

After AT&T Ruling, Should We Say Goodbye to Consumer Class Actions? - grellas
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/04/27/after-att-ruling-should-we-say-goodbye-to-consumer-class-actions/

======
dmethvin
AT&T has nearly 100 million wireless subscribers now. If they can gin up a
reason to add a $5 annual charge to every subscriber's bill, that's an extra
$500 million to the bottom line.

Many customers won't notice a bogus charge like that. A few will silently
gripe, figuring it isn't worth their time fighting. A few will complain to
AT&T. Nobody will need to go to arbitration to get their $5 back, because AT&T
will give it back if they're persistent. Even with maybe ten percent refunds,
AT&T will have stolen away $450 million.

Class-action lawsuits definitely have been abused in the past and consumers
often don't fare that well (whee, coupons) but the "arbitration" alternative
doesn't give companies any incentive to treat customers fairly.

------
Joakal
I wonder if USA justices have been indicating to citizens that they should
form their own company, elect representatives, foster contractual obligations
between companies than individuals, etc.

You might think that sounds political, but it sounds tribal to me.

~~~
bluedanieru
They aren't, and if they were they would be absurd. A corporation is a legal
device for making money. You shouldn't need everyone to join/form one in order
for democracy to work and justice to exist.

The simpler explanations tend to be correct, and that applies here: the
American government is captive to corporate interests.

~~~
flipbrad
I live in a fully mutual housing cooperative; we each own a share in the
'corporate' body that owns the land we live on. It does not exist to extract
or "make" money from us: it exists to receive and hold our collective rent (at
rates which we set) and apply it as we see fit (on improvements, on other
cooperatives requiring seed capital, and eventually, on renewing our lease
from the council), to shield us from individual liability (e.g. in occupier's
negligence), and to be a single voice or party in dealings (or even legal
proceedings) with outside entities or individual members. Forming one enables
our internal democracy to work, and protects and promotes out individual
interests (especially in shielding us from personal liability). I disagree it
would be absurd; I agree you shouldn't need to form or join one; but it helps.

------
guelo
This conservative supreme court is a disgrace. It is a court that always sides
with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the
executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the
individual plaintiff.

~~~
schwit
The court ruled based upon the laws that Congress passed. I agree that the law
needs to be changed, but that change must come from Congress. When judges
overrule Congress it better only be because Congress violated the
Constitution, otherwise you have judicial activism.

~~~
starwed
This was a case where the court split on partisan lines.

------
starwed
Does the article cut-off or something? It says "...we just might be getting
ahead of ourselves. Let’s back up."

But it never really revisits the initial claim that this could kill class
actions...

~~~
gbhn
The article argues that the Supreme Court interprets the Federal Arbitration
Act as superceding state class action rules. It's a borderline thing, I
suppose (5-4 decision), but it seems like a fairly straightforward ruling,
predictable for this court, and a pretty defensible interpretation of what the
law meant and Fed > State precedent.

------
tedunangst
“What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in
litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?”

Isn't this the purpose of small claims court?

That question actually sums up my dislike of most class actions. It's not
about righting a wrong, it's about a lawyer winning the jackpot. I've been a
part of about a dozen class action settlements, and had I dug up sales
receipts from ten years ago, could have earned myself awards sometimes
approaching $5.00. Meanwhile, the law firm earned about $10 million. Not bad
for a year's work.

~~~
Joakal
You might assume it's a lawyer hitting the jackpot, but the company had to pay
it out of their coffers. The hit to the coffers (typically investors' money)
means the company needs to avoid doing the same issue again.

Same argument for governments. If the taxpayers are upset at government losing
taxpayer dollars in court, then they have their chance to voice a change in
government. The opposition could point out the waste in next election and the
current government gets defeated.

If you don't want to be part of a suit for $5.00 refunds, you can put yourself
down as an exception. You can then sue them yourself.

~~~
bluedanieru
Exactly. Griping about lawyers getting a payday is just class warfare
nonsense. (I agree they generally get too much, but this is throwing the baby
out with the bathwater).

There is also the argument that when companies lose lawsuits they just pass
the expense on to the consumer. I've always thought that was part of the point
though. If the company in question is a monopoly however, I suppose there is
some merit to that...

------
cookiecaper
It's worth noting that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate say. If the
SCOTUS does something that the public does not approve, the duty of the
public's elected representatives is to change the law such that it is brought
into line with the interests of their constituents. The judiciary does not
make law, but they do decide what the law means, and in this case the Federal
Arbitration Act was decided to disallow a class-action lawsuit.

If you're worried that class-action will disappear all together, let your
representatives know.

~~~
yardie
Going from experience, SCOTUS is really the ultimate say. Can you think of any
ruling SCOTUS has made that was against the publics favor that was then
rewritten by lawmakers? I can't think of one. It's quite understandable that
people believe the legislation has been bought by corporations. If any new law
does get written its going to be written by corporate lobbyist to favor the
same corporations it's trying to rule over.

Remember these are the same representatives that passed the Federal
Arbitration Act. That act and this ruling make it all but impossible to punish
corporations for malfeasance. This is why it's important to vote. Whoever
leads this country will have an impact not for the next 4-8 years, but
possibly 20-30. This ruling was made 5-4 along party lines. The majority were
Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II candidates. Remember that when someone tells you
they won't vote because they don't like either party.

~~~
hncommenter13
1\. It's easy to name a ruling on a statute that was then revised--this is not
that uncommon. Try
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_%26_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire_%26_Rubber_Co.).
The Court's ruling hewed close to the text of Title VII, but Congress didn't
like the outcome, so it changed the law.

2\. The Federal Arbitration Act was originally enacted in 1925 (and has been
amended and interpreted quite a bit over the years, obviously). Today's
Congress is not composed of the same representatives who passed the act, nor
does its view of arbitration necessarily reflect the view of those who enacted
it originally.

3\. This is not a cut-and-dried liberal vs. conservative issue. There are
complicated issues of preemption of state laws by the FAA, and what
constitutes "unconscionability" in an arbitration agreement--which has been in
the Court quite a bit lately (see Rent-a-Center v. Jackson from last term).

