Hacker News Reader

Comment by cezart | Hacker News Reader

I have an even "better" idea: private courts!

Imagine a corporation who's sole goal is to maximise it's profits based on judging if people/corporations have broke the law, or not! Surely they'll be more efficient than public courts. What could go wrong?

View on HN

You mean like (quasi-)forced arbitration, as spear headed by the US.

Let's be honest the US has sold out the mental, physical and economic well being of most of it's populations for the benefit of a handful of especially wealthy citizens. Worse it wasn't even done with long term geo political benefits or anything like that in mind, actually the opposite if anything. I.e. just pure greed.

Have you ever been involved in litigation? I have and it would have saved me a year of bullshit an $100k of legal fees if the contract I was litigating had a forced arbitration clause.

Isn't this why companies love Delaware, Hong Kong, and Singapore? AFAIK the courts in these jurisdictions are fast and uphold the rule of law (contract law included).

I doubt Hong Kong is that way today. Virtually every other aspect of Hong Kong civil administration is now the same as China's, or subverted to be the same.

It can be cheaper but the answer to a system favoring the wealthiest party isn’t to switch to one which is controlled by the wealthiest party.

> a system favoring the wealthiest party

Evidence for this bias is scant. Instead, complaints centre around perceptions [1], which while valid, need to be balanced against the constraint to launching litigation in the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs.

[1] https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/20195/06...

Based on that narrow quote, it's unclear whether you're disagreeing with the perceptions about litigation or arbitration. My position is simply that we know there are biases affecting access to the court system (especially with a class component where people aren't sure/aware of their full range of options) but also that large companies are enthusiastically pursuing arbitration for reasons unlikely to be improved fairness, especially since the end stage for arbitration is litigation.

The main thing I'd like would be chipping away at the take-it-or-leave it approach we see currently, which is in line with that article's points around choice. Expanding the range of choices and, especially, allowing people to switch in the future would go a long way towards avoiding an unhealthy power dynamic.

The obvious reason that large companies want arbitration is because it's cheaper. People file frivolous lawsuits against large companies all the time, and since it costs minimum $100K in legal fees to take a case to trial, these companies (or their insurance companies) will generally choose to just settle and make a payout because it's actually cheaper than going to court, even if they win. Arbitration is a much quicker and cheaper process, so it effectively counters the tactic of filing frivolous suits for greenmail payments.

Companies also routinely _claim_ that lawsuits are frivolous but that doesn't mean we should take their word on it. It's not even remotely true that it costs a minimum of $100K, so I would start by questioning whether the person who told you that had an ulterior motive.

I know that there are tons of frivolous greenmail lawsuits because I have been at companies on the receiving end. I know how much lawyers cost through personal experience. What is your evidence? What are your motives?

In a labor context, arbitration clauses are pushed for by Unions, not by corporations. Corporations win litigation.

Many corporations require non union workers agree to arbitration.

Hospitals push them onto patients, basically either you have to give away some of your most fundamental rights or potentially die of sickness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

> I have an even "better" idea: private courts!

Oh, God. Don't tell Judge Judy. :)

TV Judge Judy can't send you to prison

Reply on news.ycombinator.com