3 ms·

> The decision is right but I feel like most of the costs are going to go to lawyers and that rubs me the wrong way. Please be aware that this attitude is bein

> The decision is right but I feel like most of the costs are going to go to lawyers and that rubs me the wrong way. Please be aware that this attitude is being deliberately nurtured by big businesses to erode support for class-action lawsuits (much like the McDonald's hot coffee controversy was deliberately and loudly misrepresented to make people cynical towards perfectly-justified personal injury suits). Class-action suits are not supposed to make injured parties whole, that has never been the point; they are supposed to function as an expensive deterrent to bad behavior. But businesses would rather they go away entirely, so they want to make people angry at "those wily lawyers getting rich instead of the little guy". It's just as disingenuous and disgusting as attacking defense attorneys for "sticking up for bad guys".

Karunamon 6y ago
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on the merits of the hot coffee case. I've read extensively on it and my personal read is that it's an absurd judgement, mostly emotionally-driven, due to a sympathetic plaintiff and an unsympathetic defendant. tl;dr writeup I did here the last time this came up on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482931 That aside, you're absolutely right on the purpose of class actions. Generally the cause of action for individual case members is prohibitively small anyways. It's to form big legal sticks to beat misbehaving companies with, not to make the injured parties (whose injuries are usually pretty small in your average class action) whole.
dkonofalski 6y ago
>this attitude is being deliberately nurtured by big businesses to erode support for class-action lawsuits While this may be true that's not my issue with this. I know that class-action suits are not meant to make injured parties whole but that's exactly what I take issue with. The fact that a company can essentially pay away its mistakes, when most are knowingly made, is a direct result of the lawyers. I can't help but think of Fight Club - if the cost to change the offending process/product is more than the cost of potential lawsuits, the change isn't made. While that's good business, it's immoral and wrong.
- labawi 6y ago
  > a company can essentially pay away its mistakes It would be hard to find a company or person that actually does something without breaking any laws. Not caring about less relevant things and then possibly paying some fines seems an integral requirement of current legal and social systems, not a result of lawyers or courts. Mistakes, omissions or wilful ignorance w.r.t. less serious matters - not immoral or wrong IMO. Knowledgeable intentional transgressions (not a mistake) or mistakes with serious, dangerous matters - bad, sometimes very very immoral and wrong.

Karunamon 6y ago

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on the merits of the hot coffee case. I've read extensively on it and my personal read is that it's an absurd judgement, mostly emotionally-driven, due to a sympathetic plaintiff and an unsympathetic defendant. tl;dr writeup I did here the last time this came up on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482931 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23482931 That aside, you're absolutely right on the purpose of class actions. Generally the cause of action for individual case members is prohibitively small anyways. It's to form big legal sticks to beat misbehaving companies with, not to make the injured parties (whose injuries are usually pretty small in your average class action) whole.

dkonofalski 6y ago

>this attitude is being deliberately nurtured by big businesses to erode support for class-action lawsuits While this may be true that's not my issue with this. I know that class-action suits are not meant to make injured parties whole but that's exactly what I take issue with. The fact that a company can essentially pay away its mistakes, when most are knowingly made, is a direct result of the lawyers. I can't help but think of Fight Club - if the cost to change the offending process/product is more than the cost of potential lawsuits, the change isn't made. While that's good business, it's immoral and wrong.

labawi 6y ago
> a company can essentially pay away its mistakes It would be hard to find a company or person that actually does something without breaking any laws. Not caring about less relevant things and then possibly paying some fines seems an integral requirement of current legal and social systems, not a result of lawyers or courts. Mistakes, omissions or wilful ignorance w.r.t. less serious matters - not immoral or wrong IMO. Knowledgeable intentional transgressions (not a mistake) or mistakes with serious, dangerous matters - bad, sometimes very very immoral and wrong.