they were created. They were created to simplify similar cases into one case for the purpose of not having two trials when you could have one.. That's it. It was literally for the efficient administration of justice. Not to do what you suggest the purpose is. Take a gander at the history of the federal rules of civil procedure, this is very widely documented and known. This is one reason the supreme court was able to say "no more". They are just a collection of court rules. I'd also argue they are not the ideal instrument, as they rarely actually achieve any real gains for the individuals.

astrocat 9y ago
>I'd also argue they are not the ideal instrument, as they rarely actually achieve any real gains for the individuals. I can't say whether or not the process is ideal, but I can say that the benefit to individuals is irrelevant. The COLLECTIVE - the whole society - benefits in a big way when the behavior of a large corporation doing very small harm to thousands or millions of individuals is punished and deterred. The bar for success can't always be directed at individuals; there are very positive societal level benefits that are small to individuals but huge to the whole ecosystem.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  "but I can say that the benefit to individuals is irrelevant. " Again, never the original purpose, and while a good goal, class actions are surely ineffective at this. " The COLLECTIVE - the whole society - benefits in a big way when the behavior of a large corporation doing very small harm to thousands or millions of individuals is punished and deterred." Also as mentioned, I think this is very true, but class actions have pretty much not had that effect at all. There are very few areas where class actions have been effective at accomplishing this.
afpx 9y ago
How does that work, then? If I sue a company and then N other people separately sue the company for the same reason, then the courts turn it into a class-action? That doesn't seem just. The parent's perspective seems to make more logical sense. That is, the only reason why I'd want to participate in a class-action was if the damages were so low that it wouldn't be worth the effort to sue separately. If I had high damages, I'd be upset if someone transformed my case into a class action.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  "How does that work, then? If I sue a company and then N other people separately sue the company for the same reason, then the courts turn it into a class-action? That doesn't seem just. " Yes. Second, just in in what sense? If the questions affecting everyone are the same, there's no point in having 5 trials about it. "(b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if: .. (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. "
rhizome 9y ago
I believe one of the terms you're looking for is "judicial economy."
asr 9y ago
How about a citation instead of the somewhat snarky suggestion to "take a gander at the history of the federal rules"? I am not an expert here, but Wikipedia suggests that the history of grouping similar cases for efficient resolution by the courts is not actually the basis for the modern American class action--it was pushed by those who thought it would be a good vehicle for new cases that wouldn't have been viable previously (as the GP suggested): The Advisory Committee that drafted the new Rule 23 in the mid-1960s was influenced by two major developments. First was the suggestion of Harry Kalven, Jr. and Maurice Rosenfield in 1941 that class action litigation by individual shareholders on behalf of all shareholders of a company could effectively supplement direct government regulation of securities markets and other similar markets. The second development was the rise of the civil rights movement, environmentalism and consumerism. The groups behind these movements, as well as many others in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, all turned to class actions as a means for achieving their goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action Also, it's somewhat misleading to cite to the history of the class action and ignore current justifications. This is like arguing that U.S. democracy is bad because it was originally a method for a small group of wealthy landowners to control the country, while ignoring the fact that currently anyone can vote. The history of class actions in England, although interesting, does not make the GP comment incorrect. If the modern purpose is only to simplify similar cases, we already have coordination and consolidation.

astrocat 9y ago

>I'd also argue they are not the ideal instrument, as they rarely actually achieve any real gains for the individuals. I can't say whether or not the process is ideal, but I can say that the benefit to individuals is irrelevant. The COLLECTIVE - the whole society - benefits in a big way when the behavior of a large corporation doing very small harm to thousands or millions of individuals is punished and deterred. The bar for success can't always be directed at individuals; there are very positive societal level benefits that are small to individuals but huge to the whole ecosystem.

DannyBee 9y ago
"but I can say that the benefit to individuals is irrelevant. " Again, never the original purpose, and while a good goal, class actions are surely ineffective at this. " The COLLECTIVE - the whole society - benefits in a big way when the behavior of a large corporation doing very small harm to thousands or millions of individuals is punished and deterred." Also as mentioned, I think this is very true, but class actions have pretty much not had that effect at all. There are very few areas where class actions have been effective at accomplishing this.

afpx 9y ago

How does that work, then? If I sue a company and then N other people separately sue the company for the same reason, then the courts turn it into a class-action? That doesn't seem just. The parent's perspective seems to make more logical sense. That is, the only reason why I'd want to participate in a class-action was if the damages were so low that it wouldn't be worth the effort to sue separately. If I had high damages, I'd be upset if someone transformed my case into a class action.

DannyBee 9y ago
"How does that work, then? If I sue a company and then N other people separately sue the company for the same reason, then the courts turn it into a class-action? That doesn't seem just. " Yes. Second, just in in what sense? If the questions affecting everyone are the same, there's no point in having 5 trials about it. "(b) Types of Class Actions. A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if: .. (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. "

rhizome 9y ago

I believe one of the terms you're looking for is "judicial economy."

asr 9y ago

How about a citation instead of the somewhat snarky suggestion to "take a gander at the history of the federal rules"? I am not an expert here, but Wikipedia suggests that the history of grouping similar cases for efficient resolution by the courts is not actually the basis for the modern American class action--it was pushed by those who thought it would be a good vehicle for new cases that wouldn't have been viable previously (as the GP suggested): The Advisory Committee that drafted the new Rule 23 in the mid-1960s was influenced by two major developments. First was the suggestion of Harry Kalven, Jr. and Maurice Rosenfield in 1941 that class action litigation by individual shareholders on behalf of all shareholders of a company could effectively supplement direct government regulation of securities markets and other similar markets. The second development was the rise of the civil rights movement, environmentalism and consumerism. The groups behind these movements, as well as many others in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, all turned to class actions as a means for achieving their goals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action Also, it's somewhat misleading to cite to the history of the class action and ignore current justifications. This is like arguing that U.S. democracy is bad because it was originally a method for a small group of wealthy landowners to control the country, while ignoring the fact that currently anyone can vote. The history of class actions in England, although interesting, does not make the GP comment incorrect. If the modern purpose is only to simplify similar cases, we already have coordination and consolidation.