19 ms·
U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits
- peterlk 9y agoPure speculation ahead: Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state (like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety. It is an issue of national (US) security and safety. To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the bank? Maybe. It seems like that's less of an issue than the fact that Canada has seized assets that belong to US citizens. My point is not that Equifax is innocent, or that the situation is being handled appropriately, but rather that this whole thing looks weird enough that there it's probably a lot worse (and more complicated) than we think it is.
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoWhat looks weird about it? Most Fortune 500 companies do not have bug bounties and have poor security. One was exploited using a disclosed vulnerability. This is on the polar opposite side of the spectrum of things that would give you the idea of nation state, before ruling everything else out.
- cinquemb 9y agoHowever, it would make some sense that politically connected individuals/companies would stand benefit from any claims of national security related to such incidences in order to protect them from liability, even if the exposure to severity of such incidences were preventable to some degree. When national security claims protect your six, rational actors eventually will seek to exploit such…
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoat this point, why WOULDN'T you proxy through a server in Russia or even "just" Eastern Europe when you execute even a wordpress vulnerability A server with an IP in Russia = Russian Hackers = State Sponsored Russian Hackers = Vladimir Putin destabilizing Democracy While you are eating popcorn and have millions of dollars of cryptocurrency no questions asked.
- peterlk 9y agoWell, like I said, pure speculation, so I don't have much to back it up. Just musing
- ngold 9y agoIf the banks left all their customers money protected by a wind screen door that was accessible in the alley, I think suing could be justified.
- jonny_eh 9y agoAnd if the banks had your money, even though you never gave it to them.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> even though you never gave it to them You can argue you were coerced into giving it to them. But at the end of the day, you signed bank and credit card and employment agreements that let your information be transmitted.
- CommentCard 9y agoYour example falls under the purview of negligence in tort law. Nevertheless an arbitration agreement may supersede a potential lawsuit. The widespread use of forced arbitration seems ripe for examination by the SCOTUS. I'm no lawyer, but it seems like a fairly blatant violation of the 7th amendment.
- kharms 9y agoThey looked at a related issue not too long ago. https://www.classdefenseblog.com/2015/12/supreme-court-holds-that-federal-arbitration-act-preempts-california-courts-interpretation-of-arbitration-clause/ https://www.classdefenseblog.com/2015/12/supreme-court-holds...
- prawn 9y agoCouldn't that be left to a judge to decide?
- cinquemb 9y agoWell if the FISA court decide(s|d) upon this (assuming that this would fall under some national security protocol), we (the public) would never hear of it… well anytime soon at least… outside of publicly visible aftershocks people would speculate upon.
- rgbrenner 9y agoThat is not an apt analogy. The resources of a nation state were not required to hack equifax.. a kid with a laptop could have done it. This is a consumer trust and safety issue because basic care was not taken to protect the data that Equifax was trusted with guarding. If it turns out that a nation state is the one that carried out the hack.. then that's a national security issue AND a consumer trust and safety issue. But that doesn't excuse gross incompetence.
- iamleppert 9y agoThe way to get better security is to let the free market system work as its intended: Equifax should die a painful death by the masses, if necessary piecemeal one lawsuit at a time until the company coffers have been emptied (and preferably any directors, agents, vested entities, and anyone else within a legally-defensible stone's throw). It may sound harsh, but that's life and life ain't fair. That's the only way to send a message strong enough that if you are going to operate an IT business, which is what Equifax is, and you have poor security, you will not be protected by the government. In fact, protecting Equifax and other companies who fail to properly maintain adequate security will send a message to other corporations that this kind of behavior will be tolerated, and these companies may be incentivized to not invest in their security. I've seen situations exactly like this play out at companies before. If the rules of the market suddenly change, so will the industry. And why should we risk the stability of an entire industry because of one company? The security problems aren't going away, even if we decide to create laws that say they don't matter -- they will still be there at the end of the day, and someone will be able to exploit them. It's bad for business, bad for consumers, and ultimately bad for whatever government is foolish enough to create such policy.
- unchocked 9y agoYour claim sounds good the way you put it, but less so when you consider that retributive justice seems ineffectual at deterring violent crime... unless you're also going to claim that shitty companies are generally smarter than felons.
- nerdponx 9y agoThe analogy does not work. People commit violent crimes for very different reasons than shitty companies commit economic crimes. And at the end of the day, there is some amount of basic deterrence for people who are not in some kind of adverse mental state. How many more crimes of passion would there be if murder, or assault, were not so harshly penalized? The “deterrence does not work“ line as a matter of degrees, not absolutes, and only applies to a subset of the population. For the rest of us, it works just fine. So to re-join the topic at hand, think of it this way: there will always be outright criminal corporate actors, and deterrence by corporate death will never stop them. These are the Bernie Madoffs and Jeffrey Skillings of the world. Their corporate actors, however, only act the way they do because they are simply are no consequences for doing otherwise, and upper management has evidently quashed their consciences entirely: AT&T (selling deanonymized data with token, non-retractable consent), BP (Gulf oil spill), Equifax (not caring about your security). Lest we forget that these businesses are in the business of making money, and they do so with terrifying efficiency, and their management is soullessly shrewd. If something is risky and expensive because it entails a high chance of a lawsuit or some other penalty, they will think twice about it.
- aussieguy1234 9y agoEquifax knew they were running a vulnerable version of Apache tomcat. To not fix it is pure incompetence, like a bank leaving it's doors unlocked overnight. What did they expect to happen?
- astura 9y agoApache Struts, not Tomcat.
- mtgx 9y agoThere should be such thing as "gross negligence" when it comes to security. If believe it applies to companies managing "critical infrastructure". But, fortunately for Equifax, companies that manage social security numbers haven't been declared critical infrastructure. If they were, I'm sure Equifax could have been found guilty of gross negligence.
- pjc50 9y ago> imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched over the border and robbed some banks The international law on this is rather complicated but I believe that those affected would have a case against the Canadian government, as well as being covered by the US bank insurance system. However, in the case of Equifax, personal data isn't the property of the person (in the US system) and so you don't have a case. You'd need to have an EU-style data protection system rather than a US system which treats data as free speech.
- drharby 9y agoWhich is why military operations are conducted as an extension of policy, not as an isolated show of force. It would be the mounties robbing the banks and then threatening to return with greater force if we show any attempt to recoup losses from canada, but then we steal their lumberjacks, then they strike out alaskan oil sites, oh boy are we at war? National security advisors have long indicated civilian infrastructure to be the primary cyber vulnerability, not military assets. Its the german ballbearing factory all over again. So to not hold these companies liable is genuinely generating a national security threat, where threat is defined as a risk with a real probability of being realized.
- s73ver_ 9y agoHow does that change things? Why does that mean that I should not be able to unite with my fellow consumers to hold them accountable?
- specialist 9y agoBecause collective action would level the battlefield.
- lr4444lr 9y agoThe degree of fault is determined through investigation, and it's not all or none. If the banks had negligently lax security that should have resulted in only 75% of the actual robbed monies being lost, they'd be on the hook for the remainder.
- saalweachter 9y agoI think positing a nation-state is an unnecessary complication. Let's imagine two different bank robberies, carried out by the same wicked bank robbers. In the first, the bank robbers steal a bulldozer and a crate of dynamite, knock down half the bank in the middle of the night, blow the safe, and run away with the money. In the second, the bank has left the safe and all the doors unlocked at the end of the day when everyone goes home. The robbers stroll in through the open door, take the money, and casually walk away. In both situations, the robbers are fully culpable. They don't get a pass just because the money was left lying around where anyone could take it. They should be pursued and an appropriate punishment (or rehabilitation, if that's your thing) should be meted out in either case. But in the second scenario, the bank is also culpable - they failed to take reasonable precautions, they were negligent in their duties. If someone is negligent in their duties and that negligence results in harm to others, they should be held responsible for it. The situation doesn't change if it was a nation-state that took advantage of the negligence; the hypothetical bank aren't being punished for being robbed, and it doesn't matter that a hypothetical determined robber could still have broken through nearly any security you could imagine, they were still negligent in their duties.
- ifhd 9y ago> Does it make sense for the patrons of that bank to be able to sue the bank? If they left the doors unlocked and didn't bother to hire security then sure.
- curiousgal 9y agoWhat are some arguments for money in politics; lobbying?
- sampo 9y agoThat the alternative might be worse?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago(1) If you have wealth in a society, you have more to lose from its downfall than the average Joe. Counterpoint: you can now afford to hedge your bets, financially, and flee. (2) It takes skill and savvy to make money. Overweighting their influence will produce a fitter society. (Interesting aside: British university graduates and property owners got double, sometimes triple, votes through 1948 [1].) Counterpoint: this requires high intergenerational income mobility. A lack of mobility from the lower classes up is a problem in the long run, but a lack of mobility from the upper classes down is toxic in the short: you'll have idiots with tuborcharged influence. As to lobbying, that's unavoidable in a democracy. You will need insiders to explain the system to legislators. Banning lobbying means forcing the legislature to make decisions in the dark. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_voting#United_Kingdom
- 9y ago
- runesoerensen 9y ago“Tonight’s vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country,” Richard Cordray, the director of the consumer bureau, said in a statement. “As a result, companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax remain free to break the law without fear of legal blowback from their customers.”
- Haydos585x2 9y agoLike they say in the article it looks like Equifax was only stopping clients from joining a class action against TrustedID. It also doesn't say anything about people suing individually. I suppose we can expect to see every company now put this into their terms and conditions, which is certainly a step back in consumer rights.
- iamdave 9y agoDon't they already with arbitration clauses?
- forapurpose 9y ago> It also doesn't say anything about people suing individually. Lawsuits are very expensive and time-consuming. Few individuals have the resources to sue companies like Equifax. Also, if Equifax defrauds 10 million people of $1,000 each, that's $10 billion in fraud but zero penalty, because $1,000 isn't worth a lawsuit for any individual.
- burntrelish1273 9y agoThis should be on (e.g., researched) Thom Hartmann and Democracy now. It would also be good if Warren were to weigh in if this appears to provide cover for this oligopoly club member instead of allowing redress by consumers (e.g., every person with credit in America).
- self_assembly 9y agoThis is probably a dumb question but I would appreciate a serious answer. How am I considered a consumer of Equifax? Aren't the consumers the people that use Equifax to check my credit? When did I ever enter into an agreement with Equifax that binds me to arbitration?
- lostdog 9y agoDid you freeze or lock your credit with Equifax? Have you ever checked your credit report with Equifax so you knew it would be in advance? Congratulations. You no longer have access to the court system.
- craftyguy 9y agoCool, I have never done any of those things with equifax! Where do I sign up for the class action lawsuit?
- lr4444lr 9y agoWhy would you? To get $10 and a year of free credit monitoring, and thus indemnify them for any further damage resulting from the breach? Better to opt out and wait until/if you actually suffer identity theft. Even if you're forced into arbitration you'll probably get more for your individual damages.
- s73ver_ 9y agoTo punish Equifax? The problem with the snarky, knee jerk response to class actions that you have is that most class actions are instances where individuals aren't harmed for much, but together it's quite significant. And I have absolutely no faith in private arbitration to do anything but find for the entity paying their fees.
- gowld 9y agoThat's the rumor floating around, but there is no evidence behind it. If I buy a license to of Windows, with an arbitration agreement, and then Satya Nadella hits me with his car, I don't have to go to arbitration for the car incident.
- hyolaris 9y agoThis only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern GOP. Deregulation is fine if you strengthen the ability of citizens to obtain redress through the judicial system. If you weaken that ability, or it is weakened, you increase regulation. But they're both deregulating and restricting judicial redress, which only increases power of those who don't need it. Companies either are liable or not; these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me.
- defined 9y ago> these clauses preventing class action lawsuits seem baseless to me. I'd go even further and say corrupt and evil. Yet these baseless clauses have been around long before the modern GOP, so while I agree with your sentiment, I'd broaden it from "GOP" to "greedy corporates and their government puppets from any political party."
- noobermin 9y agoWhile you're right, Dems recieve a lot of Wall Street cash and do their bidding often, here all D's voted against it.[0] Both are "corrupted" to use your words but I'd say one is "worse" at least on this one issue. [0] And yes, most did it for political reasons I imagine.
- akvadrako 9y agoThis easily could have been an issue raised during a Democratic majority congress and passed with the same story. After all, everybody hates lawyers that get rich while class members get a coupon. It's not about the issue.
- kbrwn 9y agoDemocrats passed the law that created the agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
- alejohausner 9y ago
- defined 9y ago> Today, it is hard to open up a checking account, rent a car, get cable service or check a loved one into a nursing home without agreeing to mandatory arbitration. This is the part that gives me ulcers, and it's no exaggeration. So many companies insist on us giving up our 7th Amendment rights that we either give in, or don't fly, buy a car, or get a job. We can't even go to the competition because they also have mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their contracts. As bad as the Equifax breach is, IMO this is a greater danger to our freedoms.
- ProAm 9y agoWouldn't Equifax fall under gross negligence and that can never be signed away?
- saimiam 9y agohttps://ramachandr.in/2017/10/12/fuck-corporations/ https://ramachandr.in/2017/10/12/fuck-corporations/ (because I feel this post of mine adds something to your sentiment.)
- pc86 9y agoI may be in the minority here, but I do not come to HN to get linked to a random person's blog. This is a concerning trend, and it's one thing when someone actually provides some level of insight in a few paragraphs and says they've written several pages on the same subject at [link]. But this is just bottom of the barrel "you said something vaguely similar to a blog post I wrote a few weeks ago, here's the link with the oh-so-edgy title."
- SiempreViernes 9y agoIndeed, HN is all about stealth advertising for some new startup in the form of a blog post, not normal blogs!
- tertius 9y agoIn comments?
- chillydawg 9y agoIs this an opportunity for a new type of law firm that opens up to deal with one type of complaint for one company and offers extremely low fees to file? The idea would be that the paperwork is all the same for the X thousand/million people suing INDIVIDUALLY such that economies of scale take over and the cost of actually filing and pushing the suit through becomes cheap enough for almost anyone. On the side of Giant Bank, they suddenly have 150,000 lawsuits filed against them and have to act in some way. Is that even allowed? Would a court just tell the law firm to go away and stop spamming it?
- lightbyte 9y ago>On the side of Giant Bank, they suddenly have 150,000 lawsuits filed against them and have to act in some way. Is that even allowed? Would a court just tell the law firm to go away and stop spamming it? This sounds fairly similar to how the Church of Scientology blackmailed the US government into giving it tax exempt status. They filed millions of lawsuits against every IRS employee and drowned them in it until they gave in. It worked out extremely well for them, so it may work out the same in your example.
- comex 9y agoWith (most) arbitration clauses, you can't actually sue at all. You have to go through a private arbitration firm, which can set pretty much whatever rules they want - including things like basing rulings on religious law [1]. Compared to that, I'm pretty sure there'd be nothing illegal about rules to defeat the hypothetical law firm, like requiring complainants to show up in person. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/dealbook/in-religious-arbitration-scripture-is-the-rule-of-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/dealbook/in-reli...
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoExcept they have to get all of those millions of lawsuits dismissed individually by advancing that argument and failing in even a single of those cases through a novel argument on the part of plaintiff, sympathetic judge, etc could open an avalanche of lawsuits against the firms. It also would force the courts dismissing the lawsuits to grapple with the sheer scale of criminality that the dismissals are being used to hide -- it's easy to hide it when you shut down a handful of lawsuits and the vast majority of your victims remain silent, but are judges going to be so accepting of mandatory arbitration when they've already, personally, dismissed thousands of suits because of arbitration clauses that are about the exact same kind of fraud perpetrated by the exact same people and have thousands more left on their docket? How many times do you believe that a judge can see the exact same crime happen from the same perpetrator and just go "Ho, hum, nothing to see here!" Sometimes, the key is just to be really noisy and annoying so they can't ignore the issue. The act of filing the suits, particularly in a concerted bulk effort, and forcing the government to address and dismiss each individual suit is an effective form of speech and protest. Your argument is shallow excuses for defeatism, which in turn excuses not actually trying. Edit: It also introduces a novel argument of "Uh, so this court has dismissed over 10,000 lawsuits about this exact issue -- clearly we're being abused by a corporation and petitioning the state for assistance. [Argument why the state is obligated to assist.]" It forces the court to explicitly address the argument that the arbitration system is being coupled with a power imbalance to enable criminal action against entire states of people by documenting the scale via dismissals -- which are public record and can be used as evidence in subsequent cases.
- typeformer 9y agoWells Fargo 10 billion People 0
- ifhd 9y ago> People 0 Not quite, but give them a few more years in power.
- Shivetya 9y agothis was not about protecting consumers but instead about protecting the interest of trial lawyers who saw their money slush fund about to dry up. this is a group that notoriously donates to one party over another and exerts incredible control over that party. this rule would have done far more than just smack financial institutions as it was only a first move by the bureau which operates too far outside of what should have been permitted. This was a law masquerading as a regulation and it needs to a law passed by Congress and not some out of control government agency who reports to no one. Go read up on this construct, it was an attempt to prevent normal government checks and balances from affecting it. Its chief is not subject to anyone, there are strict rules to prevent their removal, their funding is not from Congress but instead the Federal Reserve. Even the Fed cannot control the spending of this agency which can reach 12% of the Fed's budget; meaning nearly half a billion dollars to an unaccountable agency. So while the law was good it is the agency affecting it that is the true issue and this agency needs to be put back into an accountable structure like all Federal Agencies. This was a pure partisan attempt to create an agency and staff it in a particular way to prevent debate and review.
- freeone3000 9y agoSo instead of an unaccountable government agency, your only option for redress is an arbiter that the company you're complaining against hired. "Unaccountable" is another word for "provably uninfluenced". Arbitration is provably influenced. (For your other points: "rich" trial lawyers that make, on average, less than software developers? "partisan" isn't the dirty word you think it is, ideas should be judged on merits regardless of source. Funding from the fed reserve is actually fairly brilliant, considering the continual issues with passing a budget in congress.)
- nerdponx 9y ago“Unaccountable" is another word for "provably uninfluenced" What? No. “Unaccountable” means “can’t hold them accountable for their actions”.
- freeone3000 9y ago
- wnevets 9y agoWhy do republicans hate the american consumer so much?
- tertius 9y agoWhat's the best argument for this vote?
- tantalor 9y agoIt's not very good: "the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers." http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/25/559950275/senate-kills-rule-on-class-action-suits-against-financial-companies http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/25/559950275/...
- tertius 9y agoSo I googled that phrase to see what the context was and what else she said in the briefing. It looks to come from a statement from the White House: > Statement Regarding Senate Passage of H.J. Res. 111 > President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing H.J. Res. 111, Disapproving of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Arbitration Agreements Rule. According to a recent report by the Department of the Treasury, the evidence is clear that the CFPB's rule would neither protect consumers nor serve the public interest. Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. Further, the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers. By repealing this rule, Congress is standing up for everyday consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB's uninformed and ineffective policy. And it seems that the DOT report is more important the the "Further" part. At least that is what "Further" implies in their statement. What did the DOT report say? I'm reading through it I suggest you (and others) do as well. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/10-23-17%20Analysis%20of%20CFPB%20arbitration%20rule.pdf https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documen...
- dguaraglia 9y agoAh, yeah, the old Republican trick of creating rules that clearly benefit giant corporations and pass it on the basis that it'd hurt "small corporations." I'm sorry, but if your tiny community bank fucked up badly enough to be on the receiving end of a class-action, maybe they deserve to be affected. Same for bigger banks.
- otakucode 9y agoA couple years ago I got a robocall. It was a recording urging me to call my Congressman and ask them to cut funding to the USCB. Specifically that, the USCB. They did not use its name, only its acronym. They claimed that it was an agency responsible for harming small business in vague terms. After hanging up, I was curious so looked up what the USCB was. I'd never heard of it previously but after reading their website it was pretty clear to me that some company or companies was trying to drum up people opposing the agency based on sheer ignorance and misinformation. I should mention, I live in West Virginia where they might think that such a tactic would work. I get lots of political robocalls trying to convince me person X or Y is an enemy of coal or whatever (odd considering what a tiny number of people that industry actually employs... but it still holds most in the state in thrall) but that's the first I can think of that was trying to drum up support for something like this.
- miaklesp 9y agoIf someone wants to talk about something, they should at least call in person. I always hang up on robocalls.
- fragsworth 9y agoI'm losing faith in our system of government. Citibank did this to me on a credit card I had with them: 1. I stopped using the card for several months. 2. I then used it once on a small purchase. 3. They stopped sending me an e-mail reminders for my bill. (An "error" in their system disabled e-mails for my account specifically) 4. I racked up about $100 in late fees and interest charges. 5. I called them up and they said they'd waive the fees and interest charges. 6. They did not waive the fees and interest charges. 7. At this point, I had to give up and pay it because it was about to go to collections and damage my credit rating. What recourse is there for this kind of thing if the GOP doesn't allow us class-action lawsuits?
- x2f10 9y agoI have an identical situation with Verizon Wireless. I pre-ordered the Pixel 2 and cancelled the order 4 days prior to the release date. I called AGAIN to verify the order was cancelled. I'm told yes. Verizon shipped the order, charged my card for it, and tells me "Sorry - our mistake. Please return the phone for a refund." Since it was 'cancelled', I don't have the ability to print my own return label. I'm told one is coming in the mail. Nothing arrives. I call and inquire: "It was sent. FYI, if you don't return the phone in a week, you'll be outside the return window."
- nrmitchi 9y agoIf this was charged against a credit card, you can likely look at issuing a chargeback through your bank. Even if it wasn't a credit card, you should see if there is anything your bank can do. While I don't typically support a liberal use of chargebacks, a situation where you actually didn't purchase the thing you were charged for, and the vendor is not cooperating, is kind of what they are meant for.
- creaghpatr 9y agoElect a Democratic congress, like the first Obama administration, who incidentally did not allow class-action lawsuits either? At least this time a bill made it to a Senate vote.
- s73ver_ 9y agoThe vote was extremely partisan, with no Dems voting for it. Remember that next time someone tries to discourage you by saying both parties are the same.
- coldcode 9y agoCould as a consumer not add an arbitration clause to every contract you are handed with the same requirements except you get to pick the arbitrator? It seems strange to me that legally only one side of a contract gets to pick all the niceties. I suppose they would have you arrested for impersonating a lawyer to even ask for this.
- stult 9y ago> I suppose they would have you arrested for impersonating a lawyer to even ask for this. No, in theory anyone can negotiate the terms of their own contracts. > It seems strange to me that legally only one side of a contract gets to pick all the niceties. These are called "contracts of adhesion" (i.e. take it or leave it terms) and are subject to slightly stricter interpretive standards than fully negotiated contracts. It would be impossible for a very large company selling consumer products to have lawyers reviewing every consumer contract because the cost would likely exceed the revenue for each contract, never mind the profits. So it makes sense that it's allowed, though in theory we should be using regulators to ensure that they aren't abused. We don't do that, though, hence the current case. >Could as a consumer not add an arbitration clause to every contract you are handed with the same requirements except you get to pick the arbitrator? Not really. You could manually modify a contract by crossing out terms in pen, but that's only enforceable in cases where the other party also signs the contract. As opposed to most consumer contracts where you sign the boilerplate you are given but the company doesn't then cosign that same copy. In some jurisdictions, even if they sign the same copy, they have to initial the changes for them to be enforceable to stop people from sliding things into a large contract on the sly. But you could certainly try this with a larger personal contract like a car purchase or home rental agreement. I personally do not recommend trying to slide things in without the other party noticing, but it's always worth negotiating if you think they are willing and the modification is worth pursuing.
- mathiasben 9y agoI'd like to think it would be possible to create a platform where blocs of consumers could negotiate, examine, modify these contracts of adhesion as a class action.
- tertius 9y agoSo I'm trying to figure out why this was even done. Here's the White House statement on it. From https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/24/statement-regarding-senate-passage-hj-res-111 https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/24/state... > Statement Regarding Senate Passage of H.J. Res. 111 > President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing H.J. Res. 111, Disapproving of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) Arbitration Agreements Rule. According to a recent report by the Department of the Treasury, the evidence is clear that the CFPB's rule would neither protect consumers nor serve the public interest. Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. Further, the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers. By repealing this rule, Congress is standing up for everyday consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB's uninformed and ineffective policy. It seems that they're basing this on a report by the DOT (which is the parent body of the CFPB). Here's the report (I'm still parsing it): https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/10-23-17%20Analysis%20of%20CFPB%20arbitration%20rule.pdf https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documen... The CFPB's response (quoted all over the place): "rehashes industry arguments that were analyzed in depth and solidly refuted in the final rule." I can't find a source for that response. It would be great if we could find a source for that response as well as the wording of the refutation in the "final rule."
- orthecreedence 9y ago> Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving financial disputes. This is actually retarded. How is arbitration OR trial less options than just arbitration? Last I checked, 2 > 1 but maybe I need to review my math skills. Just because a company can't force arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still an option. The Whitehouse is just flipping words around to make it seem like a win for consumers, but their reasoning is just a blatant lie. Translation: Someone paid enough of us a good deal of money to make it so they can't be sued in court. Good luck, suckers.
- 9y ago
- Chaebixi 9y agoDo, what can be done? Who should I support to fight back against stuff like this (organizations, not politicians)?
- grellas 9y agoIt is entirely superficial to cast this fight as one between good and evil. As much as anything, it was about proper process. Legislative, executive, judicial - those are the three branches under the Constitution that are supposed to check and balance one another. The legislature passed the federal arbitration act almost 100 years ago. It was signed into law by the president. And it has been consistently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the face of many and varied court challenges. In essence, the result of this century-old jostling is a body of duly enacted law that says that binding arbitration clauses are truly binding and therefore can be used in contracts to foreclose judicial proceedings by requiring that disputes covered by such clauses be resolved through arbitration. Moreover, a massive court challenge resulted in a holding of the Supreme Court saying that waivers of judicial class-action rights in favor of arbitration are also binding - meaning, it is neither unjust, unfair, nor against public policy (legally speaking) to say that consumers can be required to waive such rights and be required in all cases to arbitrate their disputes. Now, one may believe that all of this is repugnant and grossly harmful to consumers. Others may disagree and may in particular believe that class-action lawsuits are primarily vehicles that help the trial bar and do little with their nickel-discount coupons to actually further the interests of consumers. Either way, the existing law is the existing law. The proper way to change it is to gain control of the legislative and executive branches and to repeal or amend the federal arbitration act. In that way, the law could easily and properly be shaped to forbid making arbitration mandatory and binding or limit the ability to use binding clauses in specific areas of law, etc. The problem with CFPB is that it sought to carve out its own view of what is right and proper for consumers of financial services without regard to the intent of Congress in having enacted the existing arbitration laws. As established, CFPB is not accountable to Congress or any other form of traditional oversight of its bureaucratic functions (its structure was declared unconstitutional by the D.C. court of appeals). It is in that sense an organization that could be characterized as "rogue" based on traditional rules of governance and it is certainly seen as such by those who disagree with its particular actions in using its power to attempt to regulate arbitration clauses, payday loans, etc. So CFPB essentially stuck its thumb in the eye of Congress in pushing forward with these measures. Now Congress has struck back, saying, in effect (with its authority under the Congressional Review Act), "we don't like what this regulation does and this is our domain - therefore, we rescind it." So, while one can try to say this is good versus evil, it is basically the legislature asserting itself on a matter of policy against a bureaucrat who it believes overstepped his proper role. The result is to keep the status quo, nothing more. The rules in effect as a result of this action by Congress are the same ones that have governed arbitration clauses in every walk of life in American business for nearly a century. For those who don't like it, that is fine. The ballot box is open as the prescribed means to effect a change. All this recent action amounts to is a declaration by Congress saying that this should not happen by bureaucratic edict. That may be bad policy, or it may be good policy, but it does uphold the rules of law favoring the electorally-accountable legislative branch over the authority of an unaccountable bureau chief.
- DubiousPusher 9y agoI see a lot of hate here for lawyers who pursue Class-Action suits. I think it's pretty easy to see them as syphoning money off of problems that don't personally affect them and are often minor. They do have one very strong value though. They act as a solution to the concentrated benefit diffuse cost problem. The large take of a class action is essentially a honey pot that draws action when most of us would just put up with the problem because it represents a personal cost too small to care about.