4 ms·

I know class action has a bad reputation, but this is the type of situation it was designed for. The courts can't handle 100,000 individual claims but it can ha

I know class action has a bad reputation, but this is the type of situation it was designed for. The courts can't handle 100,000 individual claims but it can handle one very large claim with 100,000 members.

Hnrobert42 6y ago
Does class action have a bad reputation? I know businesses hate it and in the US are doing everything they can to eliminate it. But as a consumer, I see it as the only way to level the playing field. If it has a bad reputation, I speculate that is the result of businesses lobbying against it in the press and with politicians.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Does class action have a bad reputation? In the US at least they’re associated with companies preying on people and they never seem to actually achieve much in practice except for lawyers. I would say they are a consumer rights problem, not a solution to consumer rights problems.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    I think the value of class action is as a deterrent not a remedy.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Living in the US, I don't feel like class action suits do me much good. Businesses are happy to send me $7 vouchers for shit I don't want.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    Imagine a world without class action. It’s not hard. Think about your internet provider. If you are in the US, you undoubtedly waived your rights to class action and taking the company to court. And then you wonder why your provider raises rates despite you being under contract. Why they can advertise data-capped, throttled service as unlimited. It’s because there is no way to sue them for an amount of money big enough to make a difference. The best you as an individual can do is sue for a few bucks. Who had time for that? So you assume that’s just the way things are. You get screwed. But they don’t have to be that way. If only a lawyer could sue the company on behalf of all the customers for all those tiny injustices. All those injustices together would add up to real money that might make companies think twice. It would also add up to enough to motivate a lawyer to take the case with no upfront payment. So I understand if you don’t care about $7 checks, but that’s not the point. The point is a check on bad corporate actors that screw you, but just gently enough to that you don’t personally sue them.
- maxsilver 6y ago
  It's not that class action has a "bad" reputation, just that in the US, it has a 'meaningless' reputation. The punishment is generally so absurdly minor, and the time frame so long, that it feels like it's not even a slap on the wrist for the offender. The popular perception of class action in the US, is something like, "yes, Kitchenpal knowingly sold thousands of Blenders that sparked out and caught fire, and burned like 50 people's houses down. But luckily your class-action lawsuit came through 10 years later with a check worth $3.22 as compensation"
  - egypturnash 6y ago
    "...and multiple millions of dollars to the lawyers who got you this victory"
    - Hnrobert42 6y ago
      Well, the lawyers usually work on contingency. If they don’t win, they worked for 10 years for free. So, the percentage of victory is compensation for their risk and fronting the money to work for a decade. Further, as the parent post points out, the compensation to the individual is low. Even if the lawyers made nothing, what does the plaintiff care? $3 or $6? What does it matter? But the point isn’t compensating the plaintiff. The point is punishing the defendants and creating some kind of deterrent.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    The point of class action is not to make the plaintiffs while with a check for $3.22. The point is punishing the defendants and creating some kind of deterrent. Yes, such lawsuits take too long and inflict too little pain on defendants, but sadly they are all we’ve got.
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  If you are suing because you want to recover your 300 Euros, a class-action suit that takes a decade and ends up paying you 5 Euros and results in no substantive change to the policy is a very poor substitute.
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    The value in class action lawsuits is as a deterrent to companies. Also, most recipients of the 5 euro awards do literally nothing. The check just shows up. What more do you want? Or more to the point, what alternative do you propose?
- staybailey 6y ago
  Companies like making money and historically class action lawsuits have made it easier for employees or customers to cut into profit margins based on wrongful action by the company. The incentive to join a class action suite was less than each individual filing there own case. Hence the dislike But, as the article perhaps alludes to, the tide may be changing on that due to legal industry automation. If law firms can file nearly identical lawsuites at scale then the incentives can again favor consumers and employees. This may not have happened in this particular case due to courts being unable to scale, but it has happened to companies like DoorDash. See https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-11/doordash-arbitration-blunder%3f_amp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/business/story/...
vkou 6y ago
> The courts can't handle 100,000 individual claims Why not? Bill the loser for court fees. If the cases have merit, the target company will be financially ruined. This seems to be a better deterrent to bad corporate behaviour than a class action suit where the settlement for 100,000 claims is 15 million, where the lawyers keep 99% of it.

Hnrobert42 6y ago

Does class action have a bad reputation? I know businesses hate it and in the US are doing everything they can to eliminate it. But as a consumer, I see it as the only way to level the playing field. If it has a bad reputation, I speculate that is the result of businesses lobbying against it in the press and with politicians.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> Does class action have a bad reputation? In the US at least they’re associated with companies preying on people and they never seem to actually achieve much in practice except for lawyers. I would say they are a consumer rights problem, not a solution to consumer rights problems.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  I think the value of class action is as a deterrent not a remedy.
maxerickson 6y ago
Living in the US, I don't feel like class action suits do me much good. Businesses are happy to send me $7 vouchers for shit I don't want.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Imagine a world without class action. It’s not hard. Think about your internet provider. If you are in the US, you undoubtedly waived your rights to class action and taking the company to court. And then you wonder why your provider raises rates despite you being under contract. Why they can advertise data-capped, throttled service as unlimited. It’s because there is no way to sue them for an amount of money big enough to make a difference. The best you as an individual can do is sue for a few bucks. Who had time for that? So you assume that’s just the way things are. You get screwed. But they don’t have to be that way. If only a lawyer could sue the company on behalf of all the customers for all those tiny injustices. All those injustices together would add up to real money that might make companies think twice. It would also add up to enough to motivate a lawyer to take the case with no upfront payment. So I understand if you don’t care about $7 checks, but that’s not the point. The point is a check on bad corporate actors that screw you, but just gently enough to that you don’t personally sue them.
maxsilver 6y ago
It's not that class action has a "bad" reputation, just that in the US, it has a 'meaningless' reputation. The punishment is generally so absurdly minor, and the time frame so long, that it feels like it's not even a slap on the wrist for the offender. The popular perception of class action in the US, is something like, "yes, Kitchenpal knowingly sold thousands of Blenders that sparked out and caught fire, and burned like 50 people's houses down. But luckily your class-action lawsuit came through 10 years later with a check worth $3.22 as compensation"
- egypturnash 6y ago
  "...and multiple millions of dollars to the lawyers who got you this victory"
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    Well, the lawyers usually work on contingency. If they don’t win, they worked for 10 years for free. So, the percentage of victory is compensation for their risk and fronting the money to work for a decade. Further, as the parent post points out, the compensation to the individual is low. Even if the lawyers made nothing, what does the plaintiff care? $3 or $6? What does it matter? But the point isn’t compensating the plaintiff. The point is punishing the defendants and creating some kind of deterrent.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  The point of class action is not to make the plaintiffs while with a check for $3.22. The point is punishing the defendants and creating some kind of deterrent. Yes, such lawsuits take too long and inflict too little pain on defendants, but sadly they are all we’ve got.
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
If you are suing because you want to recover your 300 Euros, a class-action suit that takes a decade and ends up paying you 5 Euros and results in no substantive change to the policy is a very poor substitute.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  The value in class action lawsuits is as a deterrent to companies. Also, most recipients of the 5 euro awards do literally nothing. The check just shows up. What more do you want? Or more to the point, what alternative do you propose?
staybailey 6y ago
Companies like making money and historically class action lawsuits have made it easier for employees or customers to cut into profit margins based on wrongful action by the company. The incentive to join a class action suite was less than each individual filing there own case. Hence the dislike But, as the article perhaps alludes to, the tide may be changing on that due to legal industry automation. If law firms can file nearly identical lawsuites at scale then the incentives can again favor consumers and employees. This may not have happened in this particular case due to courts being unable to scale, but it has happened to companies like DoorDash. See https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-11/doordash-arbitration-blunder%3f_amp=true https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/business/story/...

vkou 6y ago

> The courts can't handle 100,000 individual claims Why not? Bill the loser for court fees. If the cases have merit, the target company will be financially ruined. This seems to be a better deterrent to bad corporate behaviour than a class action suit where the settlement for 100,000 claims is 15 million, where the lawyers keep 99% of it.