Hacker News Reader

It goes beyond just stealing some money. They can ruin your credit rating by claiming you didn't pay your bills even when they are incorrect. I was wondering this same thing recently after being charged for something for an extra month after cancelling. Chasing them to get the money back was a lot of hassle but if the situation were reversed they can screw my life for years.

The question shouldn't be "why" because the answer is obvious: Companies have more money and more people and more time and therefore more power than you as an individual. The solution also already exists: The government should be giving individuals free lawyers to go after companies who violate their rights. We have this system in my country where there is a people's lawyer that can choose to take up cases that seem deserving. Then we also have certain government sponsored union-like associations whose job it is to sue companies who commit wage theft and they are good at it. After all when some random person steals from you, you generally also don't have to sue them and hope a court decides in your favor. That is all the job of the government (=police). Private individuals should not have to waste their time in the legal system to defend laws that the government created.

For a lot of simple and obvious things the formula should be to call and report a "disagreement". The government employee who took the call [immediately] calls to hear the company side of the story and orders it to correct it's behavior or may chose to issue a fine. The issue is resolved in 5-20 minutes. A different fine tailored for the size of the company for not responding fast enough. If the company disagrees with the verdict they may take the government agency to court. This should mostly happen if the issue is arguably not simple and obvious enough. If the customer disagrees the court is also there to figure out the mess.

> Private individuals should not have to waste their time in the legal system to defend laws that the government created.

Government should not make a mockery of it self by creating laws that it doesn't intend to enforce or is incapable of.

> We have this system in my country where there is a people's lawyer that can choose to take up cases that seem deserving

We also have this in the US, actually we have many (state attorney generals, federal FTC and CFPB, and so on). Unfortunately (similar to our cops with crime), they're only going to bother to do anything if a company is blatantly screwing over somewhere between hundreds and thousands of people, or if the person complaining is a wealthy political donor or otherwise a friend of an elected official.

I think this boils down to the existence of megacorps. IMHO a state should just not allow corporations to grow beyond a certain marketcap level.

I see no real world benefit to allow such companies to exist, it creates "too big to fail" schemes, inefficient structures, and overall companies that are able to compete with literally small states or countries in terms of capital /legal / lobby power.

Beyond a certain marketcap, a company should not be allowed to grow anymore and just forced to split in multiple entities.

I'm surprising myself a bit, but I think I agree. I think these types of problems are inherent in companies of a certain size. When you reach a point where there is so much structure that you can only progress via metrics those metrics will inherently start to only serve themselves instead of the original goal they were attempting to be a proxy for.

When you think about it, the "winner takes all" martingale is already forbidden in most states of law.

Two companies are not allowed to merge if their total market share would past 30%, because that would allow a monopoly and thus total control over the price of goods. A winner cannot just buyout his previous opponents indefinitely.

Similarly, a company cannot (at least where I live) sell at a loss. That would allow a company with more capital to lower prices at an impossible level until competition dies out, and then increase prices back when concurrents are wiped out.

These regulations are different of course, but the overall idea is similar: a company should not be able to press its advantage exponentially. And I think the marketcap is but a forgotten rule in these regulations.

Once a company reaches a monstrous level of market cap, it is too diversified to fail, and can press its legal / lobbying leverage on some of its subbusinesses at an unfair level against competitors. If you're a search engine company, competition against Google is not just competing against an other player in the search space. You're competing against the legal and lobbying power of 10 companies.

And that's not even mentioning state supremacy concerns. I vote for my government. They may not be always want I want them to, but hey, that democracy. I don't vote for mega corps governance. I don't want them to have bargaining power over my state or country.

> I've long thought the only solution to these issues is to levy fines (or jail time if intentional theft) large enough to discourage the behavior. If it is still happening, keep raising the fines until it stops.

We need a corporate death penalty and three strike laws - where three is scaled to the customer base or total monetary damages or whatever. Upon death, any and all assets (including shares of the company, in case of restructuring) go to employee salaries until the company can be wound down.

This would only give employees a giant incentive to tank the company this way…

It's not companies that do this kind of stuff, it's people working at companies. You just jail/fine those people and all the chain of command up to the CEO. That would be an incentive to establish good procedures and not to steal on customers.

It actually is companies that do this stuff, in that if the company had sufficient monitoring and oversight in place the people working at the company wouldn't be able to do it.

That would of course require them to strive to provide the best product or service they can rather than towards maximizing their profit, though.

Or just remove the limited liability. In sense of not going after assets, but at least that any fines or prison sentences apply to anyone who had at least single stock at the time. Company you own commits fraud, you go to prison. Simple and effective to force stock owners to police board and thus employees in the end.