Discussion
  • Read More
    BobbySeriousHamilton Nolan
    5/05/16 9:46am

    Let’s not forget the same arbitration clauses that exist in many employment agreements, also usually unbeknown to the employee.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      toothpetardBobbySerious
      5/05/16 9:50am

      This is why I make everyone I interact with sign a forced-arbitration contract, just in case. Then our arbitrators can fight it out.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      King_jaffe_jofferBobbySerious
      5/05/16 9:50am

      It’s not that hard to read the contract offered. Not rocket science.

      Although knowing doesn’t amount to much since it’s a take it or gtfo kind of thing.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Doofenschmirtz, Inc.Hamilton Nolan
    5/05/16 10:12am

    Their survey would also show that more than 75% of consumers don’t know what their credit card interest rate is or what’s the difference between a minimum payment and their balance.

    Suing banks isn’t going to make that any clearer to stupid people, just like putting lung cancer images on cigarette packs isn’t going to get stupid people to stop smoking.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      logophobe's pointless patrolDoofenschmirtz, Inc.
      5/05/16 10:23am

      True, but it would provide a path to compensation that is generally more favorable to the consumer than arbitration. It won’t stop all forms of abuse and it won’t stop people from doing stupid things, but it provides some small incentive for banks to not screw people so badly lest they get caught and risk an expensive, public legal battle.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Doofenschmirtz, Inc.logophobe's pointless patrol
      5/05/16 10:30am

      The vast majority of class action lawsuits benefit nobody but lawyers.

      And what has expensive lawsuits done to the cigarette industry, or the healthcare industry? Products have gotten more expensive, insurance has gotten more expensive and they do the same things that they did before.

      Lawsuits accomplish ZERO in terms of benefiting consumers. And if you need more proof of this, look up at Canada where class actions weren’t even legally allowed until 1995 (and even then in limited cases). Their government bans a lot more products and protect consumers far better than the class action system and the US government put together.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Richard M TysonHamilton Nolan
    5/05/16 10:02am

    If you would like to ensure that consumer protections like this never become reality, please vote Republican in this fall’s elections.

    This is Hamilton conceding the race to Clinton. It’s really disappointing but I’ve been telling my more fervent Bernie Bro friends the same thing; it’s time. It’s sadly, Americanly, time to plug our noses and vote Hillary. God damnit. I can only hope that in four years there is a “super Bernie”, someone who holds his ideals but has enough sway with the DNC to get a fair look. Love Bernie. Forced to vote Hillary since I understand that we live in a representative republic and not an absolute democracy, despite what all the people new to politics think. Fuck.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      HulkHogansDickRichard M Tyson
      5/05/16 10:09am

      God damnit. I can only hope that in four years there is a “super Bernie”, someone who holds his ideals but has enough sway with the DNC to get a fair look.

      I’d rather have in two years a whole bunch of “mini Bernies” (the in theory Bernie that people like, not the real life Bernie who has some major short comings... maybe just a whole bunch of people who would actually stick to Obama’s 2008 campaigning platform) who actually get some of these dumb fuck liberals (the ones ready to not vote at all if Clinton is the nominee) out to a mid-term election.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      NoGasRichard M Tyson
      5/05/16 10:09am

      It’s HamNo basically saying Hillary is a republican. Not vote republican. Clinton is at best a very conservative liberal. At worst, a socially liberal conservative.

      Hillary Clinton is going to back banks and corporate groups in force, with all the clout of the POTUS office. Trump is going to do the same. It doesn’t matter which you vote for there.

      Remember: Clinton (Bill) pushed to repeal glass-steagal, and Clinton (Hillary) supported it, and still does after seeing all a the problems it's caused.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    skefflesHamilton Nolan
    5/05/16 9:51am
    If you would like to ensure that consumer protections like this never become reality, please vote Republican in this fall’s elections.

    Do we have a choice? Hillary or Trump, it is going to be a pro business Republican hawk either way. 2016 the year of “More of the same”. If you’ve felt debt piling up, student loans rising, and your lifestyle and finances being gradually undermined by rising costs and little to no wage increase: Vote Hillary or Trump for another four years of exactly that.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      onholdskeffles
      5/05/16 10:03am

      You keep saying the same thing over and over again. A majority of democrats don’t agree with you, and won’t agree with you no matter how many times you post “Hitlery is a Republican! duhr hur!!1!1"

      Haven’t you heard, butthurt Bernie fans went out of fashion a week ago, you’re supposed to be in the depression/testing phase by now.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      m9105826onhold
      5/05/16 10:10am

      Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it untrue. An opinion that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a history of siding with moneyed interests is like an opinion that dinosaur bones were put there by a time traveling Hitler under direct orders of Satan. You’re welcome to believe it, but it doesn’t make you not stupid.

      That said, I do trust her to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices over anyone on the right, so she’ll get my vote in the fall.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SplatworthyHamilton Nolan
    5/05/16 9:50am

    ‘If you would like to ensure that consumer protections like this never become reality, please vote Republican in this fall’s elections.’

    Wait, so you’re saying Hillary Clinton will take the consumer’s side against Wall Street?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      skefflesSplatworthy
      5/05/16 9:53am

      Yeah. This year we’re going to have to vote Republican because there are two Republicans standing and no alternative.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      opiumsmabytchSplatworthy
      5/05/16 9:56am

      Honestly kinda horrified at the thought of Clinton and Trump going toe to toe in debates. I’m sure they’ll rip each other apart on stage in front of the audience but backstage they’ll probably be high-fiving each other and planning together on responses.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    DolemiteHamilton Nolan
    5/05/16 9:56am

    What’s the official percentage of arbitration companies (that are paid by the corporations) finding in favor of the corporations? Something like 90-95%? Seems strange that someone would go through the trouble of arbitration due to being unsatisfied with a product or service and almost 100% of these people have no real issue.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ARP2Dolemite
      5/05/16 10:24am

      1. Yes, it’s 90%+ finding in favor of the company
      2. I think they have nothing to lose. The company usually already has their money (or other form of leverage). Arbitration tends to be less document/time intensive, so why not try?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ishouldbeworkingHamilton Nolan
    5/05/16 3:52pm

    Arbitration is not the inherent problem.

    The problem is overburdened court systems, which can cause a case to be delayed for YEARS, not even accounting for an appeal or two, as well as the extreme costs of litigation. Arbitration was created as a means to not have to deal with all that crap, or at least minimize it.

    The problem is that the people who are the abritrators (I usually see a panel of a few people) tend to be industry experts (often retired) who likely are somewhat biased or at least appear to be biased.

    If there is a way to ensure impartiality or at least balance the arbitration panel between industry experts and consumer protection experts, why not continue to arbitrate?

    The ability to sue in a court of law isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, esp. as the option of a class action lawsuit continues to be undermined by judges.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      icanneverremembermyburnercodeHamilton Nolan
      5/05/16 12:58pm

      These things are in fucking everything now. Look at anything you've purchased or bought in the last few months and pull up the fine print if you still have the paperwork or can access it online. I'd be shocked if you find anything without an arbitration clause. The problem is that the courts actually love these things because it reduces the amount of lawsuits they have to process, not to mention the CFPB had been having their head served to them on a platter by the courts as of late. I'd be shocked if this holds which sucks.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        PrettyLegitHamilton Nolan
        5/05/16 12:14pm

        “If you would like to ensure that consumer protections like this never become reality, please vote Republican in this fall’s elections.”

        But if Clinton is the nominee then you won’t be able to vote Democrat if you want those protections either, so. . .

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          JunkeezHamilton Nolan
          5/05/16 12:11pm

          The moment that case was settled every corporation started redoing their T&C’s to include it. XBOX, PS4, your cell phone company all did it and forced you to sign the new terms. The SCOTUS effectively destroyed class action lawsuits and most people have no idea. It’s amazing.

          Reply
          <