If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Google "click fraud" settlement okayed by judge. Plaintiffs get credits, lawyers get $30 million   (cio.com) divider line 78
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

5480 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jul 2006 at 3:56 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-07-27 04:00:12 PM
Googlezon will rule the world.
 
2006-07-27 04:00:46 PM
Didn't the plaintiffs know what they were getting into when they joined the class?
 
2006-07-27 04:00:55 PM
i70.photobucket.com

Vampire Kennedy approves.

/they're all bloodsuckers
 
2006-07-27 04:01:29 PM
Or more importantly, accept the settlement?
 
2006-07-27 04:02:09 PM
If you don't understand (1) economies of scale, (2) transaction costs, (3) cost-benefit, (4) risk-reward, and (5) contingency fees, do yourself a favor and don't even bother posting.
 
2006-07-27 04:03:19 PM
That is as fooked up as a football bat...
 
2006-07-27 04:04:44 PM
If you don't understand (1) economies of scale, (2) transaction costs, (3) cost-benefit, (4) risk-reward, and (5) contingency fees, do yourself a favor and don't even bother posting. then you may still have enough of a personality to get laid.
 
2006-07-27 04:05:18 PM
traditional three branches of government: legislative, executive and judicial

new three branches of government: oprah, bloggers and class action lawyers.
 
2006-07-27 04:05:54 PM
tonesskin: Didn't the plaintiffs know what they were getting into when they joined the class?

The more important question is did the plaintiffs have the ability to sue outside of the class action? If it's a choice between a pittance and nothing well...
 
2006-07-27 04:06:34 PM
kronicfield: What if we're just sick of lawyers and advertising & marketing slime? :)

"Waah, people clicking on my banner ads weren't really potential buyers!" I'm not involved in advertising, but the whole notion of click fraud makes me think "Meh."
On the other hand, didn't Google get sued for not paying out adsense revenue? Apparantly they'd claim that clicks were fraudulent and would not pay users.
 
2006-07-27 04:07:08 PM
Google: Here you go, 500,000 clicks for you.
Lawyer: W...T...F?!?!?
 
2006-07-27 04:10:12 PM
MikeMC;

I dont know the details of this class action but in almost all cases the plaintiff's have an opportunity to opt out of the class action. The only exceptions to this are generally civil rights/injunctive issues.
 
2006-07-27 04:11:01 PM
Thanks again

go away and die horribly, newbie
 
2006-07-27 04:11:48 PM
that's some quick work, mod!
 
2006-07-27 04:11:50 PM
The more important question is did the plaintiffs have the ability to sue outside of the class action?

There's (almost) always an opt-out.

Of course, that's where the ideas of economies of scale and transaction costs come in. Given the relatively small injury to each plaintiff, it is not economically feasible for plaintiffs to sue on an individual basis. If they sue, their costs are going to grossly exceed the verdict in their favor. That's the basic premise of the class action: a whole bunch of plaintiffs injured by the same defendant pool their relatively small claims to make it economically viable to pursue litigation. Otherwise, no one sues, and the Defendant gets off scot-free.
 
2006-07-27 04:12:23 PM
Wow. I don't remember a sentence ending in a semicolon before. Even on FARK.
 
2006-07-27 04:12:49 PM
tonesskin: Didn't the plaintiffs know what they were getting into when they joined the class?

I don't know about this time, but often you don't have to "join" a class. Frequently, the class joins you, without asking. The lawyers sue on your behalf, and then send you a form to fill out after the fact. If you bother, you get a coupon for breakfast cereal, and they get millions.
 
2006-07-27 04:12:51 PM
In a world where click fraud is rampant, you would think one would side with the force of good.
 
2006-07-27 04:14:26 PM
I like click fraud. Advertisers piss me off a lot, so I'm glad they get ripped off and duped by a simple program that clicks one of their stupid ads.

See, that's funny. Some annoying shiatbag being scammed by a something that simple.

CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK CLICK ...
 
2006-07-27 04:15:10 PM
Time for the ultimate Tort Reform:

Lawyers can receive no more than either:

1) 10% of the total settlement

OR

2) Whatever the median payout is.

Whichever is reached first. That should put an end to coupon suits.
 
2006-07-27 04:16:47 PM
Time for the ultimate Tort Reform:

Lawyers can receive no more than either:

1) 10% of the total settlement

OR

2) Whatever the median payout is.

Whichever is reached first. That should put an end to coupon suits.


Or people can shop more competitively for lawyers. But that would be too easy.

GOVERNMENT, PLEASE INTRUDE! THANKS!
 
2006-07-27 04:17:27 PM
inglixthemad: Time for the ultimate Tort Reform:

Let's also start "loser pays", so that people who start frivolous lawsuits to get money will think twice.
 
2006-07-27 04:18:46 PM
tonesskin: Or people can shop more competitively for lawyers. But that would be too easy.

The government won't allow me to choose my own representation. I have to choose an attorney from the most powerful union in the world: The American Bar Association.

Change that and let's see.
 
2006-07-27 04:18:56 PM
This kind of thing really pisses me off. The end result is:

1) Minor punishment for the corporation.
2) No direct benefit for the consumer (some worthless coupon).
3) Wealth for the lawyers.

The lawyers are the only ones who get anything out of this. That's farked up. Honestly at this point I'd like to see all lawyers killed and see civil issues resolved in an gladatorial arena of death.
 
2006-07-27 04:19:10 PM
inglixthemad:

Not that I have a soft spot for plaintiffs' lawyers, but reducing the contingency fee for lawyers will only hurt the unwealthy because lawyers will be less likely to take smaller claims ($25,000-100,000) because their payout would be so much less. 33% contingency fees seem sketchy, but they really help people who have smaller claims for insurance or whatever, really, because the claimants wouldn't be able to pay a lawyer hourly fees for the work they do.
 
2006-07-27 04:19:21 PM
Let's also start "loser pays", so that people who start frivolous lawsuits to get money will think twice.

Yeah! That'd be awesome! Poor people would totally be able to find lawyers then! YIPPY!
 
2006-07-27 04:20:42 PM
Another thing we could do would be to actually learn about lawyers and the legal system, instead of just trumpeting what we hear every time some outrageous legal outcome is announced.
 
2006-07-27 04:21:08 PM
The lawyers get a big loaf of bread.
Everyone else gets to share the other loaf, which must be broken into crumbs.
 
2006-07-27 04:21:42 PM
Time for the ultimate Tort Reform:
Lawyers can receive no more than either:
1) 10% of the total settlement


So lawyers only take the obscenely-high-payout cases, while people with legitimate injuries who need attorneys but can't afford to pay hourly are left in the lurch?

Let's also start "loser pays", so that people who start frivolous lawsuits to get money will think twice.

Frivolous suits are already subject to sanctions in many jurisdictions. Loser pays throws the baby out with the bathwater, ensuring those with legitimate but time-consuming, hard-to-prove cases are forced to fight an even steeper uphill battle, particularly if the opposing party is one with tons of money that can rack up huge, unreasonable fees.
 
2006-07-27 04:22:58 PM
The lawyers get a big loaf of bread.
Everyone else gets to share the other loaf, which must be broken into crumbs.


You're completely ignoring that the individual claimants only had crumbs taken from them in the first place.
 
2006-07-27 04:23:41 PM
Another thing we could do would be to actually learn about lawyers and the legal system, instead of just trumpeting what we hear every time some outrageous legal outcome is announced.

Oh, that's silly. Next thing you know you'll tell me that the American Trial Reform Association promotes reforms that have been demonstrated to INCREASE the amounts of rewards, and that they focus on rare (10% or less) punitive damages cases, while reporting mean v.s. median values thus making it look like awards are much higher, on average, than they actually are.
 
2006-07-27 04:23:53 PM
kronicfeld
Of course, that's where the ideas of economies of scale and transaction costs come in. Given the relatively small injury to each plaintiff, it is not economically feasible for plaintiffs to sue on an individual basis. If they sue, their costs are going to grossly exceed the verdict in their favor. That's the basic premise of the class action: a whole bunch of plaintiffs injured by the same defendant pool their relatively small claims to make it economically viable to pursue litigation. Otherwise, no one sues, and the Defendant gets off scot-free.


True, but coupon suits are a joke. The lawyers have settled for a pathetic "award" to their clients so they can get their fee. In at least some of these cases, the supposedly losing company actually just gets free advertising. They send out coupons offering a discount off your next purchase, which is something they often spend money to do voluntarily anyway. At the same time, the lawyers get their cash.
 
2006-07-27 04:24:26 PM
trueaustinite
Another thing we could do would be to actually learn about lawyers and the legal system, instead of just trumpeting what we hear every time some outrageous legal outcome is announced.


Naw. Let's just kill all the lawyers.

Seriously, these consumer class action lawsuits are ridiculous. Some company did something bad so a bunch of lawyers sue on my behalf (without asking me!!) and a year later they get millions and I get a coupon in the mail. How is that in any way right? Apparently I was abused along with many other consumers and the end result is that the corporation has to pay a ton of money to a bunch of lawyers. Yeah, great punishment! Very just. Ugh.

For the record: when I got that stupid netflix coupon for a (I think) three month's upgraded membership I put it in the shredder as a form of protest. I didn't feel that netflix had done anything wrong (at least to me) so I didn't redeem it.
 
2006-07-27 04:25:36 PM
I would just like to ratify and adopt everything kronicfeld has, and probably will, say in this thread.
 
2006-07-27 04:25:50 PM
Poor people would totally be able to find lawyers then! YIPPY!
Doesn't have to be black and white.

I'm disgusted by the amount of power lawyers have in this country. As it is, if I were a company and could say, without a doubt, someone was suing me frivolously, I'd try to bury them.
The woman suing Bacardi? Yeah, I'd take every penny away from her (and really, it'd be nice to see that money go to honest people who aren't greedy... meaning, not myself in that scenario, and not the lawyers).
 
2006-07-27 04:26:11 PM
Some company did something bad so a bunch of lawyers sue on my behalf (without asking me!!)

Potential members can opt out.

Apparently I was abused along with many other consumers and the end result is that the corporation has to pay a ton of money to a bunch of lawyers.

Do you think the company is going to abuse you again after having to do that?
 
2006-07-27 04:26:29 PM
i'm getting a $45 settlement from epson thanks to a class action.

i'm going to spend it all on bumper stickers, "I Brake for Lawyers"
 
2006-07-27 04:27:09 PM
i'm going to spend it all on bumper stickers, "I Brake for Lawyers"

Either way. If I've got the crosswalk, it's your ass. :)
 
2006-07-27 04:27:41 PM
You're completely ignoring that the individual claimants only had crumbs taken from them in the first place.

Was it incorrect? I'm not arguing about the merits of the suit itself in that post... simply talking about the results. I didn't even say what I thought about the result.
 
2006-07-27 04:28:48 PM
And I assume there are examples in the world where customers had more than a few crumbs taken away from them.
 
2006-07-27 04:29:03 PM
Was it incorrect? I'm not arguing about the merits of the suit itself in that post... simply talking about the results. I didn't even say what I thought about the result.

The implication is fairly obvious.
 
2006-07-27 04:30:25 PM
kronicfeld,

Nobody asked me if I wanted in or out on the Netflix lawsuit. I don't know how it works but I was not asked. I've had mail on other suits but I just shred it.

Do you think the company is going to abuse you again after having to do that?

Fair enough. However the company's punishment was to buy new houses for some enterprising lawyers. Where's the justice in that? The lawyers weren't the ones who were abused. The consumers got diddly, the lawyers got millions. If I get my benefit in the form of a coupon, the lawyers should get their expenses (paid at a very low rate, since they are apparently hiring themselves) and then they should get a bunch of coupons as contingency.
 
2006-07-27 04:30:44 PM
puffy999 you don't see many cases where consumers had more than crumbs taken away because most people don't spend more than crumbs on any one product. When those products go wrong it usually results in verdicts like Vioxx and Ford/Firestone.
 
2006-07-27 04:32:05 PM
puffy99

And I assume there are examples in the world where customers had more than a few crumbs taken away from them.

You bet there are. And when an INDIVIDUAL's damages are great enough to support an INDIVIDUAL cause of action, then that INDIVIDUAL can make the informed choice to sue on his own.

Seriously, do you know anything about this, or do you just get emotional when the topic comes up?
 
2006-07-27 04:32:52 PM
If you look at the numbers only, the lawyers receive a disproportionate amount of money.
Of course, it's fairly obvious that the people receiving crumbs don't do much of the work in order to get that reward. And they likely wouldn't receive anything, if not for the lawyers.

So, which did I mean?
 
2006-07-27 04:33:37 PM
Seriously, do you know anything about this, or do you just get emotional when the topic comes up?
Did you read one damn thing I posted?
 
2006-07-27 04:36:13 PM
And obviously, as mentioned in this thread (more than once I believe), it's not always worth the risk to go into an individual suit. And a company is probably more likely to take a class action more seriously than a few here or there individuals.
Fact is, that's one of the reasons why I understand the high cost of lawyers. They handle the risk.

I know, it's easier for people to run with something and assume what another person means with a VERY general statement that can be interpreted in many ways. Hey, I do it too.
 
2006-07-27 04:36:19 PM
The easiest way way to fix this coupon payout system: lawyers will be paid in the same manner as the class.
 
2006-07-27 04:36:38 PM
it's fairly obvious that the people receiving crumbs don't do much of the work

No, no, the peole recieving crumbs didn't lose much. The law is about compensation.
 
2006-07-27 04:37:13 PM
puffy99

Did you read one damn thing I posted?

Yep.

The lawyers get a big loaf of bread.
Everyone else gets to share the other loaf, which must be broken into crumbs.


Emotional appeal, devoid of any real informational value.

I'm disgusted by the amount of power lawyers have in this country. As it is, if I were a company and could say, without a doubt, someone was suing me frivolously, I'd try to bury them.
The woman suing Bacardi? Yeah, I'd take every penny away from her (and really, it'd be nice to see that money go to honest people who aren't greedy... meaning, not myself in that scenario, and not the lawyers).


See above.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report