5 ms·

If enough people file individual actions with the binding arbitration company, they'll _wish_ it was a class action instead.

wahern 6y ago
That trick only works the first few times. Language will be adjusted in new and even old agreements. Also, IIRC, in one of those infamous cases the arbitration company gave their client a bulk discount, because the arbitration company knows which side of their bread is buttered. Undoubtedly new contracts with arbitration companies already include special pricing for mass arbitration, presumably tailored to minimize the client's and arbitrator's costs while maximizing their client's customers' costs.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Arbitration isn't a magic wand. If the arbitrator colludes with one side, the other side can file class action. A more practical answer is telling everyone you know that HP is a sham company, and avoid their products like the rona.
  - wahern 6y ago
    If negotiating costs with the arbitrator could, per se, constitute cognizable collusion I don't think arbitration would be a thing. It is a thing. Therefore we're stuck with the system. What really needs to happen is for Congress to legislatively overturn conservative justices' belated, radical reinterpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act, effectively preempting traditional state law-based policies that reign in unfair arbitration practices. But anti-trial lawyer propaganda has permeated deep into the American psyche, including among Democrats. Legislation that could be spun as empowering trial lawyers has become something of a third rail in American politics, especially at the national level. The alternative to fixing the FAA is to do like Civil Law countries and create more regulatory bodies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. But 1) both conservative legislators and judges make it their hobby to cripple those agencies; and 2) I, for one, would prefer going back to a regime that permits more private actions because, at least in modern American politics, a centralized consumer protection process is politically impractical even without the disingenuous and baldly partisan efforts of politicians and judges. The problem with regulatory agencies is that to be effective they have to stick their nose into everybody's business preemptively. That's not a good fit for American-style enterprise and politics. The nice thing about civil suits is that, at least in principle, they can only happen when someone has actually been wronged and suffered actual losses. Which means companies can move fast & break things, so long as they're prepared to pay for any damages.
    - labawi 6y ago
      > Which means companies can move fast & break things, so long as they're prepared to pay for any damages. Or go bankrupt, like the Upper Graystone Well 963A Fracking Co.
    - stainforth 6y ago
      It was conservative activist judges all along.

wahern 6y ago

That trick only works the first few times. Language will be adjusted in new and even old agreements. Also, IIRC, in one of those infamous cases the arbitration company gave their client a bulk discount, because the arbitration company knows which side of their bread is buttered. Undoubtedly new contracts with arbitration companies already include special pricing for mass arbitration, presumably tailored to minimize the client's and arbitrator's costs while maximizing their client's customers' costs.

alisonkisk 6y ago
Arbitration isn't a magic wand. If the arbitrator colludes with one side, the other side can file class action. A more practical answer is telling everyone you know that HP is a sham company, and avoid their products like the rona.
- wahern 6y ago
  If negotiating costs with the arbitrator could, per se, constitute cognizable collusion I don't think arbitration would be a thing. It is a thing. Therefore we're stuck with the system. What really needs to happen is for Congress to legislatively overturn conservative justices' belated, radical reinterpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act, effectively preempting traditional state law-based policies that reign in unfair arbitration practices. But anti-trial lawyer propaganda has permeated deep into the American psyche, including among Democrats. Legislation that could be spun as empowering trial lawyers has become something of a third rail in American politics, especially at the national level. The alternative to fixing the FAA is to do like Civil Law countries and create more regulatory bodies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. But 1) both conservative legislators and judges make it their hobby to cripple those agencies; and 2) I, for one, would prefer going back to a regime that permits more private actions because, at least in modern American politics, a centralized consumer protection process is politically impractical even without the disingenuous and baldly partisan efforts of politicians and judges. The problem with regulatory agencies is that to be effective they have to stick their nose into everybody's business preemptively. That's not a good fit for American-style enterprise and politics. The nice thing about civil suits is that, at least in principle, they can only happen when someone has actually been wronged and suffered actual losses. Which means companies can move fast & break things, so long as they're prepared to pay for any damages.
  - labawi 6y ago
    > Which means companies can move fast & break things, so long as they're prepared to pay for any damages. Or go bankrupt, like the Upper Graystone Well 963A Fracking Co.
  - stainforth 6y ago
    It was conservative activist judges all along.