Here's what I'm seeing in the linked report: 1. They project 3,000 extra class actions will happen as a result of allowing class actions. The businesses receiv

Here's what I'm seeing in the linked report: 1. They project 3,000 extra class actions will happen as a result of allowing class actions. The businesses receiving them will spend a lot of money on lawyers and settlements. They say the businesses probably won't absorb the damage for these claims. They might charge customers more. So, profit-hungry companies being hit with class actions will charge their customers more while benevolent ones won't and those not doing whatever actions cause class actions will be cheaper. Good companies, at least in court terms, will be cheaper. 2. Few (13%) of the class-actions result in relief to those affected and suing. They project four in five cases will provide no relief. This ignores a huge reason for class actions: making companies doing bad things lose enough money to change their practices. Class-actions have been far more successful at this than individual lawsuits or arbitrations due to the dollar amounts in No 1. 3. In class-actions that generate class-wide reliefs, few customers actually claim the funds they're offered. The report thinks this means the class-action was worthless. Again, ignores the value of getting justice and changing corporate activity in No 2 which might have been consumers' goal all along. 4. The plaintiffs' attorneys will make a lot of money doing the class-actions. Businesses being hit with class-actions will pay out an extra $330 million to their victims' attorneys. So what. It's a separate issue. The plaintiffs are still going for class actions so clearly they find this better than not doing the class action. The big companies are also fine with shelling out millions on attorneys and lobbyists to do what benefits them. Consumers will let those people make money to benefit them, too. 5. This report ignores the effect of meritless lawsuits. Defendents often settle just to avoid more damages. This is a general problem that. I'll also note that the kinds of companies often hit by class actions similarly push problems on people hoping most won't sue for extra damage. They're actually doing that right now by forcing arbitration. I feel little mercy for them. 6. The report claims the rule will not improve compliance by companies with rules or norms that benefit consumers. Claim there's been no improvement in class-actions over arbitration events. This is possible but not a disqualifier. The data I've seen shows class actions have changed corporate behavior before. I've also seen class actions or just big lawsuits that have had little effect. There's certainly no guarantees one method of justice and/or redress will accomplish its goals. That's also certainly not a reason to get rid of it. In the analyses, the report also compared benefit of class actions versus arbitration supporting customers might want the benefits of arbitration. I may have skimmed over something but it seems they're ignoring the mandatory... no other option... part of arbitration status quo when consumers prefer to be able to do either option. If I didn't miss something, that would be misdirection in the report like how they ignored the punitive, market-changing effect of class action to focus entirely on money-making aspects. Then, they do it again in the next report on cost-benefit analyses. They seem to just focus on money making and losing with no concern for consumers' right to essentially not be abused by collective industry behavior. The consumers didn't want mandatory arbitration to be deployed across the industry. The net benefit was companies kept their profits higher when they abused consumers. That's what the ban of mandatory arbitration is about. The cost-benefit analyses ignores this entirely. So, this report seems to only look at money making, ignores what consumers wanted, ignores how the financial industry was shoving arbitration down consumers' throats to benefit at their expense, ignore consumer demand for justice against big companies being accused, and further argues against class-action on specific damages defendants will be hit with. This is definitely some kind of propaganda to support with little evidence the anti-consumer action of supporting mandatory arbitration clauses. I have an alternative that addresses most of the financial damage in the report: the companies can stop doing financially-damaging or deceptive things to consumers that make such large numbers take action against them. There's lots of companies in most sectors that don't. They don't get hit with class actions. Instead, they get referrals from satisfied customers. Whoever wrote this report should look into that sort of thing. Might be worth drawing attention to.