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.

(Wall Street Journal)   Class action settlement: $2.73M for the lawyers, $270K to be split between plaintiffs and charities. Some people seem to have a problem with that   (blogs.wsj.com) divider line 121
    More: Interesting, legal fees, Appeals Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, class-action  
•       •       •

10724 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2013 at 9:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-07 09:22:59 AM  
Hey lawyer scum, they lawyer scumworked lawyer scumhard lawyer scumfor lawyer scum that lawyer scummoney!
 
2013-08-07 09:40:49 AM  
 Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.
 
2013-08-07 09:41:55 AM  
Keep an eye out for the suit against the oil and gas industry in LA. The attorneys on a contingency basis and the payoff is huge if they win (odds on long on this one but hey big tobacco lost)
 
2013-08-07 09:42:06 AM  
Coupon settlement.
 
2013-08-07 09:42:15 AM  
So which admin greened his own paywalled WSJ submission?
 
2013-08-07 09:42:41 AM  
I received a post card a few weeks ago saying I was part of some class action lawsuit and they provided a number for me to get my 50 cents.  The lawyers according to the post card would be getting 300 million, the remaining was used to send out the post cards and phone number to take the calls to dispense the 50 cents.

I didn't call.
 
2013-08-07 09:42:52 AM  

RamboFrog: Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.


Not quite this bad, but yeah -- the way the system is set up, the person named on the lawsuit usually gets a big payday; the lawyers get a huge payday; the company gets immunity from further suit; and, the members of the class get a tiny percentage of what they're due.
 
2013-08-07 09:42:55 AM  
Class actions are farking stupid. The only winners in those are always the lawyers.

/enjoy your $5 voucher!
 
2013-08-07 09:43:29 AM  
Don't lawyers sometimes offer 'no foal, no fee' representation in return for a higher percentage of any settlement?
 
2013-08-07 09:44:08 AM  
Perhaps they could file a class action suit...no. wait.
 
2013-08-07 09:45:08 AM  
Appeals Court Says Legal Fees in Diaper Suit are Ir-rashional

Had to read that headline twice before it sunk in "diaper suit" didn't refer to some kind of horrible fashion experiment. Need more coffee, I guess.
 
2013-08-07 09:45:18 AM  
I can see the lawyers getting more money than any single member of the class.  But their compensation shouldn't be more than the entire class combined.
 
2013-08-07 09:45:20 AM  

TofuTheAlmighty: So which admin greened his own paywalled WSJ submission?


This.

And the last line says the suit was challenged by someone OTHER than the plaintiffs.

tldr:  your blog sucks, submitter.
 
2013-08-07 09:46:31 AM  
I seem to remember one against Ticketmaster not too long ago, where the lawyers split around ten million dollars and all the plaintiffs got a 2 dollar coupon for their next Ticketmaster purchase.

/not sure if those 2 bucks were subject to convenience fees
 
2013-08-07 09:46:43 AM  

gopher321: Hey lawyer scum, they lawyer scumworked lawyer scumhard lawyer scumfor lawyer scum that lawyer scummoney!


Look, if it weren't for the attorneys, the plaintiffs wouldn't have anything, OK?

Sounds like a bunch of ungrateful whiners to me.
 
2013-08-07 09:47:01 AM  
As someone who just received $27 in a Farmers Insurance class action suit, I am getting a kick....
 
2013-08-07 09:47:15 AM  

RamboFrog: Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.


Yea, it has been the legal scam of the century.
Like a lot of things, it was sold well in the beginning and nobody cared to listen to the objections.
 
2013-08-07 09:47:36 AM  
It's all the rotten assholes that give the few good attorneys such a bad name.

-medius, esq.
 
2013-08-07 09:48:33 AM  
Well, that's what you get for signing on to a class action suit. Who doesn't know that they're scams for enriching lawyers on both sides of the case? Morons who think a $1 check constitutes some kind of victory for them.
 
2013-08-07 09:52:34 AM  
For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative?  If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.
 
2013-08-07 09:53:05 AM  

RamboFrog: Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.


The one against EA for Madden/NCAA Football/Basketball/Lacross/other games was. If you bought a game between such and such years you got like $5.

Class actions these days seem basically like a legal way for lawyers to extort money from companies.
 
2013-08-07 09:53:23 AM  
Perhaps the attorneys were victims of diaper rash too?
 
2013-08-07 09:53:50 AM  
That's why it's called a "legal system."
 
2013-08-07 09:54:49 AM  

stuhayes2010: As someone who just received $27 in a Farmers Insurance class action suit, I am getting a kick....


=============

I recently received $8.23 from American Express over an exchange rate class action.   The "check"  they sent me looked so unlike a real check the teller at my bank refused to deposit it until the manger OKed it.
 
2013-08-07 09:55:33 AM  
Sometimes, lawyer fees are the only thing that enables (worthy) lawsuits in the first place - things like police brutality and civil rights suits under Section 1983. You can end up with things where the plaintiff gets $200 and the lawyer gets $8,000 in fees. It allows lawyers to afford to actually represent the poor and indigent and protect their rights, since not every lawyer is Louis Brandeis and can afford to take destitute clients all the time. And if the lawyer loses the case, no fees.

This isn't a comment on class action suits, just smaller claims against entities like local government and landlords.
 
2013-08-07 09:55:48 AM  

Ajakk: For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative?  If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.


There's an entire court system dedicated to claims under $1000. Maybe they could, I dunno, use that?
 
2013-08-07 09:58:54 AM  
Received $300 from BoA a few months ago which equals to about 10 cents a minute I was on the phone with them as jerked me around trying to fix my mortgage.
 
2013-08-07 10:02:21 AM  
I laugh every time I hear someone getting excited over being part of a Class Action lawsuit that is in the millions, because this exact thing happens all the time!

I remember when I was sent an email about a class action suit. I checked it out, it was legit, and all I had to do to join was add my name and address to a register for the law company. Having totally forgotten about it, about 8 months later I got a check for $2.32 as part of the settlement. The lawyers walked away with a couple hundred thousand each.

Most people think they're going to be rich because of this. They see the class action suit for 3 million and think they will get that 3 million. It's funny how they can be told it will be shared, but in their brain, it's their 3 million dollar settlement.
 
2013-08-07 10:04:56 AM  
Google the flight attendants 'second hand smoke' lawsuit in Miami of several years ago.
Lawyers got rich..........................$46,000,000 + expenses.
Medical research fund did well....$300,000,000.00
Flight attendants........................$0.00 + the right to sue again.

Sounds about right.
 
2013-08-07 10:05:26 AM  

Ajakk: For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative?  If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.


It has nothing to do w/ the lawsuit, its the lawyer's payout that's the problem.
 
2013-08-07 10:06:10 AM  
And this is why I don't participate when I get a letter about a class action suit.
 
2013-08-07 10:06:51 AM  

Ajakk: For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative?  If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.


Or the company has the financial incentive to continue and/or expand the improper conduct.
 
2013-08-07 10:08:08 AM  

RamboFrog: Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.


Yeah, anybody who hasn't figured that out by now is pretty clueless.
 
2013-08-07 10:08:56 AM  

Ajakk: For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative?  If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.


I recommend bringing back lynching for the CEO of the company that messes up and hurts 10 million people it would fix a lot of issues very quick

/ also think the guillotine would be a good solution to campaign finance reforme you I've a bribe over 100.00 your head goes in the basket.
 
2013-08-07 10:10:02 AM  
Yea but they stuck it that evil Procter & Gamble. And for many, Schadenfreude is more valuable than money.
 
2013-08-07 10:13:14 AM  
It sucks that the class action members paid all that money to their lawyers, risking a fortune, on the chance that they would win the suit.  They definitely should have received a cut of the payout commensurate to the risk the took.
 
2013-08-07 10:13:56 AM  
In his dissent, Judge R. Guy Cole took a more pragmatic approach.
"Although the relief offered to the unnamed class members may not be worth much, their claims appear to be worth even less. Nobody disputes that the class's claims in this case had little to no merit. In the absence of this settlement, class members would almost certainly have gotten nothing.


http://milawyersweekly.com/milwblog/2013/08/06/6th-circuit-district -co urt-made-rash-judgment-in-diaper-class-action-suit/
 
These lawyers took nothing and turned it into money. They really did do all the work, and since the plaintiffs didn't suffer any damages, why should the lawyers share even ten percent with them?
 
2013-08-07 10:15:44 AM  

RamboFrog: Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.


No.  Actually a usual amount is between 30-40%.  This number is way too large a percent under almost every metric of class fairness.
 
2013-08-07 10:16:27 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: These lawyers took nothing and turned it into money. They really did do all the work, and since the plaintiffs didn't suffer any damages, why should the lawyers share even ten percent with them?


Because without them the lawyers would have no standing to file in the first place and then couldn't make any money at all? Just a guess as to why the plaintiffs haven't yet been ENTIRELY cut out of class action payouts.
 
2013-08-07 10:17:21 AM  

Cold_Sassy: RamboFrog: Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.

Yeah, anybody who hasn't figured that out by now is pretty clueless.


If you don't think you will be happy with a class action settlement; you could for go participation in the class action suit and simply do the tens of thousands of hours of research all by yourself, prepare the tens of thousands of pages of legal documents all by yourself and argue your case in front of the judge and jury all by yourself. That way you get to keep the $200 of restitution all by yourself instead of the lawyers taking 90%.
 
2013-08-07 10:17:22 AM  

ShadowKamui: It has nothing to do w/ the lawsuit, its the lawyer's payout that's the problem.


It's a bounty to get them to actually go after wrong-doers that otherwise no one would give a shiat about.
 
2013-08-07 10:18:02 AM  
In defense of class actions suits, it's not about enriching the victim, it's about punishing the bad actor.

If a company knowingly screws over thousands (or even millions) of people for a small amount, they know those people won't sue over 50 bucks. Perhaps a tiny, tiny minority will, but in general they are protected from retribution by the high hurdle to suing a corporation and the low potential reward.

So, the company knows they can break the law or harm customers as a part of their business model - so long as the cheat/harm is kept small.

That's where the class action suit comes in handy. You get a large group of people who have been harmed, and you sue for the collective damage, not the individual damage. This can add up to "real money" in the eyes of corporations - and it scares them into behaving (or correcting their behavior).

Corps hate that. So there is now a full frontal push to eliminate or limit class action suits. Which is why you see a WSJ article decrying how terrible this settlement was (never mind that it forced the company to correct their "cost savings measure" that was causing thousands of babies diaper rash). Nope, just focus on the tiny "settlement" each plantiff got. (Ignore that without this suit, the company would have been free to continue abusing babies for profit).

/not a lawyer, but occasionally I am the Devil's advocate.
 
2013-08-07 10:18:43 AM  
Ajakk: For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative?  If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.

Total actual harm here 25 mil.

Instead of giving 20 mil to the lawyers and 5 mil to the actually harmed people, give 20 mil to the lawyers AND 25 mil to the harmed people. Don't like it? Don't screw people in the first place.
 
2013-08-07 10:19:34 AM  

untaken_name: rumpelstiltskin: These lawyers took nothing and turned it into money. They really did do all the work, and since the plaintiffs didn't suffer any damages, why should the lawyers share even ten percent with them?

Because without them the lawyers would have no standing to file in the first place and then couldn't make any money at all? Just a guess as to why the plaintiffs haven't yet been ENTIRELY cut out of class action payouts.


That's a fair point, but 10 whole percent?
 
2013-08-07 10:21:10 AM  

ShadowKamui: Ajakk: For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative?  If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.

It has nothing to do w/ the lawsuit, its the lawyer's payout that's the problem.


That's why the Appeals Court is refusing to accept the settlement. They have a problem with the fees as well.

I'm all for people getting paid for the work they do, and that kind of legal bill isn't totally insane if it's a really complex case. (I don't think this is a complex case). For example, if the attorneys are billing $300/hr for services, that's 9,100 hours of work on this $2.7m bill. Which is about four and a half man-years of billable hours, figuring that an attorney is expected to bill 2,000 hours in a year. So we ask - how many lawyers were on the case and for how long? A firm might devote a total of ten lawyers to it, and you'd burn through that 9,100 billed hours in under six months of continuous work. While I doubt this took that amount of work, multi-year complex litigation could certainly occupy that amount of time.
 
2013-08-07 10:22:23 AM  

untaken_name: There's an entire court system dedicated to claims under $1000. Maybe they could, I dunno, use that?


hrm.  So you are harmed to the amount of $160 by a big ass company.  You decide to sue them in small claims court.  Let us assume, as you are on fark, that you make say, $20 an hour.  Spending 8 hours of your time on it and you have pretty much wiped out any benefit - unless your hobby is filing lawsuits.  Ifg it is, go for it.  Otherwise, people tend to use small claims court only when they are really really pissed off and/or have way too much free time.  I.e. the elderly and the loonies.
 
2013-08-07 10:25:33 AM  
Class action lawsuits are bullshiat for the plaitiffs.  The lawyers love them, make no mistake.  They get paid no matter what.  And they longer they drag it out, the more they get paid.  In the end the plaintiffs end up with almost nothing.

The last two suits I got settlements from were like $50 or $60, when in each case, I was over $1000 out of pocket.

It's like, here in NJ, where a bunch of towns fined people illegally from traffic light cameras to the tune of about $140 each.  Even though it was proved to be illegal. They got a settlement of $8.50.  That's just great guys.  Thanks for that.

This kind of thing should not be allowed to happen.
 
2013-08-07 10:25:36 AM  

Private_Citizen: That's where the class action suit comes in handy. You get a large group of people who have been harmed, and you sue for the collective damage, not the individual damage. This can add up to "real money" in the eyes of corporations - and it scares them into behaving (or correcting their behavior).

Corps hate that. So there is now a full frontal push to eliminate or limit class action suits. Which is why you see a WSJ article decrying how terrible this settlement was (never mind that it forced the company to correct their "cost savings measure" that was causing thousands of babies diaper rash). Nope, just focus on the tiny "settlement" each plantiff got. (Ignore that without this suit, the company would have been free to continue abusing babies for profit).


Additionally, only the bad actor pays for enforcement. If we had a federal agency have to look into every case of wrongdoing, everyone would need to pay for it in taxes.  but in a class action, the lawyers bringing suit pay all the up-front enforcement costs.  If they fail, or there is no wrongdoing, no tax burden.  If they win, its the company that is doing wrong that pays for it.

Its fun to see when asked about class actions, most libertarians are actually corpratists rather than actual libertarians, as class actions should be a friggin libertarian wet dream.
 
2013-08-07 10:25:39 AM  
img717.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-07 10:26:18 AM  
And just like lawyers, even this farking site wants you to pay to read the whole article.

/douches, all of them.
 
2013-08-07 10:29:49 AM  

durbnpoisn: Class action lawsuits are bullshiat for the plaitiffs.  The lawyers love them, make no mistake.  They get paid no matter what.  And they longer they drag it out, the more they get paid.  In the end the plaintiffs end up with almost nothing.

The last two suits I got settlements from were like $50 or $60, when in each case, I was over $1000 out of pocket.

It's like, here in NJ, where a bunch of towns fined people illegally from traffic light cameras to the tune of about $140 each.  Even though it was proved to be illegal. They got a settlement of $8.50.  That's just great guys.  Thanks for that.

This kind of thing should not be allowed to happen.


So you have three options:

1) No one sues - you are out $1,000
2) You sue - you are out $1,000 + legal fees + filing costs etc..  IF you win, you may be made whole as to the original 1000.  But unless something crazy happened, you arent getting fee shifting.  Thus you are probably still in the hole thousands of dollars
3) someone else sues for you.  They spend all the money, take all the risks.  At the end they give you $50

so in scenario 1 you are at negative $1,000; in scenario 2 you are likley at negative $2-10,000; in scenario 3 you are at negative $950.

explain to me how scenario 3 is the worst?
 
2013-08-07 10:32:09 AM  
I wonder if a large lawyer share will ensure that the penalty is not reduced as much on appeal.
 
2013-08-07 10:33:46 AM  

max_pooper: Cold_Sassy: RamboFrog: Isn't that how most class action suits work? The lawyers get about 90% of the settlement and the people named as plaintiffs split the remaining ten percent.

Yeah, anybody who hasn't figured that out by now is pretty clueless.

If you don't think you will be happy with a class action settlement; you could for go participation in the class action suit and simply do the tens of thousands of hours of research all by yourself, prepare the tens of thousands of pages of legal documents all by yourself and argue your case in front of the judge and jury all by yourself. That way you get to keep the $200 of restitution all by yourself instead of the lawyers taking 90%.


You realize that a woman did that recently? Class action suit about the mileage on the Civic Hybrids... woman knew she could do better. Class action suit got people something like a couple hundred bucks off their next honda purchase while the lawyers made bank.

The woman who went solo got the 10-12k she was looking for.

fark class action lawsuits.
 
2013-08-07 10:35:40 AM  

Teiritzamna: untaken_name: There's an entire court system dedicated to claims under $1000. Maybe they could, I dunno, use that?

hrm.  So you are harmed to the amount of $160 by a big ass company.  You decide to sue them in small claims court.  Let us assume, as you are on fark, that you make say, $20 an hour.  Spending 8 hours of your time on it and you have pretty much wiped out any benefit - unless your hobby is filing lawsuits.  Ifg it is, go for it.  Otherwise, people tend to use small claims court only when they are really really pissed off and/or have way too much free time.  I.e. the elderly and the loonies.


Well, that's the situation today. However, had people not been lazy enough to start class actions in the first place, perhaps things would be different. It's really immaterial, however, as the alternative still exists, whether or not it's a good one. It's not like it's worth your time to cash a $1 check, either. I guess it depends on who you hate more - corporations, or lawyers.
 
2013-08-07 10:36:14 AM  

Psylence: The woman who went solo got the 10-12k she was looking for.


1) no she did not.  It was overturned on appeal.
2) that woman was a lawyer

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Judge-Overturns-Honda-Small- Cl aims-MPG-Ruling-Heather-Peters-Civic-Hybrid-150817375.html
 
2013-08-07 10:40:11 AM  

untaken_name: Well, that's the situation today. However, had people not been lazy enough to start class actions in the first place, perhaps things would be different. It's really immaterial, however, as the alternative still exists, whether or not it's a good one. It's not like it's worth your time to cash a $1 check, either. I guess it depends on who you hate more - corporations, or lawyers.


hey man - i always advocate that if people what to spend time and money on enforcing their rights - go for it!  We have a whole bunch of small claims systems to allow just that.  The trick is, most of the class action issues involve massive discovery.  Like 2 million documents discovery.  with only a few items being relevant to your claim.  and most small claims do not allow discovery, so you may never get the documents you need to prevail.  Which means you need to sue in big boy court.  Which, alas, costs money.  Lots of money. 

TL;DR - Its not laziness - there is an inherent information and power imbalance in most consumer litigation cases that is almost impossible to overcome without coordinated and expensive legal aid.
 
2013-08-07 10:44:13 AM  
capital criminal prosecution of all company executives that harm people will slow the feeding frenzy.
 
2013-08-07 10:45:18 AM  

Teiritzamna: Its not laziness


Not anymore - now it's institutionalized and controlled. But I believe that's how it started. People who thought they had better things to do than fight their own battles caused the mess we're in. Everyone these days wants someone else to fix everything for them...and then they're surprised when the person they've hired to represent their interests also represents their own interests, and maybe even puts them first.
 
2013-08-07 10:45:48 AM  

Psylence: fark class action lawsuits.


Is your suggestion to preclude the ability of a plaintiff to file such a suit?  If so, is your goal to have a single defendant have to defend several hundred, several thousand, or several tens of thousands of cases that will feature virtually identical evidence?  Do you want the courts to have to accomodate those cases?

What's your suggestion for how to handle it?

If there's something in life you say 'fark it' to, but cannot advance a reasonable and viable alternative to, then you really have no justification to complain.
 
2013-08-07 10:45:59 AM  

Teiritzamna: Psylence: The woman who went solo got the 10-12k she was looking for.

1) no she did not.  It was overturned on appeal.
2) that woman was a lawyer

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Judge-Overturns-Honda-Small- Cl aims-MPG-Ruling-Heather-Peters-Civic-Hybrid-150817375.html


Oh, snap
 
2013-08-07 10:47:34 AM  

snuffy: capital criminal prosecution of all company executives that harm people will slow the feeding frenzy.


Who do you think pays to have the laws written? Hint: its not the little guy.

So, not only will your idea not happen, the class action lawsuit will be eliminated or weakened to uslessness. (It's already beginning).
 
2013-08-07 10:48:12 AM  
I was once unknowingly part of some class action concerning credit card fees or something. I got a check in the mail for 33 cents, and the damn lawyers got millions. And yet lawyers always insist that tort reform is unnecessary. F*ck them.
 
2013-08-07 10:49:27 AM  

Albert911emt: I was once unknowingly part of some class action concerning credit card fees or something. I got a check in the mail for 33 cents, and the damn lawyers got millions. And yet lawyers always insist that tort reform is unnecessary. F*ck them.


You got free money without having to do anything. I can understand why you're upset. It's because you're a moran.
 
2013-08-07 10:53:24 AM  

Theaetetus: Albert911emt: I was once unknowingly part of some class action concerning credit card fees or something. I got a check in the mail for 33 cents, and the damn lawyers got millions. And yet lawyers always insist that tort reform is unnecessary. F*ck them.

You got free money without having to do anything. I can understand why you're upset. It's because you're a moran.


More importantly - the credit card company had to stop screwing over their customers.
 
2013-08-07 10:53:37 AM  

Albert911emt: I was once unknowingly part of some class action concerning credit card fees or something. I got a check in the mail for 33 cents, and the damn lawyers got millions. And yet lawyers always insist that tort reform is unnecessary. F*ck them.


1. Tort reform isn't about the lawyers saving their windfall (and it's not a windfall, it's payment for a service), it's about major corporations limiting the amount YOU can recover in judgment. It's about screwing you, not helping lawyers.
2. How much should a firm who handles a massive class action be paid from the judgment? Give an honest answer. Should they do it for free? Just to vindicate your rights? Should they recover costs only? So they can longer provide the service they provide? 10%? 25%? What would be fair in your estimation?
 
2013-08-07 10:53:37 AM  

untaken_name: Not anymore - now it's institutionalized and controlled. But I believe that's how it started. People who thought they had better things to do than fight their own battles caused the mess we're in. Everyone these days wants someone else to fix everything for them...and then they're surprised when the person they've hired to represent their interests also represents their own interests, and maybe even puts them first.


Or people made rational decisions about what was worth their time and effort and then unscrupulous individuals decided to take advantage of that. 

The basis of your complaints could be focused upon pretty much all of modern civilization.  People are so lazy, they don't butcher their own meat, build their own houses, weave their own clothes! 

Even back then, spending a few days in court to recoup small losses was a dumb idea.  For an individual.  Once you know that there is a price you can fark people for, and get away with it, unless you have a counterbalance people will fark customers right up to that line.  That is the reason class actions were created, not just that "durr people were too lazy to do it themselves."
 
2013-08-07 10:53:58 AM  
Albert911emt:

Gotcha beat. Once lost thousands in a fraudulent stock deal. I was part of a class action lawsuit. My split?  A check for Eleven (11!)   fricking cents.
 
2013-08-07 10:55:32 AM  

Teiritzamna: The basis of your complaints could be focused upon pretty much all of modern civilization. People are so lazy, they don't butcher their own meat, build their own houses, weave their own clothes!


Yes, precisely.
 
2013-08-07 10:57:00 AM  
Interestingly, the lawyers who pocketed the bulk of the Fen-Phen class action several years ago were sent to prison...I guess they were doing it wrong.
More:
http://www.kentucky.com/2011/04/30/1724844/farm-and-condo-owned-by-fe n -phen.html">http://www.kentucky.com/2011/04/30/1724844/farm-and-condo -owned-by-fen -phen.html#
 
2013-08-07 10:57:50 AM  
As someone who recently got a check from a class action case for $8.63, I'm getting a kick...

Also below the article is a link to a video hosted by the WSJ with the title "Opinion: Does Liberalism Always Lead to Tyranny?". Nice. I can't tell the WSJ from Fox News now.
 
2013-08-07 10:58:04 AM  

untaken_name: Teiritzamna: The basis of your complaints could be focused upon pretty much all of modern civilization. People are so lazy, they don't butcher their own meat, build their own houses, weave their own clothes!

Yes, precisely.


Ah.  Well then, since you are probably pretty tired of riding that stationary bike to generate the electricity that you are using to power the computer that you lovingly crafted from raw silicon and steel, i shall stop bothering you so you can get some rest.  Carry on.
 
2013-08-07 10:58:47 AM  

untaken_name: Well, that's what you get for signing on to a class action suit. Who doesn't know that they're scams for enriching lawyers on both sides of the case? Morons who think a $1 check constitutes some kind of victory for them.


You don't sign on to a class action suit.  The suit is certified for the class and you may have a chance to opt out if you happen to know it's going on in a reasonable timeframe.
 
2013-08-07 10:59:10 AM  
What happened to lawyers having to cap at 33 1/3% or something like that?
 
2013-08-07 10:59:34 AM  

patrick767: As someone who recently got a check from a class action case for $8.63, I'm getting a kick...

Also below the article is a link to a video hosted by the WSJ with the title "Opinion: Does Liberalism Always Lead to Tyranny?". Nice. I can't tell the WSJ from Fox News now.


Same owners, same message.

/Obey.
 
2013-08-07 10:59:35 AM  

67stang: Albert911emt:

Gotcha beat. Once lost thousands in a fraudulent stock deal. I was part of a class action lawsuit. My split?  A check for Eleven (11!)   fricking cents.


So which is better? The law firm spends millions of dollars preparing the lawsuit, gets the judge to punish the wrong doers and gets compensated for their work or there is no class action lawsuit, the company goes unpunished, continues to defraud more investors and the lawyers make zero dollars?
 
2013-08-07 11:01:03 AM  
This only serves to prove the old adage:  Once lawyers get involved, everyone looses.
 
2013-08-07 11:01:52 AM  

digitalrain: What happened to lawyers having to cap at 33 1/3% or something like that?


yeah, modern lodestar analysis is not capped to a specific percent, but that tends to be the average number.  Its almost as if exceeding numbers like that are what the article is actually about.
 
2013-08-07 11:04:09 AM  
What is that , about 90% for the lawyers? Maybe the should settle for the standard 1/3 and do the right thing.
What am I thinking, they are lawyers...?
 
2013-08-07 11:04:14 AM  

Teiritzamna: untaken_name: Teiritzamna: The basis of your complaints could be focused upon pretty much all of modern civilization. People are so lazy, they don't butcher their own meat, build their own houses, weave their own clothes!

Yes, precisely.

Ah.  Well then, since you are probably pretty tired of riding that stationary bike to generate the electricity that you are using to power the computer that you lovingly crafted from raw silicon and steel, i shall stop bothering you so you can get some rest.  Carry on.


Not that I need your permission. Also, I could live in most parts of the country with just a few simple tools if society ever broke down (don't worry, I'm not predicting that it will). Could you? No, I suppose it's much better to not know how to do anything for yourself in case of emergency.
 
2013-08-07 11:07:25 AM  

Ajakk: For everyone complaining about class action lawsuits, what do people recommend as an alternative?  If a company does something that harms 10 million people $25, how should we have a legal system that makes sure that the people who were harmed are compensated for their loss and/or the company who caused the harm does not unlawfully profit from its actions.


Did you even read the article?
 
2013-08-07 11:08:07 AM  

untaken_name: Teiritzamna: untaken_name: Teiritzamna: The basis of your complaints could be focused upon pretty much all of modern civilization. People are so lazy, they don't butcher their own meat, build their own houses, weave their own clothes!

Yes, precisely.

Ah.  Well then, since you are probably pretty tired of riding that stationary bike to generate the electricity that you are using to power the computer that you lovingly crafted from raw silicon and steel, i shall stop bothering you so you can get some rest.  Carry on.

Not that I need your permission. Also, I could live in most parts of the country with just a few simple tools if society ever broke down (don't worry, I'm not predicting that it will). Could you? No, I suppose it's much better to not know how to do anything for yourself in case of emergency.


It's nice that you're sure of that, in theory.  Yet here you are, doing exactly what you complain about others doing: relying to heavily on people doing work you couldn't possibly due (e.g. generate your power, pave your streets, run your police force, build your computer, maintain your internet, etc.).  Do you think, just maybe, you should get off your high horse and accept that this is the nature of civilization: the distribution of labor and the cooperation of those laborers to achieve otherwise impossible tasks?
 
2013-08-07 11:09:29 AM  

mattharvest: It's nice that you're sure of that, in theory. Yet here you are, doing exactly what you complain about others doing: relying to heavily on people doing work you couldn't possibly due (e.g. generate your power, pave your streets, run your police force, build your computer, maintain your internet, etc.). Do you think, just maybe, you should get off your high horse and accept that this is the nature of civilization: the distribution of labor and the cooperation of those laborers to achieve otherwise impossible tasks?


nah.  then he couldn't feel superior to people who understand that the greatest strength of humanity is our ability to pool our efforts.
 
2013-08-07 11:15:21 AM  

mattharvest: Yet here you are, doing exactly what you complain about others doing: relying to heavily on people doing work you couldn't possibly due (e.g. generate your power, pave your streets, run your police force, build your computer, maintain your internet, etc.).


Yes, I chose when to be born. Genius.

mattharvest: Do you think, just maybe, you should get off your high horse and accept that this is the nature of civilization: the distribution of labor and the cooperation of those laborers to achieve otherwise impossible tasks?


I would, except that when this country was being built, people were self-reliant (to a much larger degree than today). Now that few people are self-reliant, we're destroying the country instead of building it. I wonder if perhaps there's a connection...nah, just watch TV and hope the supermarket doesn't run out of food. Also, you have no idea what I'm doing, and yet you act like you know me, and you're lecturing ME about high horses? Good one.
 
2013-08-07 11:16:48 AM  

Teiritzamna: mattharvest: It's nice that you're sure of that, in theory. Yet here you are, doing exactly what you complain about others doing: relying to heavily on people doing work you couldn't possibly due (e.g. generate your power, pave your streets, run your police force, build your computer, maintain your internet, etc.). Do you think, just maybe, you should get off your high horse and accept that this is the nature of civilization: the distribution of labor and the cooperation of those laborers to achieve otherwise impossible tasks?

nah.  then he couldn't feel superior to people who understand that the greatest strength of humanity is our ability to pool our efforts.


That's the beauty of actually being superior. It doesn't matter whether I feel it or not. Not that you'd know anything about it.
 
2013-08-07 11:21:25 AM  

untaken_name: That's the beauty of actually being superior. It doesn't matter whether I feel it or not. Not that you'd know anything about it.


John?
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-08-07 11:30:49 AM  

untaken_name: Yes, I chose when to be born. Genius.


Yeah, because that's at all responsive to my comment.  If you want to go live alone in the woods, no one is stopping you.

untaken_name: I would, except that when this country was being built, people were self-reliant (to a much larger degree than today). Now that few people are self-reliant, we're destroying the country instead of building it. I wonder if perhaps there's a connection...nah, just watch TV and hope the supermarket doesn't run out of food. Also, you have no idea what I'm doing, and yet you act like you know me, and you're lecturing ME about high horses? Good one.


Let's start with the obvious: [citation needed].  Where on earth did you get the nonsensical idea that "when this country was being built, people were self reliant"?  That's beyond delusional.  Assuming you  mean the USA as opposed to the nations who lived here before the European colonists, every single European colonist was someone who grew and benefited from European civilization.  Those born here after their families immigrated carried all those benefits forwards, including research (into agriculture, herding, medicine, science in general...) and simple material production (or were you unaware that the US imported massive amounts of goods including, but not limited to, weapons, etc. during the colonial periods?).

When, in your mind, did Americans stop being self-reliant?  I'm very curious, since I cannot find a single period of "self-reliance" in the history of our country.  We've always been a county of divided labor and pool resources.

You're just deluding yourself into nostalgia because you don't have any actual ideas how to fix anything.

I'll point it out one more time: for all your praise of self-reliance, you're choosing to live a life no less dependent on others than any of us.  Your simple use of all our shared resources mean you lose any privilege of complaining that we do the same.  If you want to complain about people using shared resources, you need to stop using shared resources.  In your case, that means no power, no internet, no refined metals, no manufactured materials, no farmed goods, no anything that's a product of the division and pooling of labor.
 
2013-08-07 11:32:15 AM  

untaken_name: Teiritzamna: mattharvest: It's nice that you're sure of that, in theory. Yet here you are, doing exactly what you complain about others doing: relying to heavily on people doing work you couldn't possibly due (e.g. generate your power, pave your streets, run your police force, build your computer, maintain your internet, etc.). Do you think, just maybe, you should get off your high horse and accept that this is the nature of civilization: the distribution of labor and the cooperation of those laborers to achieve otherwise impossible tasks?

nah.  then he couldn't feel superior to people who understand that the greatest strength of humanity is our ability to pool our efforts.

That's the beauty of actually being superior. It doesn't matter whether I feel it or not. Not that you'd know anything about it.


How are you superior, exactly?  Because you claim to have skills that you're not using, and because you came on the internet to posture anonymously?  Oh yes, I see such a streak of superiority.

It's really simple: if you actually believe living apart from society makes you better,  go do it.  There isn't a single person who would complain if you left.
 
2013-08-07 11:35:54 AM  

mattharvest: How are you superior, exactly?


At this point i think he is merely "stirring the fecal matter," as the kids say, since he got his ass handed to him.  I say stop feeding him and instead discuss delicious meats.

I've recently gotten into eating wild boar.
 
2013-08-07 11:36:24 AM  
Well, that escalated quickly.
 
2013-08-07 11:39:11 AM  
When I get a class action lawsuit thing in the mail, I do spend a moment figuring out how much I could get and how long it would take to fill in the form (and collect the required documentation). Then I toss the thing in the recycle bin.
 
2013-08-07 11:41:50 AM  

Fear the Clam: When I get a class action lawsuit thing in the mail, I do spend a moment figuring out how much I could get and how long it would take to fill in the form (and collect the required documentation). Then I toss the thing in the recycle bin.


Corporate America thanks you for your diligent efforts to allow them to go unpunished.
 
2013-08-07 11:44:37 AM  
Private, for-profit legal representation: what an utterly absurd idea.
 
2013-08-07 11:47:25 AM  

PunGent: And the last line says the suit was challenged by someone OTHER than the plaintiffs.


Did subby say otherwise? Subby just said "some people".
 
2013-08-07 11:54:27 AM  

Theaetetus: Albert911emt: I was once unknowingly part of some class action concerning credit card fees or something. I got a check in the mail for 33 cents, and the damn lawyers got millions. And yet lawyers always insist that tort reform is unnecessary. F*ck them.

You got free money without having to do anything. I can understand why you're upset. It's because you're a moran.


Actually consider this:  Perhaps he still uses that company.  As such, said company has to pay the millions of settlement(mostly lawyer's fees) out of current earnings.  Which means that they have to charge their customers(him) more, likely more than the .33 cents he got for the wrong doing.
 

Private_Citizen: More importantly - the credit card company had to stop screwing over their customers.


It's likely that the company 'won' some sort of freedom from any prohibition on doing it again.
 
2013-08-07 11:55:33 AM  
The whole point of the court system is to make lawyers rich.
 
2013-08-07 11:58:09 AM  

Firethorn: Actually consider this: Perhaps he still uses that company. As such, said company has to pay the millions of settlement(mostly lawyer's fees) out of current earnings. Which means that they have to charge their customers(him) more, likely more than the .33 cents he got for the wrong doing.


Company X does something wrong.  They get punished with a court judgement against them.  Company X then passes on the cost of their wrongdoing to their consumers. 

Who is the bad actor who deserves our scorn here?

Oh right!  The lawyers seeking to punish Comapny X!  If only they let them keep on screwing consumers, they wouldn't "need" to raise prices to pay for it!

The republican way works!
 
2013-08-07 12:02:02 PM  

Firethorn: Theaetetus: Albert911emt: I was once unknowingly part of some class action concerning credit card fees or something. I got a check in the mail for 33 cents, and the damn lawyers got millions. And yet lawyers always insist that tort reform is unnecessary. F*ck them.

You got free money without having to do anything. I can understand why you're upset. It's because you're a moran.

Actually consider this:  Perhaps he still uses that company.  As such, said company has to pay the millions of settlement(mostly lawyer's fees) out of current earnings.  Which means that they have to charge their customers(him) more, likely more than the .33 cents he got for the wrong doing.
 Private_Citizen: More importantly - the credit card company had to stop screwing over their customers.

It's likely that the company 'won' some sort of freedom from any prohibition on doing it again.


Doubt it. Most of the time, if a class action suit succeeds it's because the plaintiffs proved the corp was either acting illegally or so unscrupulously that they lost a judgment.

The corp will get immunity from further prosecution, but they don't get to continue that abuse. (That behavior was just proved to be so bad it cost them the case).

/The corp will have to find new ways to screw the customer.
 
2013-08-07 12:04:20 PM  
The whole class-action split is screwed up.  The lawyers should get 10%, tops.

Or, it should be legal to line up the suits who decided to screw people over and kneecap 'em.
 
2013-08-07 12:05:51 PM  
Dick the Butcher had the right idea.
 
2013-08-07 12:13:27 PM  
One lawyer can steal more with a briefcase than a thousand men with guns.
 
2013-08-07 12:17:07 PM  

There is a well funded smear campaign against class action.  It may seem like grass-roots but it is Astro-turf..

DON'T MISS THE farkING POINT OF CLASS ACTION!!!.

Without class-actions, huge corporations can screw, say 50,000 people out of $100 each and no individual will sue... why would they pay a $250 filing fee to recover?  Even treble doesn't help here.

So consumer has no motivation to sue and corporation has a $50,000,000 motivation to screw consumers.  So how to prevent this?  Government regulation?  Who pays for that army of inspectors?  The government already inspects food and yet we still have mass outbreaks of food poising and safety recalls every few months for contaminated stuff that escaped in spite of the inspections... and these are just lazy people cutting corners on cleanliness... not a $50,000,000 paycheck.

As the mortgage fraud financial meltdown shows, we can't expect the government to actually bring criminal prosecutions against big business. Senators know who donates to their re-election campaigns and we just can't have those donors sitting in jail now can we?  So with criminal charges off the table that means the only counter-motivation is to sue in civil court.

The class action system is not perfect but it converts plaintiffs lawyers into bounty hunters by combining all those little damage amounts into one big amount.  Bounty hunters are even better than FBI agents or inspectors because they are not government employees with a union, nice salaries and expensive retirement packages.

So the class-action lawyers protect consumers by creating a actual financial consequence for a corporation's bad behavior... and it is a consequence not so easily avoided by bribing an inspector or congressman.  Is it any wonder the freaking Wall Street Journal would try to scare up oppositions to that?
 
2013-08-07 12:19:09 PM  
I like the idea of reforming the class action lawsuit with the requirement that the money that was taken from the consumers goes back to the consumers on average (Average loss per consumer was $25? Everyone gets $25) and THEN you must pay the legal fees on top of that.

Right now, they are capped at the total amount that they defrauded, so if you take in $10M, you pay out $10M and the lawyers get to bite into that. That's not a penalty, neither is the requirement to change their ways. What will happen is the company will change the least amount of their ways to remain in compliance and then do something else to cut costs/generate revenue. The company comes out ahead in the long run because they were probably making good intereste on that $10M in the first place. I've heard (anecdotal) that some companies will do something like this with the cost of a class action built into whatever form of trickery they are using to get extra dollars.

If, however, you cheat your customers and you have to pay upto 90% additional to the claim amount, that wipes out any possible hope of salvaging something good from the cheating in the first place.
 
2013-08-07 12:35:56 PM  

Theaetetus: Albert911emt: I was once unknowingly part of some class action concerning credit card fees or something. I got a check in the mail for 33 cents, and the damn lawyers got millions. And yet lawyers always insist that tort reform is unnecessary. F*ck them.

You got free money without having to do anything. I can understand why you're upset. It's because you're a moran.


You seem like a very pleasant person, except for the whole insulting someone for no reason part.....yeah, other than that, you're not at all a jerk.
 
2013-08-07 12:37:50 PM  

Albert911emt: You seem like a very pleasant person, except for the whole insulting someone for no reason part.....yeah, other than that, you're not at all a jerk.


As someone who has met him in person - he is an asshole.  Doesn't make him wrong here of course.

/likes assholes.
 
2013-08-07 12:42:28 PM  
Given that individual justice would be ridicuously expensive and people would always be out-lawyered by the big guys, what did you expect? The plaintiffs got more money back than they otherwise could, and the violator is punished.

So long as justice costs money, this is the best you're gonna get.

fark you ass-sitting complainers. All you did for the trial was not sign an opt-out. Take what you get and be glad the criminals were nailed.

Or would you rather stop these lawsuits, lose $10 in settlements, and let big guys get away with distributed crimes.
 
2013-08-07 12:43:29 PM  
I have the chance to apply for $17 in a major class action suite.

to get the $17 I will have to document that I did indeed get overcharged might take me several hours and then mail the info to the lawyers.  but if they already know through discovery that I was ripped off, why do I need to spend money and time to prove it?
 
2013-08-07 12:45:27 PM  
This Just In: Lawyers Make Big Money Off Of Other Peoples Problems. Film at 11
 
2013-08-07 12:56:04 PM  
Pay...to the order of...Iron...Balls...McGinty...one dollar...and NINE CENTS!
 
2013-08-07 12:59:37 PM  

max_pooper: 67stang: Albert911emt:

Gotcha beat. Once lost thousands in a fraudulent stock deal. I was part of a class action lawsuit. My split?  A check for Eleven (11!)   fricking cents.

So which is better? The law firm spends millions of dollars preparing the lawsuit, gets the judge to punish the wrong doers and gets compensated for their work or there is no class action lawsuit, the company goes unpunished, continues to defraud more investors and the lawyers make zero dollars?


Couldn't there be a third option that is somehow slightly more equitable to those who were wronged? I don't know what it might be but the current system punishes the company (good), pays most of the money to the lawyers (not good), and does nothing for those who were wronged (bad).
 
2013-08-07 01:00:08 PM  
I remember being in some class action where a lady was bring suit against Honda because the odometer used in the Odyssey wasn't scientificly acurate (really? who knew?) and over the course of 20,000 miles might be off by 10 miles or so. Since this could cost you a couple of extra bucks on a lease, she was suing Honda, the makers of the instrument cluster, and some other group. The payout was something like 10 bucks for anyone who could show they had a lease, $10,000 for the class rep (the lady) and 2.7 million plus expenses for the lawyers.

I even opted out of the suit against Rockstar because of the 'hot coffee' mod. It was something along those lines. A couple of bucks toward your next R* game and millions for the lawyers. I opted out and sent a letter to the court saying it was stupid because the game had to be hacked to even get that content. There wasn't even a way to just put in a code. You had to download and run a program.
 
2013-08-07 01:27:34 PM  

Jument: Couldn't there be a third option that is somehow slightly more equitable to those who were wronged? I don't know what it might be but the current system punishes the company (good), pays most of the money to the lawyers (not good), and does nothing for those who were wronged (bad).


Well here's the trick:

Litigation against large companies costs money.

So we have to allocate who pays that money:

1) Mandatory Fee Shifting We could, i suppose change the class action rules such that the recovery was for both the harm and the costs of suit.  This is in fact commonly done in Britain for solo litigation (basically the US is the only country that has class actions).*  So we would have, say Company X pay 10 million for the harm they caused and an addition 4.5 million for the cost of suit.  This is a do-able fix which would increase recoveries and keep the bounty system working.  However, since you would still have lawyers making millions (for legitimate work) and class members making, say, $100 (which is the actual amount they were harmed, but who cares) i figure the uninformed grumbling would continue.  And astroturfers like the WSJ would have even more reasons to be against it because companies would be forced to pay more.  So you can imagine the likelihood of new federal laws allowing this.

2) pay the lawyers less.This has the viceral thrill of making people who worked very hard, but get paid large sums suffer.  Which is fairly american.  The trick is, if someone told you you get to bust your ass for 1-2 years on a project and at the end of the day get paid way less than you would for any other project, and you had a choice, you would probably not take that job on.  Thus, paying lawyers less means less class actions which means corporate america gets the green light to fark you with your pants on, as long as the individual thrusts cost less than protesting in court by yourself.

3) federal enforcement.We could always just have a federal corps of class action attorneys.  They would enforce the law and the US treasury would get the payout.  This appears to have some upsides, as it buffers the fisc and we could ensure that as in option 1, the class members get more cash.  However, if you think people would fight increased penalties to companies, trust me they would lose their shiat if we suggested a massive increase in government oversight and costs to enforce.  because investigating, bringing suit, and of course, occasionally losing will all be covered by tax dollars.  Sometimes, enforcement can be value neutral, see Superfund as a good example.  But such programs that are neutral tend to be conservative in what they seek to enforce, carry draconian penalties (superfund liability assesses a pretty much automatic 3x damages), and are reviled by corporate america.

As a big ol' liberal i would be fine, to an extent, with #3, but it is less likley than any of the other options.

That's what i got.  The thing about class action law is it is supposed to be a compromise.  It is not the best answer in a perfect world, it just happens to be the best option out of the options we have.  Of course, i would be happy to hear other ideas on how to modify the system, if you have 'em.

/* there is fee shifting in some class actions.  Its just rather rare.
 
2013-08-07 01:45:21 PM  
Back in the 80s there was a class action lawsuit against Bank of America.  Basically, they had been computing debits before credits so you could end up being overdrawn even though you had made a deposit, which resulted in an overdraft fee. This happened to me pretty much every pay day for months.

BoA lost, and in the mail I received a coupon good for discounts on BoA banking services.  I refuse to paricipate in any class action lawsuits because of this.

You couldn't pay me to bank with then now.
 
2013-08-07 01:47:39 PM  

TheWhoppah: The government already inspects food and yet we still have mass outbreaks of food poising and safety recalls every few months for contaminated stuff that escaped in spite of the inspections.


Hate to burst your bubble, but the Federal government doesn't really inspect food.  Sure, they tax you to pay for an army of government employees, but that's just to shuffle paper around.  Actual inspection is mostly self-complience.
 
2013-08-07 02:02:35 PM  

max_pooper: Fear the Clam: When I get a class action lawsuit thing in the mail, I do spend a moment figuring out how much I could get and how long it would take to fill in the form (and collect the required documentation). Then I toss the thing in the recycle bin.

Corporate America thanks you for your diligent efforts to allow them to go unpunished.


Considering how weak those punishments are I'm not filled with regret. Put the whole C-level suite against the wall for an actual execution like the Chinese do and maybe I'd care.
 
2013-08-07 02:18:23 PM  

Teiritzamna: Albert911emt: You seem like a very pleasant person, except for the whole insulting someone for no reason part.....yeah, other than that, you're not at all a jerk.

As someone who has met him in person - he is an asshole.


www.motivationalmemo.com
I'll allow it.
 
2013-08-07 03:18:08 PM  

Teiritzamna: Oh right! The lawyers seeking to punish Comapny X! If only they let them keep on screwing consumers, they wouldn't "need" to raise prices to pay for it!


A company isn't a person, it's very tough to actually 'punish' one.

I should have been more clear.  I've been mailed forms for a few class action lawsuits that were for such low sums I was like 'why bother' and also things like 'I thought the price was fair at the time'.

If you're only going to make a token effort at making me whole (1% of the loss, really?), for something that's questionable on whether it was wrong in the first place(hot coffee mod, anyone?), in such a way that you're charging such huge lawyer's fees that the company will be visibly harmed, I question the worth.

Though when a company obviously does wrong, I support the lawyer's fees coming out of punitive damages(IE any above actual harm), with the claimants getting ACTUAL losses back.
 
2013-08-07 03:29:14 PM  

Firethorn: Teiritzamna: Oh right! The lawyers seeking to punish Comapny X! If only they let them keep on screwing consumers, they wouldn't "need" to raise prices to pay for it!

A company isn't a person, it's very tough to actually 'punish' one.


A company is a conglomeration of people seeking to make money.  Some of those people make poor decisions, others support those decisions, either actively or passively.  One great way to stop them from making poor decisions is to cost them money.  This will stop the decision makers either because the loss of money hurts their pocketbook, or it hurts someone else's pocketbook and they get fired.  Groups of people can be punished/deterred just as well as individual people.

If you're only going to make a token effort at making me whole (1% of the loss, really?), for something that's questionable on whether it was wrong in the first place(hot coffee mod, anyone?), in such a way that you're charging such huge lawyer's fees that the company will be visibly harmed, I question the worth.

This seems to be your argument against frivolous suits.  No argument here.Frivolous suits suck.  Of course outside of the rare obvious "wait what!?" suits,* truly frivolous class actions are actually rare, as the guys bringing suit eat the costs if they lose.

Though when a company obviously does wrong, I support the lawyer's fees coming out of punitive damages(IE any above actual harm), with the claimants getting ACTUAL losses back.

As i noted above, having some sort of mandatory fee shifting to pay for a class action suit would be A-Ok in my book.  It will never get past conservatives in congress, of course, as corporate donors who tend to get sued dont like new laws that would require them to pay an extra 30-40% for each lawsuit.
 
2013-08-07 03:47:06 PM  
Okay, Libertarianmitter.

W/O the class action suit, the company would walk away with the profits from screwing over consumers.  Boy, what a great alternative.

We ~could~ serve consumers much better by like, say, actually regulating companies and minimizing these legal issues from every occurring, and bymaking their books more transparent so it's easier to get to the bottom of things if these legal issues actually do occur.... but the same people crying about TFA's outcome are usually the same people (COUGHlibertariansCOUGH) that insist regulation is bad and that legal fictions deserve civil rights protections originally intended for human beings.

/law firms suck up so much of that payout because the offenders' lawyers do everything they can to shield their business clients' books
//nothing libertarians love more than crying about conundrums of their own creation and blaming others
 
2013-08-07 04:01:21 PM  

gameshowhost: Okay, Libertarianmitter.

W/O the class action suit, the company would walk away with the profits from screwing over consumers.  Boy, what a great alternative.

We ~could~ serve consumers much better by like, say, actually regulating companies and minimizing these legal issues from every occurring, and bymaking their books more transparent so it's easier to get to the bottom of things if these legal issues actually do occur.... but the same people crying about TFA's outcome are usually the same people (COUGHlibertariansCOUGH) that insist regulation is bad and that legal fictions deserve civil rights protections originally intended for human beings.

/law firms suck up so much of that payout because the offenders' lawyers do everything they can to shield their business clients' books
//nothing libertarians love more than crying about conundrums of their own creation and blaming others


It's not regulations are bad.  It's EXCESSIVE regulations are bad, especially when the regulations are really designed to protect the established businesses from competition and the consequences of their actions.
 
2013-08-07 07:26:14 PM  

Fluid: Appeals Court Says Legal Fees in Diaper Suit are Ir-rashional

Had to read that headline twice before it sunk in "diaper suit" didn't refer to some kind of horrible fashion experiment. Need more coffee, I guess.


yeah, I looked at that headline and figured a farker was working at the WSJ.
 
2013-08-07 08:36:32 PM  
"Billable hours" is such a poisonous phrase.

Unless you're in a job of some sort of field repair, be it plumbing, computering, whatever.
 
Displayed 121 of 121 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report