SCOTUS makes corporations immune to consumer lawsuits

[null0010]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110427/ap_ ... ss_actions

In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.

Businesses commonly require arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to protect them from facing their customers in court. The Supreme Court's decision means that corporations now won't need to worry about consumers, shareholders or even employees banding together and fighting them using lawsuits or arbitration, consumer groups said.

"Now, whenever you sign a contract to get a cell phone, open a bank account or take a job, you may be giving up your right to hold companies accountable for fraud, discrimination or other illegal practices," said Deepak Gupta, a Public Citizen lawyer who argued the case.

Wonderful.

[Foil]

Like the 5-4, I'm actually a bit torn on this one.

Part of me says, "hey, no one forced you to sign the contract" and, "read it beforehand, and if you don't like the conditions, don't sign it."

Other part of me wonders, "should a condition which says 'you can't sue me' even be allowed in a contract"?

Who knows, we may start seeing some competition involving contract language (e.g. commercials for"No-Arb Contracts!").

[woodchip]

And how is this any different from not being able to sue any federal or state agencies that can and do cause way more damage to the innocent?

[CUDA]

key word is "class action" it doesn't stop the individual lawsuits from proceeding,

[Spidey]

Yea, life is tough when you can’t gang up on someone.

[flip]

Yeah, but as one person against a conglomerate of corporations you have no chance to win either. I'd say this may even be an infringement on a people's right to assembly. Who's to say just how specific that should be read. All I see in today's politics are attempts by both sides to stymie the collective voice of individuals. This being another case in point. As far as having a choice as to what kinda blanket policies these corporations keep imposing, I'm not so sure. It's their game, if you want to sit at the table you gotta play by house rules.

[Will Robinson]

I wish they would cause some serious torte reform instead of attack the arbitration/class action aspect. Start making lawyers who toss out the net to troll for money by suing the deep pockets over frivolous stuff pay big big fines and make them more vulnerable to civil counter suits from the targets of their fishing expeditions and limit the lawyers compensation in big class actions...

[Tunnelcat]

WOW, what timing! Just watched the season opener of South Park the other day called HUMANCENTiPAD. They really skewered the "not reading the EULA before OKing it" dilemma we all face when we buy certain things, especially software or electronic products. I guess we just lost a little more of our rights as individuals thanks to SCOTUS. Chip, chip, chip, chip...................................

Warning: One of their raunchier episodes.

HUMANCENTiPAD

[CUDA]

I guess we just lost a little more of our rights as individuals thanks to SCOTUS. Chip, chip, chip, chip...................................

PLEASE enlighten us what Individual rights did you lose???

[fliptw]

One,The ruling states that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws in terms of invalidating contracts.
Two, its now harder to get out of a contract that requires arbitration in order to sue.

Supremacy Clause is Supreme.

[CUDA]

One,The ruling states that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws in terms of invalidating contracts.
Two, its now harder to get out of a contract that requires arbitration in order to sue.

Supremacy Clause is Supreme.

One, is a changed stature that affects class action suits not individual suits.you can still sue on an individual basis,
Two, Harder not impossible

[Tunnelcat]

I guess we just lost a little more of our rights as individuals thanks to SCOTUS. Chip, chip, chip, chip...................................

PLEASE enlighten us what Individual rights did you lose???

The right to SUE the bastards when they take our money and don't deliver what's promised. You try arbitration sometime when some company screws you out of your hard earned money. In fact, HP and Nvidia got sued for selling people defective laptops they wouldn't warrant, and now thanks to a class action suit, they have to pay up, and our redress wasn't due to no stinking "arbitration". Thanks SCOTUS for making this now impossible!

[CUDA]

I guess we just lost a little more of our rights as individuals thanks to SCOTUS. Chip, chip, chip, chip...................................

PLEASE enlighten us what Individual rights did you lose???

The right to SUE the bastards when they take our money and don't deliver what's promised. You try arbitration sometime when some company screws you out of your hard earned money. In fact, HP and Nvidia got sued for selling people defective laptops they wouldn't warrant, and now thanks to a class action suit, they have to pay up, and our redress wasn't due to no stinking "arbitration". Thanks SCOTUS for making this now impossible!

UHM you may wish to Re-read what the decision was. you still have the right to "SUE the bastards"

[null0010]

CUDA, you may wish to familiarize yourself with what an arbitration clause is and does; it really seems like you don't know.

[Nightshade]

Suddenly you're outraged? What about the eminent domain ruling a few years back? Didn't that get you at least a little angry as well?

[null0010]

Suddenly you're outraged? What about the eminent domain ruling a few years back? Didn't that get you at least a little angry as well?

If you recall, I was not a member of this forum at the time. I assume you're talking about the 2005 case? If so, then yes, I was outraged. Can we return to the topic of arbitration clauses, now?

Thanks.

[Spidey]

If you don’t wish to be bound by arbitration, don’t enter into any contracts that require it. And if there are so many that you can’t avoid them…well that’s where consumer choice comes into play…in theory anyway. Riiiight!

You might be better off in arbitration anyways, seeing how screwed up the courts are.

I don’t see the problem here, most people enter into contracts without even reading them, then they complain when something happens they don’t like.

[Heretic]

South Park Written all over that Spidey

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-ep ... ancentipad

[Spidey]

Yea, I always let comedy shows do my thinking for me.

[null0010]

I don’t see the problem here, most people enter into contracts without even reading them, then they complain when something happens they don’t like.

Some people actually read contracts before agreeing with them. Problem with arbitration clauses is that very nearly every contract you'll ever come across has one.

[Spidey]

Problem with arbitration clauses is that very nearly every contract you'll ever come across has one.

Well, you can thank a sue crazy society and the “slip and fall” lawyers for that.

[null0010]

Problem with arbitration clauses is that very nearly every contract you'll ever come across has one.

Well, you can thank a sue crazy society and the “slip and fall” lawyers for that.

That doesn't make it right.

[Spidey]

Doesn’t make it wrong either.

[null0010]

Doesn’t make it wrong either.

But it is. Wrong, anyways.

[Spidey]

Well, you will have to explain that one to me.

As far as I can gather, you have a right to require any conditions you want in a binding contract*, no one is breaking your leg to enter into it.

My point being…I can’t really blame people from feeling the need to protect themselves from such things as frivolous lawsuits, and such…in the current environment.

We have every greedy Tom, Dick and Harry trying to make a buck, by suing everything that moves (yes, greed is a human failing, not just a big bad evil corporation failing)

You do know, you pay for all of that litigation, when you buy something…right?

*So long as its legal.