Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you dont usually need lawyers for arbitration cases, but you do however need them for class action lawyers.
Wells Fargo would probably rather have a group of lawyers fighting one class action lawsuit over thousands of different arbitration cases. Now all of a sudden they will need to hire even more individuals to show up at arbitration cases, and given their average payouts are 150 times higher, this might actually be the worse
thing in the world for a bank in the event they really do something stupid in volume.
How long will it take 25,000 cases to get through arbitration? Of course you need a lawyer in arbitration also. The average person is not able to legally lay out the harm. Many people can not afford this.
The number of arbitration cases will seriously climb, if you think it'll stay at 39 per year you're kidding yourself.
its far easier to file an arbitration case than a lawsuit anyways, and its far cheaper.
this makes it easier for the consumer to seek recourse, especially poor consumers
I dont agree with taking away a right to sue, but to pretend this means banks can do what or this destroys consumers ability to recover damages, is just idiotic.
How many arbitration cases did you file and what was the outcome. If your phone company screws you out of $3 dollars every month are you going to arbitration, most people don't even know what these companies are doing to them.
I recall one of the cell companies allowing some contractor to insert charges that were purely a money grab that consumers didn't even realize.
I'm not talking about the payout per person, I'm talking about the payout per case.
But you have to look at the payout per person because overall, if a bank is going to hurt 100,000 individuals, then the total pay per person is what matters..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zero
"NERA’s data indicates that the median settlement fund value fluctuated between $9 million and $9.8 million for each year from 2010 through 2013, with the largest percentage of settlements valued at less than $10 million."
This data on consumer class action settlements is a bit old, and settlements are even higher now. So if you're a corporation, are you going to be more worried about losing a few thousand in an arbitration case, or millions in a class action lawsuit?
But thats only because a class action lawsuit can contain thousands upon thousands of individuals, and overall, thousands of people filing arbitration cases with a bank will be far more of a hindrance to them than one class action lawsuit
It's not up to you to decide for others what is best for them. It's not up to the government. The Constitution gives us a right to assemble with whoever I want. If I am harmed and my neighbors are harmed there is NO reason the government should step in and state that we all can not sue together.
I spent the last eight years arguing against the undefendable and here we are again.
i already said I disagreed with this, I'm only arguing that the consumer isnt getting screwed by going to arbitration
How many arbitration cases did you file and what was the outcome. If your phone company screws you out of $3 dollars every month are you going to arbitration, most people don't even know what these companies are doing to them.
I recall one of the cell companies allowing some contractor to insert charges that were purely a money grab that consumers didn't even realize.
If a phone company is screwing someone out of $3 every month, you dont even sue, you file a complaint with the PUC
How long will it take 25,000 cases to get through arbitration? Of course you need a lawyer in arbitration also. The average person is not able to legally lay out the harm. Many people can not afford this.
it'll take a **** load of time for banks to deal with 25,000 cases through arbitration, and usually the payouts will be about the same if they harmed everyone similar.
This might be the worst things the banks ever see, dealing with 25,000 cases vs 1
i already said I disagreed with this, I'm only arguing that the consumer isnt getting screwed by going to arbitration
The consumer can NOT afford to go through arbitration so yes, by forcing only this option they are getting screwed. Many times in a class action the desired outcome by the participants is not a big payout for themselves.
Scale. No one takes the time to go through arbitration. So if two got $150 and 20,000 got $1 the banks win no matter what.
The bank only won if 0 people seek to sue or arbitrate. Any other outcome is very expensive for them and damaging to their reputation, which costs even more money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
