Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 06:16 PM) That's a little more clear than what many class actions are about, which is the point. A defective product is pretty obvious, unfair advertising practices and monopolistic control or wide-spread gender discrimination are not such "duh, they owe me something here" issues. What? No it's not. Warranty provisions are about the most complex agreements that exist. None of the terms are clearly defined and a company can make any number of arguments to say "no this is not covered." If it's that complex than you want to file suit. If it's a $30 overcharge, it's not worth the effort or expense to litigate in court, for both sides.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 06:12 PM) Nope, the argument is that this decision makes it significantly less likely that corporations will be held accountable when they defraud consumers because the hurdle is that much higher. And as I've said before, you're fooling yourself if you think settlements or verdicts in class actions change practices. I'll buy your argument that class actions may inform customers of potential fraud, but I don't buy that class actions hold corporations accountable. Again, it's a lawyer or court invention that wasn't designed as a safeguard against corporate malpractice. Once you agree to that and once you've decided that you'd rather not go to court, yes. But it's not like companies force arbitration on you in lieu of other alternatives. And again, what was so awful about AT&T's arbitration system?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:12 PM) Will you bother pursuing arbitration against them? Do you have the legal expertise (ok, ok, you're a bad person to ask this sort of hypothetical to, but pretend you're not a lawyer like 99% of people) to determine you've been wronged and present a strong case? Or will you go about your business, even if Sony has f***ed you over? How much more difficult is that for each individual than to simply be party to a class action? Have you ever demanded a refund at a restaurant? Have you ever submitted a defective/broken product under a warranty provision? I mean all you gotta do is say what happened and provide some evidence about what you're claiming. It can't be that difficult. And i get your point about becoming aware of a fraud. But if you're not aware and you discovery it 10 years later, you're not precluded from still filing a suit. And if it's that bad then maybe it's worth getting a lawyer and asking for additional damages. Also, I think reality sets in here to some degree with this situation and all legal situations. At some point there is the economics. I could be screwed by my mechanic out of a couple hundred bucks. There's no arbitration system, there's no class wide protection. I can either file suit or eat the cost. That's just life unfortunately. The hope is that the "market" (gasp!) informs people not to go to that business anymore and then they go out of business and the problem resolves itself.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:11 PM) It appears the arbitration is legally binding. http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=21931 We're talking about two things here. Arbitration decisions are legally binding yes, that's true. But in most case arbitration decisions are not the final resolution of the matter. They're more, hey lets talk with this guy and see what he thinks and maybe he'll help us reach a fair settlement. It's more of a neutral parties' recommendation for a resolution of the matter. My point was that these arbitration systems are probably not binding on either party unless they've agreed to that arrangement beforehand. That might well be in the agreement you sign with these companies, I dunno. But they have to leave you the option of also filing a suit in court (before deciding to go to arbitration). My understanding was that a company can't force you to ONLY go through arbitration, with no other recourse.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) Expanded version of Byers' comment explaining why limiting class-actions is pro-big business: Am I going to go through all of the trouble of arbitration for $30? Probably not. Will I sign onto a class action suit I believe is legitimate that might get me $10 after lawyers' fees? Absolutely. And AT&T's going to pay a lot more if they settle that suit or if they're ruled against than a handful of $30 claims. Class actions can also be subject to having damages tripled if I'm remembering a story I heard on the Walmart discrimination case recently. Lol, ah, so your argument is that you don't want to do any work to try and prove your claim. I get it. You should be a juror in Cook County. There's a gazillion people like you here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:02 PM) Class action suits automatically raise consumer awareness that they may have been defrauded. That alone is a substantial impact. Eh. Maybe. There's no class action suit against Sony but I know they f***ed up royally and gave hackers all my information.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:57 PM) Are you sure about that? My understanding is that most if not all of these forced arbitration agreements are binding. I don't know for sure, but I would highly doubt it given the requirements the company has to go through to have the arbitration system. That would effectively be circumventing your right to file suit in a court. Now maybe at some point you sign that agreement...but then you still have the option of filing your claim in court. Which again, in these types of cases, forces at&t to pay what you want because of the cost of defending itself in court. (i.e., they're going to pay out the 30.22 instead of paying the hundreds just for their attorneys to appear in the case)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:46 PM) Is Byers' (and the lower court's) argument here wrong: edit: that's more of an ethical/moral argument for the way law ought to be, not necessarily the way law is. Could be Scalia's made the correct interpretation of the law here, it's just that we have a bad law on the books. But that's the damage and that's all the plaintiff's are entitled to get. So yeah, if at&t paid them what they wanted to begin with, why should they get 7500 or whatever? The 7500 is a penalty for giving an initial s***ty offer.

btw, i just started reading the opinion. Is this really THAT bad of a system: 1) you can file a claim and maybe get it resolved without doing anything 2) you can file a claim for arbitration which must be paid for by the company, in your area, and in whatever form you want it to proceed (person, phone, writing) 3) that you can still bring a claim to court (i.e., it's not arbitration or nothing) 4) that the company can be penalized with punitive damages 5) that they can't recover their attorneys fees even if they win 6) that if you "win" (i.e., if att gives a s*** offer and you get more) you're guaranteed your 10k (since all this applies to 10k and under claims...i.e., any claim you guys are worrying about) because you'll get 7500 and your attorney gets paid his 1/3 fees.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:38 PM) Also let's not lose the irony of states rights conservatives favoring a decision that has federal law trumping state law and generally more federal-oriented liberals decrying it. Every federal law trumps state law. It's called the Supremacy Clause.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) Its kind of laughable to believe that arbitrators are more likely to side with a big corp than say a judge. To explain that point, lets use the reality of Cook County Courts versus arbitration *well use American Arbitration Association as an example). In Cook County, if you go there enough, you know every judge. Every judge knows who the law firms are, they know who the heavy hitters are, and they give deference to the big players. Furthermore, a case in Cook County is going to take at minimum a year, if not 2 or more. Conversely in AAA you get a list of arbitrators. Both parties rank who they want, you then get selected one. You have no real interaction with the arbitrator until the arbitration. Arbitration generally takes less than 6 months. Arbitration generally costs more, to file with AAA I think the minimum is $650. Cook County the max is about $325. If you signed a contract that states you must go to arb before going to court, why would that not be enforceable? And the kinds of arbitration that are in these contracts are not like civil arbitration. My understanding was that they are much more consumer friendly because tons of case law has been produced that basically stopped the practice of making arbitration meaningless to people. I seem to recall there being a big case against IBM with that. I thought it's more like "fill out a form" type complaint that, if necessary, you can get a hearing before someone. The corporation might even have to foot the bill.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:33 PM) I was party to a class-action suit against United Health Care. Sure, I only got back $150 while the lawfirm took in 8 or 9 figures, but UHC also stopped its fraudulent (maybe not the best word?) practices that were unfairly costing their customers millions of dollars collectively. So even though my dollar compensation was low, the policy change was important. Do you really believe that lawsuits and verdicts (or settlements) stop those practices?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) Doesn't the individual also have to be able to afford his or her day in court? 99.9% of discrimination cases are contingency, so it costs zero dollars (with the potential to have to pay back some costs if you don't get anything) Even still, if you can't afford it all courts have systems in place to waive the filing fees.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) This glosses over the fact that it protects corporations who screw over thousands of people a little bit, say $30 each, because no one is going to file a suit over an individual claim of $30. By preventing class-action lawsuits, you're eliminating the ability of millions of people to get recompense for minor wrong-doings by corporations. Actually no, that's why they have arbitration. It's a more simple and cost effective way to resolve these small claim issues. Look, class actions are bulls*** inventions of lawyers. You have 10 people with similar claims, you tell them to go out and find other people. Next thing you know you've got 100 people claiming the same thing and the pot of money you can get for representing all those people goes up. It wasn't invented to help consumers fight for scraps.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) Walmart's facing a huge gender discrimination class action suit right now. What's the odds of that happening again if all of their employees are forced to go through individual arbitration to prove their case first? As someone who has been on both sides of those cases, it hurts the company more to defend those discrimination suits individually, and it's much more beneficial to the individual to get their own separate day in court. It might be EASIER for them, but in terms of getting some kind of decent compensation, again it's getting that .48 cent recovery for your $50 dollar loss. When you throw people into a class it makes everyone the same, and we all know circumstances are never the same.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) The converse is just as true though...arbitration cases rule overwhelmingly in favor of the corporate interest, which is why corporations hate class action lawsuits so much, because they don't win them all of the time. Send me a link of the "overwhelmingly in favor" stat. I don't buy that. Favorable, maybe, in a slight majority of cases because people are willing to get 75% of what they want instead of fighting for 100% of it in court.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 03:43 PM) Nope, because they can also insert clauses in requiring you to either submit to arbitration or give up your right to sue entirely. There's a reason AT&T had this clause. Nearly every purchase contract has this clause these days and it's because of the cost of litigating in court. You file a case, it costs the company hundreds of dollars to appear, even if it's a bulls*** claim. Multiply that by ten thousand a year and it gets pricey just to appear, let alone defend yourself, in court.

I should add too that the blogs reading of the arbitration clauses is wrong (mostly). Those arbitration clauses are non-binding arbitration. So yeah, technically you have to go through a process first, but if you're not happy with the result you can still file a suit.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 03:22 PM) Different topic. Well, slightly different, since hey, a 5-4 majority in the Court couldn't be changed by having a Democrat in the White House. Al Gore would have put Roberts and Alito in there, I'm sure. The Supreme Court today effectively has put an end, forever, to the use of class action lawsuits against corporations. Corporations now have the right to have you sign a waiver giving up your right to join in a class action lawsuit as a condition of doing business with them. If Sony, for example, had this provision in their unreadable 187 page user agreement, then you could not join a class action lawsuit against them for losing your credit card information. There's really no way this does anything but screw a whole helluva lot of people. There won't be a user agreement anywhere that doesn't have you give up that right within a year. Actually this probably hurts corporations more than it helps. It's increased the cost of defending these suits enormously. Instead of taking 500 claims and consolidating them, Wal-mart or Sony or whoever is going to have to defend each and every one of them. Just because you sign a waiver doesn't mean you are signing away any right you have to make a claim. Not to mention the fact that individuals are going to get a better deal anyway because 30% (or more) of the class funds aren't going to pay the hundreds of thousands or millions in attorneys fees that were generated for the benefit of the class. Who is really all that excited about getting .48 cents anyway?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) I win either way! This keeps happening today. But if you don't vote for Obama a Republican is going to continue the same policies! Oh no!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:33 PM) 2001-2009 was the greatest era of peace and prosperity this nation has ever known. I forgot it's been so much better the last couple of years with a Democrat in office. Our foreign/military policy so vastly different these days.

QUOTE (DonkeyKongerko @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 12:24 AM) Did everyone receive an email from PSN? I'm wondering if I'm ok since I only got PS3 recently and maybe signed in once but didn't play anything online. I never received the email, and i've been connected/buying movies and games for years.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 26, 2011 -> 04:55 PM) I think some of you guys know i work at a major bank in credit card fraud. this PSN thing is old news What does this mean? Old news?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 11:10 AM) This reminds me a lot of the stereotypes you were making yesterday about those evil Republicians. Come on, he has a point - if Republicans win the next election every American who isn't a Nascar and country music fan will be killed. Also, all kittens will go blind. Science has proven this to be true.

I still don't understand why they didn't provide a copy earlier, like a year ago earlier. I get that the WH didn't want to legitimize the issue, but after it became apparent that their refusal to come up with the certificate was leading to a decent amount of people (not just Republicans) questioning whether the speculation was true they should have produced it. As usual, the Dems are completely lousy at the PR game and have lost this battle. Trump gets to boast (wrongly of course) that he was the only one to force the WH to act and gained more support because of it. Obama meanwhile, gained nothing.