32 ms·

Another specific couple of aspects of the US situation boggle me: > The Supreme Court has basically ruled that consumer class action suits don't exist any more

by rlpb 6y ago

Another specific couple of aspects of the US situation boggle me: > The Supreme Court has basically ruled that consumer class action suits don't exist any more... The Supreme Court ruling only applies under the current law and does nothing to prevent the law being changed. But for some reason, Americans (as a whole; I realise HN is probably different) act as if this situation is final and it cannot be fixed by Congress. The other thing that boggles me is that it's as if a service isn't cancelled until the company providing it agrees it is cancelled, and that's something their retention departments will resist doing. Where I live, the service is cancelled* when I've given notice of cancellation, whether the company wants to accept it or not. So I don't need to care about whether they'll try to put me off cancelling or not, or if they have a script or not. After I've told them, it's done; as long as I keep a record then any subsequent bills aren't my concern. But for some reason that I cannot fathom, a company not "accepting" notice of cancellation seems to be a problem in the US. * subject to minimum terms or similar stipulations of course

tstrimple 6y ago
> But for some reason, Americans (as a whole; I realise HN is probably different) act as if this situation is final and it cannot be fixed by Congress. Yeah, I can't imagine why Americans don't have faith in the legislative process. https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-grim-reaper-395-house-bills-senate-wont-pass-1487401 https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-grim-reaper-395-hou...
Fauntleroy 6y ago
It's a bit too easy for large corporations to exercise control over Congress, so we (Americans) have little faith that they'll execute on pro-consumer legislation.
mschuster91 6y ago
> But for some reason, Americans (as a whole; I realise HN is probably different) act as if this situation is final and it cannot be fixed by Congress. Because Congress has, essentially, been gridlocked for many years now. That is also the reason why the Supreme Court has gotten so utterly important over the same time frame, because real fundamental change in politics only happen in the courts these days.
techsupporter 6y ago
A lot of people like the situation as it is right now, with regard to binding arbitration. Some of those people are "in the pocket of big business," as it were; some see any limitation on the ability of government to "interfere" with commerce as a good thing; some do not think the courts are fair and would rather take their chances with a "competitive" arbitration system; some do not care because they don't see themselves as ever needing to go to court; some object to "big money lawyers who sue for any little thing." It's not as slam-dunk as it seems. Though, I agree, mandatory binding arbitration ought to be banned, especially in these "contracts of adhesion" (also known as take-it-or-leave-it contracts) where the customer/person who does not put forth the contract is in a significantly reduced negotiating position, as is common in most business-to-consumer transactions. I am particularly disappointed to see so many startups pitched on HackerNews, a group of startup founders and technology people who should know better, putting mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their user agreements. At least put in an opt-out, you disingenuous clods.
- hamstercat 6y ago
  It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. This is why we have laws. Clearly no companies are interested in changing their ways, and why would they?
  - techsupporter 6y ago
    > Clearly no companies are interested in changing their ways, and why would they? Entirely fair and I agree with you. But if Chase, Capital One, T-Mobile, Shadow Game Server Rentals, and other large and small companies can slap an opt-out clause in their terms, why are HN startups so loathe to do so? For fuck's sake there was a company selling a wifi-equipped PLANTER BOX that had a never-sufficiently-damned arbitration clause in their terms.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Opt out clauses are a red herring. I of course do them, but most people are not going to. By the way they're generally set up ("send self-written snail mail to this obscure address and we won't even respond"), it's clear they're meant to be merely a technicality that very few will ever notice or fulfill. If they were an actual part of a negotiated contract, they would be simply struck directly on the document before signing. Tangentially, I do have to wonder about using web page inspector tools to modify terms presented to you, and then agreeing to the modified terms. Taking screen shots for documentation of course. At the very least, it seems like this should result in no contract being formed (since the counterparty has not signed). Which isn't really meaningful for your standard web service everything-disclaimed terms, but would matter if they tried to bind you with mandatory arbitration.

by rlpb 6y ago

tstrimple 6y ago

> But for some reason, Americans (as a whole; I realise HN is probably different) act as if this situation is final and it cannot be fixed by Congress. Yeah, I can't imagine why Americans don't have faith in the legislative process. https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-grim-reaper-395-house-bills-senate-wont-pass-1487401 https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-grim-reaper-395-hou...

Fauntleroy 6y ago

It's a bit too easy for large corporations to exercise control over Congress, so we (Americans) have little faith that they'll execute on pro-consumer legislation.

mschuster91 6y ago

> But for some reason, Americans (as a whole; I realise HN is probably different) act as if this situation is final and it cannot be fixed by Congress. Because Congress has, essentially, been gridlocked for many years now. That is also the reason why the Supreme Court has gotten so utterly important over the same time frame, because real fundamental change in politics only happen in the courts these days.

techsupporter 6y ago

A lot of people like the situation as it is right now, with regard to binding arbitration. Some of those people are "in the pocket of big business," as it were; some see any limitation on the ability of government to "interfere" with commerce as a good thing; some do not think the courts are fair and would rather take their chances with a "competitive" arbitration system; some do not care because they don't see themselves as ever needing to go to court; some object to "big money lawyers who sue for any little thing." It's not as slam-dunk as it seems. Though, I agree, mandatory binding arbitration ought to be banned, especially in these "contracts of adhesion" (also known as take-it-or-leave-it contracts) where the customer/person who does not put forth the contract is in a significantly reduced negotiating position, as is common in most business-to-consumer transactions. I am particularly disappointed to see so many startups pitched on HackerNews, a group of startup founders and technology people who should know better, putting mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their user agreements. At least put in an opt-out, you disingenuous clods.

hamstercat 6y ago
It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. This is why we have laws. Clearly no companies are interested in changing their ways, and why would they?
- techsupporter 6y ago
  > Clearly no companies are interested in changing their ways, and why would they? Entirely fair and I agree with you. But if Chase, Capital One, T-Mobile, Shadow Game Server Rentals, and other large and small companies can slap an opt-out clause in their terms, why are HN startups so loathe to do so? For fuck's sake there was a company selling a wifi-equipped PLANTER BOX that had a never-sufficiently-damned arbitration clause in their terms.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Opt out clauses are a red herring. I of course do them, but most people are not going to. By the way they're generally set up ("send self-written snail mail to this obscure address and we won't even respond"), it's clear they're meant to be merely a technicality that very few will ever notice or fulfill. If they were an actual part of a negotiated contract, they would be simply struck directly on the document before signing. Tangentially, I do have to wonder about using web page inspector tools to modify terms presented to you, and then agreeing to the modified terms. Taking screen shots for documentation of course. At the very least, it seems like this should result in no contract being formed (since the counterparty has not signed). Which isn't really meaningful for your standard web service everything-disclaimed terms, but would matter if they tried to bind you with mandatory arbitration.