Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sc-dc-0428-court-class-action-web-20110427,0,6781234.story



At least we're eliminating socialism!

That's always good.

U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A!

Glad to see this. We really do need to get rid of bad class action lawsuits. Class Action Lawsuits are mostly an atrocious, disgusting, abuse of the legal system...and a shame to the US.

We've done quite a bit to curtail the poisonous CA suits, recently...which gives me a little bit of hope.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We really do need to get rid of bad class action lawsuits.

This will kill all of them.

Baby --> Bathwater

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This will kill all of them.

Baby --> Bathwater

It won't. Where did you hear that it would kill all of them? I read nothing in there that can kill all of them. There's still a large body not blocked by this decision: damage (physical), risk of damage, or damage via proxy. I'm not even covering the half of it because I'm not a lawyer.

There's quite a bit of Class Action suit types not covered by this. What this ruling does is block claims which have to be "money". That's things like not being paid enough, illegal fees, etc. That's a really good thing. What did people get in the past? A $5 check? Free mascara? (Those are actual references to Class Actions cases. 10 points go Gryffindor if you can guess which "recent" cases those were from.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
It won't. Where did you hear that it would kill all of them? I read nothing in there that can kill all of them. There's still a large body not blocked by this decision: damage (physical), risk of damage, or damage via proxy. I'm not even covering the half of it because I'm not a lawyer.

From what Scalia wrote it seems that businesses will now be allowed to add a line to contracts that says you can't be part of a class action suit against the company, which previously would not have held up in court. No company will not include such a clause.

But even if it were limited to money do you really not see a problem with, for example, Apple cheating 20 million people out of $50 each and them having no real recourse since their claims are too small to care about individually?

I'm really hoping someone retires before this stupid 5-4 shit ruins our country.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But even if it were limited to money do you really not see a problem with, for example, Apple cheating 20 million people out of $50 each and them having no real recourse since their claims are too small to care about individually?

The individual did not lose the ability to sue...even a little bit.

The difference?

Each individual will be responsible for obtaining their justice. This means that we will not see gift certificates or free mascara for the individuals and lawyers take home millions to tens of millions of dollars. Instead, those who actually care can pursue and obtain the $50, if they legally deserve it. Most people don't care.

decent example

bad argument

The money just went to greedy lawyers anyways.

Who gives a shit if it's a waste of money? The Federal Government has no ****ing problem with spending like 10 million dollars on creating a case to try to throw Barry Bonds' black ass in jail. At the very least, petty class action lawsuits, regardless of how petty, can result in companies losing tons o tons of money, which is always a good thing as it keeps them (just a tad in most cases) humble. Is that less noble then lustfully pursuing black athletes, or 60 billion a month blowing up arabs in the middle east?

Honestly, on the totem pole this is just a waste of time. Our gov't really has bigger shit to worry about then CALS, imo.

Class action lawsuits mainly benefit the attorneys, rather than the plaintiffs, but also have the positive effect of punishing corporations who behave improperly. This is yet another ruling by this supreme court that is going to kill the country.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The individual did not lose the ability to sue...even a little bit.

Not legally, no, but for practical purposes it becomes impossible. No one will take the case because they're all too small. It allows for massive acts of fraud that won't be effectively and in fact cannot be punished by the courts without grinding them to a halt with hundreds of thousands of cases.

That's bad.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not legally, no, but for practical purposes it becomes impossible. No one will take the case because they're all too small. It allows for massive acts of fraud that won't be effectively and in fact cannot be punished by the courts without grinding them to a halt with hundreds of thousands of cases.

That's bad.

That is certainly a large part of the problem with the outcome of this descision.

RE: Blaxican, the opinion that the government has better things to do is not relevant.

As when Justice Alito mouthed his dissent at the President's comments during the State of the Union, there is a disconnect with reality for these justices some times. When the supreme court ruled that corporations could contribute to political campaignes as individuals, it was an effort to destabalize, counter and undermine the influence of unions on politics. Now we see what is going on in places like Wisconsin. These are erosions of liberties for every American individual, in favor of the rights of the corporate entity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Glad to see this. We really do need to get rid of bad class action lawsuits. Class Action Lawsuits are mostly an atrocious, disgusting, abuse of the legal system...and a shame to the US.

We've done quite a bit to curtail the poisonous CA suits, recently...which gives me a little bit of hope.

While most class-action lawsuits are shit, as the lawyers take far more than the lion's share of the profits, CAL allow the little guy a chance to challenge the corporations.

Do you really think you'd get anywhere by yourself trying to sue say a large insurance company for overcharging you for the last 5 years? No, you wouldn't, you'd spend more than was worth and you'd likely get nowhere. With a CAL, you at least can hope to get refunded for the overcharges.

Edit: I see SC basically covering this already.

Wow, you guys really don't get it at all. This means that corporations are now officially ABOVE the law since they can stipulate that plaintiffs must go into PRIVATE ARBITRATION which consumers always lose because those boards are always stacked with a revolving door of corporate cronies and corruption is rampant. 5-4 nothing. 4 of those conservative justices can easily be impeached and possibly even do some time for bribery among other things.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
The money just went to greedy lawyers anyways.
I always thought of it more in terms of punishing the corporations than helping the plaintiffs...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not legally, no, but for practical purposes it becomes impossible. No one will take the case because they're all too small. It allows for massive acts of fraud that won't be effectively and in fact cannot be punished by the courts without grinding them to a halt with hundreds of thousands of cases.

That's bad.

not to mention the resources of the company to file bogus countersuits and generally harass any individual who might bring a case

one person versus a multi-national corporation is hardly equality before the law in any practical sense

Originally posted by skekUng
RE: Blaxican, the opinion that the government has better things to do is not relevant.

Neither is this statement here. Heraderpderp.

That aside, how is it not relevant? It was relevant to DDM's point, which was that most class action lawsuits are usually a waste of money and, therefore, bad.

Originally posted by Robtard
Do you really think you'd get anywhere by yourself trying to sue say a large insurance company for overcharging you for the last 5 years?

The answer is quite clearly a "yes." Hi, there: I was an insurance agent before I was an IT specialist.

Not only is it "easy" to sue when you are clearly in the right, you can avoid the lawsuit, many times, altogether. This is why you had better be sure you are correct before suing. Additionally, the US system is so sucky because we do not have the "loser pays the legal fees" rule in all states and cases for tort.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=3565

You're complaining about a symptom, but not addressing one of the major problems.

However, some cases DO have a loser pays ruling and I got to experience that from my Texas clients. The insurance company I worked for liked to 'settle' outside of court for Texas cases, for some reason.

Additionally, the vast majority of the time, it takes just a bit of effort and talking to a manager to clear up something as simple as overcharges: no lawyers required. Because American's are so sue happy, they resort to legal battles BEFORE trying the much easier and oft best solution of just simply trying a bit before throwing in the towel.

My clients had legit cases of being screwed over on claims and I'd push through reconsiderations. The whole ordeal would be cleared up in less than a week and both the insurance company and my client would save lots of money in a legal battle. What did it take? It took the client a bit of effort to explain their situation. What if they can't explain it? That's what their damn insurance agent is for.



Originally posted by Robtard
No, you wouldn't, you'd spend more than was worth and you'd likely get nowhere. With a CAL, you at least can hope to get refunded for the overcharges.

The first part is definitely incorrect. It's very easy to get help. There's even help groups (some non-profit) for assisting with things like that.

To the second part, no, that's wrong. That's the entire problem, which you already indicated/admitted to in your first point. You often do NOT get refunded or cut a check. Sometimes, it's a discount, coupon, or free products and your class action lawyers take home the millions.

You are actually more like to get your justice IF you file as an indivual. It will also cost the corporation more money to handle 50,000 individual cases than a single case (assuming they are in the wrong.)



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not legally, no, but for practical purposes it becomes impossible. No one will take the case because they're all too small. It allows for massive acts of fraud that won't be effectively and in fact cannot be punished by the courts without grinding them to a halt with hundreds of thousands of cases.

That's bad.

This is baseless fear-induced anti-corporatism.

In order for what you said to be correct, we'd have to have an asymetric tort represention in our court systems, of which, we do not. CAL are few and far between when it comes to "customer sues corporation."

Dammit...


I got busy and could not finish my post.

#corrections:


*asymmetric
**representation
**individual




But, basically, the inviduals are still suing in stupid numbers. Our crappy tort system which does not have a universal "loser pays fees" rule, still does not stop Americans from being sue happy. The restrictions on certain types of lawsuits (the elimination of some CALs, to be exact) is the step in the right direction. There's also more types of massive lawsuits other than CALs which can accomplish the same thing but be more effective.


Originally posted by inimalist
one person versus a multi-national corporation is hardly equality before the law in any practical sense

Yet, it still happens in such a large quantities that we have more than twice the tort cases than any other industrialized nation in the world.

I guess the "little guy" is not that scared of these supposed untouchable corporate giants, eh?


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
which was that most class action lawsuits are usually a waste of money and, therefore, bad.

Indeed. They are a symptom of other problems in our tort laws.





This is the general thoughts on this ruling, summed up in a nice metaphor:

"We've already declared corporations as individual persons for legal purposes. The next step will be eligibility for corporate citizenship. Then when the corporation is legally a natural born citizen, we can have President Wal-Mart. "

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
The money just went to greedy lawyers anyways. Only 33.3 percent.

Damn government.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yet, it still happens in such a large quantities that we have more than twice the tort cases than any other industrialized nation in the world.

I guess the "little guy" is not that scared of these supposed untouchable corporate giants, eh?

your argument is that the American justice system favors the little guy?

It's all about money.

It's only just-us (the little guy)

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Neither is this statement here. Heraderpderp.

That aside, how is it not relevant? It was relevant to DDM's point, which was that most class action lawsuits are usually a waste of money and, therefore, bad.

Oh no, you say my pointing it out isn't relevant and then asking how it is just seems like grasping.

Wait, so I just joined a CA lawsuit, I'm still gonna get my 5 dollars, right?

Right!?

Originally posted by inimalist
your argument is that the American justice system favors the little guy?

No, not at all. I honestly don't believe that you thought that was my point.

My point was quite clear: "...the "little guy" is not that scared of these supposed untouchable corporate giants..."

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, not at all. I honestly don't believe that you thought that was my point.

My point was quite clear: "...the "little guy" is not that scared of these supposed untouchable corporate giants..."

but that totally misses my point

the purpose of a CA suit, should at least, be to allow people with the same grievance against one company to stand united and have a real chance of not getting harassed or just out-litigated due to the company's resources. Hell, even the legal talent one person, versus a CA suit, can get is a huge difference.

I think the fact that Americans are sue crazy is bad, but unrelated. Just change your system to what it is like here, no suing without verifiable damages. You can just sue for distress or any of that nonsense, afaik.

Originally posted by inimalist
but that totally misses my point

No, it directly addresses your point by showing you that despite your "fear of corporations" in corporate America, people STILL bring up lawsuits, as individuals, against these very same "untouchable" corporations.

Originally posted by inimalist
the purpose of a CA suit, should at least, be to allow people with the same grievance against one company to stand united and have a real chance of not getting harassed or just out-litigated due to the company's resources. Hell, even the legal talent one person, versus a CA suit, can get is a huge difference.

You say this, but this does not match up to most cases. It's not some "magic" affair that money offers when, quite clearly, all the time (compared to other nations, it's astoundingly common), a single person represented can win a case against a corporation that can fund their own crack-team of lawyers. (lol...not drugs...that cliche sounds bad). I understand our TV programs and news stations make things seem much differently but it's not that one-sided.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think the fact that Americans are sue crazy is bad, but unrelated.

It's a mediocre legal system that does not have the "loser pays some or most legal fees" yet we still are the most sue-happy.

Originally posted by inimalist
Just change your system to what it is like here, no suing without verifiable damages. You can just sue for distress or any of that nonsense, afaik.

See...we agree. We just disagree on whether or not it's a scary uphill battle for an individual to sue a corporation.

I'm not saying that it is, I'm saying the system favors those with resources. a lot of the suits are baseless, or exploit some weirdness in your system, sure, but that doesn't mean an individual is as powerful as a corporation.

there is also the fact that what migh be trivial suits for single people become a serious grievance when compound over many. something like gendered pay differences comes to mind, where a single woman might not have a strong enough case alone, but a CA case would not only be easier to win, but would also show a pattern of abuse.