Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdross | Hacker News Reader

They already do. And if the customers disagree, they can sue the company personally or as a class.

This is where the “free market will handle it!” completely fails as an argument.

Lawsuits are RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE and are effectively inaccessible for almost all Americans. The civil and criminal legal systems are unbelievably tilted in favour of the wealthy.

The class action is paid for out of damages.

Well you are assuming a suit will even be possible. Let's not forget most force you to waive your right to a lawsuit, even a class action one, in favor of mediation. Where they choose the Mediator, the location, and the date/time.

And if a company repeatedly and systematically flauts this behavior?

Lawsuits are expensive and tilt heavily in favor of whoever has the bigger pocket book.

Allowing market players to deceive consumers just creates bad incentives and terrible companies.

I do not have the 10 years and 10 million dollars required to sue any of the fortune 100 for any wrong doing regardless of its severity.

> Lawsuits are expensive

So are Teslas.

I get the argument. I’m not saying we legalise fraud. But if we’re spending the earnings of the average American, who barely earn enough in a whole year after tax to buy one, I would want to be damn sure there isn’t anything applicable to them being de-prioritised. (Hint: there is.)

If you’re buying an upgrade on a luxury car, you can afford a lawyer or find someone in a similar situation who can.

You can call a class action lawyer who will work on contingency and get part of the settlement and extra paymentnfor your effort as a class representative.

Is the judiciary not funded by tax dollars? By your logic, Why should the judiciary get involved between two independent parties, when they could arbitrate among themselves?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com