3 ms·

Gross negligence by lawyers. I will get 1 cent from this lawsuit while lawyers will get 75 million. Folks this is why America is losing its competitiveness. Why

by dude3 14y ago

Gross negligence by lawyers. I will get 1 cent from this lawsuit while lawyers will get 75 million. Folks this is why America is losing its competitiveness. Why not send the money wasted on lawyers to communities through simple arbitration and refund the costs of the texts to the customers. It's not like anyone was severely harmed. Not to mention this frivolous lawsuit costs society millions through court costs etc etc. We reformed healthcare, now its time for frivolous lawsuit reform (wait that will never happen).

rdpfeffer 14y ago
On one hand I agree. Frivolous lawsuits mostly have a large positive impact on the litigators and only rarely benefit the plaintif. On the other hand there's something to be said about protecting the privacy and preventing harassment via sms. There are few things and mediums as sacred as those these days.
genwin 14y ago
It's not a frivolous lawsuit when millions have been harmed even to a small degree. Plus it's not a small degree; it's a rather large fine per text. Whether the fine should have been enacted by Congress is debatable; whether it should be paid once it's been enacted, especially when enacted so long ago (1991), is much less debatable. "Simple arbitration" is a euphemism for when the arbitration company is in the defendant company's pocket, so that they almost always win, as is the case for today's arbitration clauses in contracts. The court system is the fairest big-case arbitration system we have today.
otakucode 14y ago
Go ahead, you do that. And tomorrow, I am going to start a company which will inundate you with illegal text messages because your declared stance makes violating those laws very profitable. What most people refer to as "frivolous lawsuits" are absolutely necessary. If I am a business owner, and I find out that my product hurts or kills people, but that my legal liability for that is less than the cost of fixing the product, especially in America today, I am legally bound to continue hurting and killing customers. It's that simple. Cost-benefit. If it costs $2 million to stop hurting people, and $1 million to settle the lawsuits, the business continues hurting people as a cost of doing business. The solution to this problem is called punitive damages. When a company does something which society actually wants to stop them from doing in the future, they HAVE TO levy a fine against the business large enough to make it cost-ineffective to continue their behavior. Public opposition to "frivolous lawsuits" and whiny opposition to people 'winning the lottery' with large punitive damage settlements hurt us all. Goldman Sachs, for example, has been caught breaking the law half a dozen times or so, ripping off the public to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. In response, the FTC has investigated them over and over, and every time the response is to fine them a piddly $5 or $10 million because public outcry over fining them $5 billion or whatever is actually necessary would be too great. So Goldman Sachs accepts that as a cost of doing business and continues raping the economy. This is not theory. Automobile companies were caught doing this in the 70s. The cost of producing reliable cars was so much more than simply settling a few lawsuits each year at a million bucks a pop. How do you stop them? Ask nicely? No, if its profitable for them to do things which cause peoples deaths, then they could be sued for negligence if they knowingly changed their business practices and harmed the investments of their shareholders.
- genwin 14y ago
  Yep. In theory the shareholders could sue a corporation for not doing something to increase profit, including stuff that hurts people.
- dave5104 14y ago
  I'm not super convinced that it's so easy to calculate how much money the business will be losing, though, to "fix" the problem vs. settle it in court. Sure, it might not matter for Goldman Sachs, but wouldn't a very consumer-centric company like Papa John's risk losing business in the long run if they have a crappy reputation? I'd be more concerned about public perception of my company. Or am I too naive?

by dude3 14y ago

rdpfeffer 14y ago

On one hand I agree. Frivolous lawsuits mostly have a large positive impact on the litigators and only rarely benefit the plaintif. On the other hand there's something to be said about protecting the privacy and preventing harassment via sms. There are few things and mediums as sacred as those these days.

genwin 14y ago

It's not a frivolous lawsuit when millions have been harmed even to a small degree. Plus it's not a small degree; it's a rather large fine per text. Whether the fine should have been enacted by Congress is debatable; whether it should be paid once it's been enacted, especially when enacted so long ago (1991), is much less debatable. "Simple arbitration" is a euphemism for when the arbitration company is in the defendant company's pocket, so that they almost always win, as is the case for today's arbitration clauses in contracts. The court system is the fairest big-case arbitration system we have today.

otakucode 14y ago

Go ahead, you do that. And tomorrow, I am going to start a company which will inundate you with illegal text messages because your declared stance makes violating those laws very profitable. What most people refer to as "frivolous lawsuits" are absolutely necessary. If I am a business owner, and I find out that my product hurts or kills people, but that my legal liability for that is less than the cost of fixing the product, especially in America today, I am legally bound to continue hurting and killing customers. It's that simple. Cost-benefit. If it costs $2 million to stop hurting people, and $1 million to settle the lawsuits, the business continues hurting people as a cost of doing business. The solution to this problem is called punitive damages. When a company does something which society actually wants to stop them from doing in the future, they HAVE TO levy a fine against the business large enough to make it cost-ineffective to continue their behavior. Public opposition to "frivolous lawsuits" and whiny opposition to people 'winning the lottery' with large punitive damage settlements hurt us all. Goldman Sachs, for example, has been caught breaking the law half a dozen times or so, ripping off the public to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. In response, the FTC has investigated them over and over, and every time the response is to fine them a piddly $5 or $10 million because public outcry over fining them $5 billion or whatever is actually necessary would be too great. So Goldman Sachs accepts that as a cost of doing business and continues raping the economy. This is not theory. Automobile companies were caught doing this in the 70s. The cost of producing reliable cars was so much more than simply settling a few lawsuits each year at a million bucks a pop. How do you stop them? Ask nicely? No, if its profitable for them to do things which cause peoples deaths, then they could be sued for negligence if they knowingly changed their business practices and harmed the investments of their shareholders.

genwin 14y ago
Yep. In theory the shareholders could sue a corporation for not doing something to increase profit, including stuff that hurts people.
dave5104 14y ago
I'm not super convinced that it's so easy to calculate how much money the business will be losing, though, to "fix" the problem vs. settle it in court. Sure, it might not matter for Goldman Sachs, but wouldn't a very consumer-centric company like Papa John's risk losing business in the long run if they have a crappy reputation? I'd be more concerned about public perception of my company. Or am I too naive?