
U.S. Consumer Bureau Loses Fight to Allow More Class-Action Suits - runesoerensen
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/business/senate-vote-wall-street-regulation.html
======
defined
> Today, it is hard to open up a checking account, rent a car, get cable
> service or check a loved one into a nursing home without agreeing to
> mandatory arbitration.

This is the part that gives me ulcers, and it's no exaggeration. So many
companies insist on us giving up our 7th Amendment rights that we either give
in, or don't fly, buy a car, or get a job. We can't even go to the competition
because they also have mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their
contracts.

As bad as the Equifax breach is, IMO this is a greater danger to our freedoms.

~~~
wingspar
When I last purchased a car I used accepting the arbitration clause to extract
$150 in accessories from the dealer. The sales agent was a bit confused, it’s
usually the paperwork guy that deals with the arbitration and at point most
people just want it over with..

~~~
dwyerm
I was offered over $1000 off to 'just sign the damned contract', but still
ended up walking. I was fortunate to find a different dealer that didn't have
an arbitration clause, though. I fear I wouldn't find that next time around,
and was really hanging my hopes upon legislation like this.

~~~
morley
I'm going to ask what might be a dumb question, because I don't know any
better. But is there any statistical evidence that arbitration results in
worse outcomes for the consumer, or is all the hate theoretical for now?
People on HN and otherwise speak about arbitration like it's an auto-loss for
the consumer, but it's not like our court systems are guaranteed to be much
fairer.

EDIT:

It looks like the bottom of the article explains that the US Consumer Bureau
studied arbitration and found it anti-consumer:

As arbitration clauses appeared in tens of millions of contracts, the consumer
agency was specifically mandated to study arbitration under the Dodd-Frank
financial law in 2010. That effort culminated in a 728-page report, released
in March 2015, that challenged longstanding assumptions about arbitration.

The agency found that once blocked from suing, few people went to arbitration
at all. And the results for those who did were dismal. During the two-year
period studied, only 78 arbitration claims resulted in judgments in favor of
consumers, who got $400,000 in total relief.

~~~
Larrikin
The normal system is that these civil disputes are done in a court of law.
Justify the change.

~~~
rhizome
The siren call of tort-reform by any other name...

------
grellas
It is entirely superficial to cast this fight as one between good and evil. As
much as anything, it was about proper process.

Legislative, executive, judicial - those are the three branches under the
Constitution that are supposed to check and balance one another.

The legislature passed the federal arbitration act almost 100 years ago. It
was signed into law by the president. And it has been consistently upheld by
the U.S. Supreme Court in the face of many and varied court challenges.

In essence, the result of this century-old jostling is a body of duly enacted
law that says that binding arbitration clauses are truly binding and therefore
can be used in contracts to foreclose judicial proceedings by requiring that
disputes covered by such clauses be resolved through arbitration. Moreover, a
massive court challenge resulted in a holding of the Supreme Court saying that
waivers of judicial class-action rights in favor of arbitration are also
binding - meaning, it is neither unjust, unfair, nor against public policy
(legally speaking) to say that consumers can be required to waive such rights
and be required in all cases to arbitrate their disputes.

Now, one may believe that all of this is repugnant and grossly harmful to
consumers. Others may disagree and may in particular believe that class-action
lawsuits are primarily vehicles that help the trial bar and do little with
their nickel-discount coupons to actually further the interests of consumers.
Either way, the existing law is the existing law. The proper way to change it
is to gain control of the legislative and executive branches and to repeal or
amend the federal arbitration act. In that way, the law could easily and
properly be shaped to forbid making arbitration mandatory and binding or limit
the ability to use binding clauses in specific areas of law, etc.

The problem with CFPB is that it sought to carve out its own view of what is
right and proper for consumers of financial services without regard to the
intent of Congress in having enacted the existing arbitration laws. As
established, CFPB is not accountable to Congress or any other form of
traditional oversight of its bureaucratic functions (its structure was
declared unconstitutional by the D.C. court of appeals). It is in that sense
an organization that could be characterized as "rogue" based on traditional
rules of governance and it is certainly seen as such by those who disagree
with its particular actions in using its power to attempt to regulate
arbitration clauses, payday loans, etc.

So CFPB essentially stuck its thumb in the eye of Congress in pushing forward
with these measures.

Now Congress has struck back, saying, in effect (with its authority under the
Congressional Review Act), "we don't like what this regulation does and this
is our domain - therefore, we rescind it."

So, while one can try to say this is good versus evil, it is basically the
legislature asserting itself on a matter of policy against a bureaucrat who it
believes overstepped his proper role.

The result is to keep the status quo, nothing more. The rules in effect as a
result of this action by Congress are the same ones that have governed
arbitration clauses in every walk of life in American business for nearly a
century.

For those who don't like it, that is fine. The ballot box is open as the
prescribed means to effect a change. All this recent action amounts to is a
declaration by Congress saying that this should not happen by bureaucratic
edict. That may be bad policy, or it may be good policy, but it does uphold
the rules of law favoring the electorally-accountable legislative branch over
the authority of an unaccountable bureau chief.

~~~
noobermin
>For those who don't like it, that is fine. The ballot box is open as the
prescribed means to effect a change.

Every single sentence you wrote here is extremely ignorant of the _political_
reality in which that usual proper process has been in the muck for years.
You're not realizing the effect that gerrymandering, voter suppression, and
money in politics has on the ability of the usual system to work to reflect
the desires of people, and that redirecting people to traverse that maze is
essentially sending them on a quest to square a circle that will effectively
keep the status quo.

And the status quo isn't good enough. Remember, just a few years ago, someone
would be denied healthcare due to pre-existing conditions and die. THAT was
the status quo, and it was so toxic that the party in power now, controlling
all parts of the three branches _could not_ repeal it. Forced arbitration is
similar to healthcare, most people don't realize how bad it is until they have
to go to head with it.

~~~
refurb
_Remember, just a few years ago, someone would be denied healthcare due to
pre-existing conditions and die._

This is an open and shut issue if the only thing you're worried about is the
end consumer. The gov't, on the other hand, needs to worry about _the system_
including the insurance companies. Changing the rules so that a person can
forgo health insurance _until they are sick_ is a sure fire way to start a
death spiral.

It wasn't until the law was changed to include the individual mandate was the
pre-existing condition clause even viable. I'd argue the individual mandate is
so weak, that we might end up with a death spiral anyways.

What's the popular saying on HN? "Don't tear down the fence until you know why
it was put up in the first place."

~~~
tehwebguy
I’m sure the free market will find a way to provide healthcare without
insurance companies, an all-but-required middleman.

~~~
libertyEQ
What free market are you talking about?

Until we fix the collusion between the American Hospital Association[0] and
insurance companies through the National Uniform Billing Committee[1] to
opaquely set pricing, there will be no free market in the healthcare industry.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hospital_Association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hospital_Association)

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Uniform_Billing_Commi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Uniform_Billing_Committee)

~~~
tehwebguy
I mean that if the ban on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions causes
the health _insurance_ industry to collapse I'm sure the actual health _care_
industry will figure something out.

------
chillydawg
Is this an opportunity for a new type of law firm that opens up to deal with
one type of complaint for one company and offers extremely low fees to file?
The idea would be that the paperwork is all the same for the X
thousand/million people suing INDIVIDUALLY such that economies of scale take
over and the cost of actually filing and pushing the suit through becomes
cheap enough for almost anyone.

On the side of Giant Bank, they suddenly have 150,000 lawsuits filed against
them and have to act in some way. Is that even allowed? Would a court just
tell the law firm to go away and stop spamming it?

~~~
comex
With (most) arbitration clauses, you can't actually sue at all. You have to go
through a private arbitration firm, which can set pretty much whatever rules
they want - including things like basing rulings on religious law [1].
Compared to that, I'm pretty sure there'd be nothing illegal about rules to
defeat the hypothetical law firm, like requiring complainants to show up in
person.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/dealbook/in-
reli...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/dealbook/in-religious-
arbitration-scripture-is-the-rule-of-law.html)

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
Except they have to get all of those millions of lawsuits dismissed
individually by advancing that argument and failing in even a single of those
cases through a novel argument on the part of plaintiff, sympathetic judge,
etc could open an avalanche of lawsuits against the firms.

It also would force the courts dismissing the lawsuits to grapple with the
sheer scale of criminality that the dismissals are being used to hide -- it's
easy to hide it when you shut down a handful of lawsuits and the vast majority
of your victims remain silent, but are judges going to be so accepting of
mandatory arbitration when they've already, personally, dismissed thousands of
suits because of arbitration clauses that are about the exact same kind of
fraud perpetrated by the exact same people and have thousands more left on
their docket? How many times do you believe that a judge can see the exact
same crime happen from the same perpetrator and just go "Ho, hum, nothing to
see here!" Sometimes, the key is just to be _really_ noisy and annoying so
they can't ignore the issue.

The act of filing the suits, particularly in a concerted bulk effort, and
forcing the government to address and dismiss each individual suit is an
effective form of speech and protest.

Your argument is shallow excuses for defeatism, which in turn excuses not
actually trying.

Edit:

It also introduces a novel argument of "Uh, so this court has dismissed over
10,000 lawsuits about this exact issue -- clearly we're being abused by a
corporation and petitioning the state for assistance. [Argument why the state
is obligated to assist.]"

It forces the court to explicitly address the argument that the arbitration
system is being coupled with a power imbalance to enable criminal action
against entire states of people by documenting the scale via dismissals --
which are public record and can be used as evidence in subsequent cases.

~~~
comex
I mean, the judge is going to respond by sanctioning the attorney(s) for
frivolous litigation. If your legal argument (for why the case shouldn't go to
arbitration) has been rejected in court, initiating even one more case before
the same court with the _exact same_ argument could justifiably be considered
a waste of the court's time. Initiate several of them and you're going to be
fined; 10,000 and you're probably looking at things like contempt-of-court
charges and disbarment. That's aside from the fee to initiate each case, as
Chaebixi mentioned.

That said, if you're willing to risk all that to make a political statement -
i.e. to pressure legislatures to change the law around arbitration - I can't
rule out that it could be effective. But I suspect that other avenues for
making a statement would be cheaper and more effective (and avoid the stigma
of abusing the court system).

For example, how about just taking out TV ads? Find some maximally sympathetic
victims of the arbitration system, and have them tell their stories. Less
dramatic, but right now I think there isn't all that much public awareness of
the issue - the New York Times' series notwithstanding. Arbitration is such a
classic "big corp screwing over the little guy" story that I think a large
number of even Republican-leaning voters would oppose it, especially the Trump
camp (ew, but still), if they heard the full story. But most of them have
probably never heard of it, or have only heard one-sided accounts that
emphasize how class-action suits cost businesses and don't usually win
plaintiffs all that much money. (Both of which are true, but ignore the fact
that class actions _are_ effective at holding defendants accountable for
violating the law, and getting them to change their behavior - whereas a
trickle of arbitration cases can just be dismissed as a cost of business.)

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
Your position is a reasonable one, and it's beyond debating it on the internet
to decide which one would be more practical -- it would depend on the
situation, how much money you had, and how damaged you thought the system was.
People could certainly disagree on their assessment.

I tend to think that wrench throwing is more effective for systemic problems
than discussing it. The assembly line is doing damage while you discuss the
problem.

That said, I'm also biased here: the lawsuits idea hits _two_ of my pet
peeves, in that it also forces debate around the issue of the justice system
being chronically understaffed and underfunded.

Filing that volume of lawsuits would effectively DDOS the courts (which is why
they're going to hold you in contempt no matter how legal it was), but even
doing due process on your contesting of that would likely drown the justice
system to the point it forced a national debate over how it was operated.

That's a resonant issue with the arbitration one, since the forced arbitration
is a symptom of that deeper funding issue -- we don't invest in efficient
civic infrastructure, so corporations built their own.

tl;dr: Two birds, one stone; forcing instead of discussing; debating the
underlying issue, not just a symptom.

------
fragsworth
I'm losing faith in our system of government. Citibank did this to me on a
credit card I had with them:

1\. I stopped using the card for several months.

2\. I then used it once on a small purchase.

3\. They stopped sending me an e-mail reminders for my bill. (An "error" in
their system disabled e-mails for my account specifically)

4\. I racked up about $100 in late fees and interest charges.

5\. I called them up and they said they'd waive the fees and interest charges.

6\. They did not waive the fees and interest charges.

7\. At this point, I had to give up and pay it because it was about to go to
collections and damage my credit rating.

What recourse is there for this kind of thing if the GOP doesn't allow us
class-action lawsuits?

~~~
creaghpatr
Elect a Democratic congress, like the first Obama administration, who
incidentally did not allow class-action lawsuits either? At least this time a
bill made it to a Senate vote.

~~~
moonka
The bill passed by 50 (plus a VP tiebreaker) votes. Take a look at the
breakdown of who voted against it.

------
tertius
So I'm trying to figure out why this was even done.

Here's the White House statement on it.

From [https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2017/10/24/state...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2017/10/24/statement-regarding-senate-passage-hj-res-111)

> Statement Regarding Senate Passage of H.J. Res. 111

> President Donald J. Trump applauds the Congress for passing H.J. Res. 111,
> Disapproving of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB)
> Arbitration Agreements Rule. According to a recent report by the Department
> of the Treasury, the evidence is clear that the CFPB's rule would neither
> protect consumers nor serve the public interest. Rather, under the rule,
> consumers would have fewer options for quickly and efficiently resolving
> financial disputes. Further, the rule would harm our community banks and
> credit unions by opening the door to frivolous lawsuits by special interest
> trial lawyers. By repealing this rule, Congress is standing up for everyday
> consumers and community banks and credit unions, instead of the trial
> lawyers, who would have benefited the most from the CFPB's uninformed and
> ineffective policy.

It seems that they're basing this on a report by the DOT (which is the parent
body of the CFPB).

Here's the report (I'm still parsing it):

[https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-
releases/Documen...](https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-
releases/Documents/10-23-17%20Analysis%20of%20CFPB%20arbitration%20rule.pdf)

The CFPB's response (quoted all over the place): "rehashes industry arguments
that were analyzed in depth and solidly refuted in the final rule."

I can't find a source for that response. It would be great if we could find a
source for that response as well as the wording of the refutation in the
"final rule."

~~~
orthecreedence
> Rather, under the rule, consumers would have fewer options for quickly and
> efficiently resolving financial disputes.

This is actually retarded. How is arbitration OR trial less options than just
arbitration? Last I checked, 2 > 1 but maybe I need to review my math skills.
Just because a company can't _force_ arbitration doesn't mean it isn't still
an option.

The Whitehouse is just flipping words around to make it seem like a win for
consumers, but their reasoning is just a blatant lie.

Translation:

Someone paid enough of us a good deal of money to make it so they can't be
sued in court. Good luck, suckers.

~~~
tertius
> but their reasoning is just a blatant lie.

I would actually try to understand the reasoning from the DOT and then look at
the rebuttal from the CFPB before I make statements like this.

If it's as simple as you state, 1 options instead of 2, why hasn't anyone else
picked up on this blatant lie?

~~~
tehwebguy
Everyone did pick up on it. That’s what this entire thread is about. Catching
a public servant in a lie doesn’t change anything unfortunately.

~~~
tertius
I haven't seen anyone in this thread talk about the DOT's report, i.e. what it
seems the result of the vote is based on. Or even what the White House has
said in statements regarding the reasoning to do it.

Neither have I seen where the simple statement "one option is less than two"
is published by any media outlet.

------
self_assembly
This is probably a dumb question but I would appreciate a serious answer.

How am I considered a consumer of Equifax? Aren't the consumers the people
that use Equifax to check my credit? When did I ever enter into an agreement
with Equifax that binds me to arbitration?

~~~
lostdog
Did you freeze or lock your credit with Equifax? Have you ever checked your
credit report with Equifax so you knew it would be in advance?

Congratulations. You no longer have access to the court system.

~~~
craftyguy
Cool, I have never done any of those things with equifax! Where do I sign up
for the class action lawsuit?

~~~
lr4444lr
Why would you? To get $10 and a year of free credit monitoring, and thus
indemnify them for any further damage resulting from the breach? Better to opt
out and wait until/if you actually suffer identity theft. Even if you're
forced into arbitration you'll probably get more for your individual damages.

~~~
s73ver_
To punish Equifax?

The problem with the snarky, knee jerk response to class actions that you have
is that most class actions are instances where individuals aren't harmed for
much, but together it's quite significant.

And I have absolutely no faith in private arbitration to do anything but find
for the entity paying their fees.

------
otakucode
A couple years ago I got a robocall. It was a recording urging me to call my
Congressman and ask them to cut funding to the USCB. Specifically that, the
USCB. They did not use its name, only its acronym. They claimed that it was an
agency responsible for harming small business in vague terms. After hanging
up, I was curious so looked up what the USCB was. I'd never heard of it
previously but after reading their website it was pretty clear to me that some
company or companies was trying to drum up people opposing the agency based on
sheer ignorance and misinformation. I should mention, I live in West Virginia
where they might think that such a tactic would work. I get lots of political
robocalls trying to convince me person X or Y is an enemy of coal or whatever
(odd considering what a tiny number of people that industry actually
employs... but it still holds most in the state in thrall) but that's the
first I can think of that was trying to drum up support for something like
this.

~~~
miaklesp
If someone wants to talk about something, they should at least call in person.
I always hang up on robocalls.

------
peterlk
Pure speculation ahead:

Suppose for a moment that the Equifax hack was carried out by a nation-state
(like, say, North Korea). This is not an issue of consumer trust and safety.
It is an issue of national (US) security and safety.

To give another analogy, imagine that in 1920, the Canadian military marched
over the border and robbed some banks. Does it make sense for the patrons of
that bank to be able to sue the bank? Maybe. It seems like that's less of an
issue than the fact that Canada has seized assets that belong to US citizens.

My point is not that Equifax is innocent, or that the situation is being
handled appropriately, but rather that this whole thing looks weird enough
that there it's probably a lot worse (and more complicated) than we think it
is.

~~~
iamleppert
The way to get better security is to let the free market system work as its
intended: Equifax should die a painful death by the masses, if necessary
piecemeal one lawsuit at a time until the company coffers have been emptied
(and preferably any directors, agents, vested entities, and anyone else within
a legally-defensible stone's throw). It may sound harsh, but that's life and
life ain't fair.

That's the only way to send a message strong enough that if you are going to
operate an IT business, which is what Equifax is, and you have poor security,
you will not be protected by the government.

In fact, protecting Equifax and other companies who fail to properly maintain
adequate security will send a message to other corporations that this kind of
behavior will be tolerated, and these companies may be incentivized to not
invest in their security. I've seen situations exactly like this play out at
companies before. If the rules of the market suddenly change, so will the
industry.

And why should we risk the stability of an entire industry because of one
company? The security problems aren't going away, even if we decide to create
laws that say they don't matter -- they will still be there at the end of the
day, and someone will be able to exploit them. It's bad for business, bad for
consumers, and ultimately bad for whatever government is foolish enough to
create such policy.

~~~
unchocked
Your claim sounds good the way you put it, but less so when you consider that
retributive justice seems ineffectual at deterring violent crime... unless
you're also going to claim that shitty companies are generally smarter than
felons.

~~~
nerdponx
The analogy does not work. People commit violent crimes for very different
reasons than shitty companies commit economic crimes.

And at the end of the day, there is some amount of basic deterrence for people
who are not in some kind of adverse mental state. How many more crimes of
passion would there be if murder, or assault, were not so harshly penalized?
The “deterrence does not work“ line as a matter of degrees, not absolutes, and
only applies to a subset of the population. For the rest of us, it works just
fine.

So to re-join the topic at hand, think of it this way: there will always be
outright criminal corporate actors, and deterrence by corporate death will
never stop them. These are the Bernie Madoffs and Jeffrey Skillings of the
world. Their corporate actors, however, only act the way they do because they
are simply are no consequences for doing otherwise, and upper management has
evidently quashed their consciences entirely: AT&T (selling deanonymized data
with token, non-retractable consent), BP (Gulf oil spill), Equifax (not caring
about your security). Lest we forget that these businesses are in the business
of making money, and they do so with terrifying efficiency, and their
management is soullessly shrewd. If something is risky and expensive because
it entails a high chance of a lawsuit or some other penalty, they will think
twice about it.

~~~
dredmorbius
Actually, no. A massive amount of crime is either primarily or secondarily
driven by economics.

That is, the crime is conducted for direct financial _gain_ (various black
markets, theft, burglary, fraud), to _defend_ a criminal enterprise (turf
wars), to gain resources to feed some criminal activity (drugs and gambling
addictions, especially), or as a consequence of economic marginalisation
(people pushed into desperate situations, or engaging in activities on account
of those).

(There's also a tremendous amount of white-collar and corporate crime which is
never prosecuted, a whole 'nother story. The dumb criminals are the ones who
get caught.)

Even various forms of tribalistic / hate crimes are often related (with
varying levels of justification, having a floor of zero) to economic
perceptions. As are crimes of passion or pride or reputation.

There's not a whole lot of crime that _isn 't_ at least arguably connected to
some economic motive or dynamic.

------
curiousgal
What are some arguments _for_ money in politics; lobbying?

~~~
sampo
That the alternative might be worse?

~~~
s73ver_
I can't possibly see how. Limit every American to $500 of political donations
a year. Everyone has the right to speech, but no one has the right to more
speech than another.

------
DubiousPusher
I see a lot of hate here for lawyers who pursue Class-Action suits. I think
it's pretty easy to see them as syphoning money off of problems that don't
personally affect them and are often minor.

They do have one very strong value though. They act as a solution to the
concentrated benefit diffuse cost problem.

The large take of a class action is essentially a honey pot that draws action
when most of us would just put up with the problem because it represents a
personal cost too small to care about.

------
tertius
What's the best argument for this vote?

~~~
tantalor
It's not very good:

"the rule would harm our community banks and credit unions by opening the door
to frivolous lawsuits by special interest trial lawyers."

[http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/10/25/559950275/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/10/25/559950275/senate-kills-rule-on-class-action-suits-against-
financial-companies)

~~~
dguaraglia
Ah, yeah, the old Republican trick of creating rules that clearly benefit
giant corporations and pass it on the basis that it'd hurt "small
corporations." I'm sorry, but if your tiny community bank fucked up badly
enough to be on the receiving end of a class-action, maybe they deserve to be
affected. Same for bigger banks.

~~~
ifhd
> creating rules that clearly benefit

I think you mean removing rules that clearly constrain?

~~~
dguaraglia
Six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. The end goal is the same: consumer
rights get restricted in the name of "poor small businesses". That's been
their rallying cry for everything, from tax cuts to trying to write
homophobia/misogyny into law (the many "freedom of religion" laws that certain
states pass at least once a year at great cost to the tax-payer, only to be
struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.)

------
s73ver_
The vote was extremely partisan, with no Dems voting for it. Remember that
next time someone tries to discourage you by saying both parties are the same.

------
coldcode
Could as a consumer not add an arbitration clause to every contract you are
handed with the same requirements except you get to pick the arbitrator? It
seems strange to me that legally only one side of a contract gets to pick all
the niceties. I suppose they would have you arrested for impersonating a
lawyer to even ask for this.

~~~
stult
> I suppose they would have you arrested for impersonating a lawyer to even
> ask for this.

No, in theory anyone can negotiate the terms of their own contracts.

> It seems strange to me that legally only one side of a contract gets to pick
> all the niceties.

These are called "contracts of adhesion" (i.e. take it or leave it terms) and
are subject to slightly stricter interpretive standards than fully negotiated
contracts. It would be impossible for a very large company selling consumer
products to have lawyers reviewing every consumer contract because the cost
would likely exceed the revenue for each contract, never mind the profits. So
it makes sense that it's allowed, though in theory we should be using
regulators to ensure that they aren't abused. We don't do that, though, hence
the current case.

>Could as a consumer not add an arbitration clause to every contract you are
handed with the same requirements except you get to pick the arbitrator?

Not really. You could manually modify a contract by crossing out terms in pen,
but that's only enforceable in cases where the other party also signs the
contract. As opposed to most consumer contracts where you sign the boilerplate
you are given but the company doesn't then cosign that same copy. In some
jurisdictions, even if they sign the same copy, they have to initial the
changes for them to be enforceable to stop people from sliding things into a
large contract on the sly. But you could certainly try this with a larger
personal contract like a car purchase or home rental agreement. I personally
do not recommend trying to slide things in without the other party noticing,
but it's always worth negotiating if you think they are willing and the
modification is worth pursuing.

~~~
mathiasben
I'd like to think it would be possible to create a platform where blocs of
consumers could negotiate, examine, modify these contracts of adhesion as a
class action.

------
Chaebixi
Do, what can be done? Who should I support to fight back against stuff like
this (organizations, not politicians)?

------
typeformer
Wells Fargo 10 billion People 0

~~~
ifhd
> People 0

Not quite, but give them a few more years in power.

------
runesoerensen
_“Tonight’s vote is a giant setback for every consumer in this country,”
Richard Cordray, the director of the consumer bureau, said in a statement. “As
a result, companies like Wells Fargo and Equifax remain free to break the law
without fear of legal blowback from their customers.”_

------
hyolaris
This only highlights the moral emptiness and naked corruption of the modern
GOP.

Deregulation is fine if you strengthen the ability of citizens to obtain
redress through the judicial system. If you weaken that ability, or it is
weakened, you increase regulation.

But they're both deregulating and restricting judicial redress, which only
increases power of those who don't need it.

Companies either are liable or not; these clauses preventing class action
lawsuits seem baseless to me.

~~~
wallace_f
What's crazy is that since Reagan the GOP is also fine with increased gov
spending, among a host of other increasingly authoritarian policies.*

So no longer can they even claim to be anti government corruption & spending,
and pro business & 'freedom.' They just appear to be 'anti people.'

But please don't pretend the Dems are a whole lot better on most of these
issues... I really hope our generation can work together and do something
about this failing two-party system.

*a short list: domestic surveillance, police militarization, civil forfeiture, anti net netruality, military expansion, pro Wall St, hand outs to healthcare lobbysits, etc..

~~~
Chathamization
> But please don't pretend the Dems are a whole lot better on most of these
> issues... I really hope our generation can work together and do something
> about this failing two-party system.

Paying attention and voting accordingly is a pretty good solution.
Unfortunately, almost no one does that (and it tends to be even worse at the
local level).

~~~
okreallywtf
Thanks for reminding me to go vote today ;)

------
burntrelish1273
This should be on (e.g., researched) Thom Hartmann and Democracy now. It would
also be good if Warren were to weigh in if this appears to provide cover for
this oligopoly club member instead of allowing redress by consumers (e.g.,
every person with credit in America).

------
wnevets
Why do republicans hate the american consumer so much?

------
Haydos585x2
Like they say in the article it looks like Equifax was only stopping clients
from joining a class action against TrustedID. It also doesn't say anything
about people suing individually. I suppose we can expect to see every company
now put this into their terms and conditions, which is certainly a step back
in consumer rights.

~~~
forapurpose
> It also doesn't say anything about people suing individually.

Lawsuits are very expensive and time-consuming. Few individuals have the
resources to sue companies like Equifax. Also, if Equifax defrauds 10 million
people of $1,000 each, that's $10 billion in fraud but zero penalty, because
$1,000 isn't worth a lawsuit for any individual.

------
Shivetya
this was not about protecting consumers but instead about protecting the
interest of trial lawyers who saw their money slush fund about to dry up. this
is a group that notoriously donates to one party over another and exerts
incredible control over that party. this rule would have done far more than
just smack financial institutions as it was only a first move by the bureau
which operates too far outside of what should have been permitted.

This was a law masquerading as a regulation and it needs to a law passed by
Congress and not some out of control government agency who reports to no one.
Go read up on this construct, it was an attempt to prevent normal government
checks and balances from affecting it. Its chief is not subject to anyone,
there are strict rules to prevent their removal, their funding is not from
Congress but instead the Federal Reserve. Even the Fed cannot control the
spending of this agency which can reach 12% of the Fed's budget; meaning
nearly half a billion dollars to an unaccountable agency.

So while the law was good it is the agency affecting it that is the true issue
and this agency needs to be put back into an accountable structure like all
Federal Agencies. This was a pure partisan attempt to create an agency and
staff it in a particular way to prevent debate and review.

~~~
freeone3000
So instead of an unaccountable government agency, your only option for redress
is an arbiter that the company you're complaining against hired.
"Unaccountable" is another word for "provably uninfluenced". Arbitration is
provably influenced.

(For your other points: "rich" trial lawyers that make, on average, less than
software developers? "partisan" isn't the dirty word you think it is, ideas
should be judged on merits regardless of source. Funding from the fed reserve
is actually fairly brilliant, considering the continual issues with passing a
budget in congress.)

~~~
nerdponx
_“Unaccountable " is another word for "provably uninfluenced"_

What? No. “Unaccountable” means “can’t hold them accountable for their
actions”.

~~~
freeone3000
Yes, that is the literal meaning of the word. However, when a government holds
an agency "accountable", it is exerting influence over it. "Accountable"
agencies have their effectiveness swing wildly depending on the current
governing party's whims. "Unaccountable" agencies, like the Federal Reserve
and the United States Supreme Court, carry on doing what they do regardless of
whatever nonsense Congress is doing this week.

