Gus Van Horn blog Posted September 23, 2024 Report Share Posted September 23, 2024 In addition to solving a minor mystery from my childhood, John Stossel's latest column reveals something I did not know about class action lawsuits:Image by Evan Parker, via Wikipedia, license.When Google was caught sleazily collecting location data from users who turned off location history, it wouldn't have been worth any single user's time, or money, to sue. A lawsuit would cost more than anyone might win. Hence class actions.But the lawyers create their own scam. When Google paid $62 million to settle that lawsuit, the class action lawyers gave themselves $18 million and then gave $43 million to their favorite nonprofits. That included left wing advocacy groups like the ACLU (after it promised to use the money to help "people of color," "activists" and "people seeking ... transgender healthcare"). They gave victimized class members nothing. [bold added]Stossel opened with what most readers will find more typical: A couple of small checks he got as settlements for class action lawsuits here and there.I am pretty sure my general impression of this was typical: That the lawyers who won such suits made lots of money, but that members of the aggrieved class at least got something. I had no idea that these things sometimes (often? almost always?) end up simply being a way for lefties to shake down large industries while also not even awarding even nominal damages to the people who are owed compensation.Let that sink in for a moment.Small checks are understandable, and even if it weren't too easy to sue, there would be some products -- like the three-wheeled ATVs I remember from childhood -- that would vanish from the market. But simply transferring large sums of money to third parties? Even in today's cloud cuckoo land, I am amazed that this is even legal.I am grateful that John Stossel has increased the public's awareness of this abuse. Knowing about a problem is the first step towards solving it.-- CAVLink to Original Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted September 23, 2024 Report Share Posted September 23, 2024 I ought to be shocked at Stossel’s misrepresentation of the facts, but I am more or less resigned to this level of slovenly cherry-picking by the media. The judge ordered that the money, after lawyer’s expenses, be distributed to charities, because the parties themselves agreed to this. Per the order, “The Parties proposed, subject to the Court’s approval, twenty-one cy près recipients who will use the funds to further the data privacy interests of Settlement Class Members nationwide”. The underlying premise is that the hundred of millions of (unnamed) members of the class cannot practically be contacted to receive payment. This distribution was ordered because the recipients “have provided proposals for the Court’s review demonstrating how they will commit to use the funds to promote the protection of data privacy”. There were objections to the settlement, you can read the final order to see how the judge dismissed those objections. For any class action lawsuit, there must be a sufficient numerous “class”. You will have received a notification, if you are part of that class, informing you of your right to opt out of the action, therefore if you want to personally sue Google in an individual action, you can do so if you opted out. If you ignored the notification thinking “I’m not gonna get anything”, you will have waived your right to independently sue Google, you would have been correct one way or the other. You have no reasonable expectation of enrichment as a result of this lawsuit. All of the notices (e.g. the notice of proposed settlement) clearly state that the individual class member will not get one red cent. This is computable from the fact that the class size numbers in the hundred of millions, and the award numbers in the tens of millions. There is a reason why class actions benefit the left and not the right: left-wingism is a class-based ideology, right-wingism is individual-centric. Class action lawsuits are a fundamentally leftist tool. Each right-winger retains their individual right to sue Google for violating their rights, if you actually believe that Google violated their rights, unless they joined this class action. Each left-winger gleefully waived their right to a micro-sliver of the pie in favor of donations to The Greater Good. There may be exceptions to the class-membership / ideology divide in the form of right-wingers hoping to gain the unearned by remaining in the class (and not understanding the reality of this suit), also left-wingers who might want some individual benefit at the expense of The Greater Good. Instead of being amazed that cy près doctrine is “even legal”, Gus should be amazed that he was unaware that this doctrine has Byzantine (Justinian) roots and statutory origins that are 400 years old. The attack should instead be on the mechanics of class action lawsuits, a political dead-end. SpookyKitty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted September 23, 2024 Report Share Posted September 23, 2024 1 hour ago, DavidOdden said: I ought to be shocked at Stossel’s misrepresentation of the facts, but I am more or less resigned to this level of slovenly cherry-picking by the media. The judge ordered that the money, after lawyer’s expenses, be distributed to charities, because the parties themselves agreed to this. Per the order, “The Parties proposed, subject to the Court’s approval, twenty-one cy près recipients who will use the funds to further the data privacy interests of Settlement Class Members nationwide”. The underlying premise is that the hundred of millions of (unnamed) members of the class cannot practically be contacted to receive payment. This distribution was ordered because the recipients “have provided proposals for the Court’s review demonstrating how they will commit to use the funds to promote the protection of data privacy”. There were objections to the settlement, you can read the final order to see how the judge dismissed those objections. For any class action lawsuit, there must be a sufficient numerous “class”. You will have received a notification, if you are part of that class, informing you of your right to opt out of the action, therefore if you want to personally sue Google in an individual action, you can do so if you opted out. If you ignored the notification thinking “I’m not gonna get anything”, you will have waived your right to independently sue Google, you would have been correct one way or the other. You have no reasonable expectation of enrichment as a result of this lawsuit. All of the notices (e.g. the notice of proposed settlement) clearly state that the individual class member will not get one red cent. This is computable from the fact that the class size numbers in the hundred of millions, and the award numbers in the tens of millions. There is a reason why class actions benefit the left and not the right: left-wingism is a class-based ideology, right-wingism is individual-centric. Class action lawsuits are a fundamentally leftist tool. Each right-winger retains their individual right to sue Google for violating their rights, if you actually believe that Google violated their rights, unless they joined this class action. Each left-winger gleefully waived their right to a micro-sliver of the pie in favor of donations to The Greater Good. There may be exceptions to the class-membership / ideology divide in the form of right-wingers hoping to gain the unearned by remaining in the class (and not understanding the reality of this suit), also left-wingers who might want some individual benefit at the expense of The Greater Good. Instead of being amazed that cy près doctrine is “even legal”, Gus should be amazed that he was unaware that this doctrine has Byzantine (Justinian) roots and statutory origins that are 400 years old. The attack should instead be on the mechanics of class action lawsuits, a political dead-end. While the legal analysis is excellent you don't want to play into the false statist/collectivist spectrum as you did in the side comments. That just plays into the false attacks on reason, reality, rights, Objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism which is outside of all false dichotomies and contradictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted September 23, 2024 Report Share Posted September 23, 2024 37 minutes ago, EC said: While the legal analysis is excellent you don't want to play into the false statist/collectivist spectrum as you did in the side comments. Then let's just focus on a simple question: is "class action lawsuit" as it actually exists a valid means of protecting individual rights? I claim it is not, if you want to argue that it is, I'm all ears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
necrovore Posted September 23, 2024 Report Share Posted September 23, 2024 In a free economy, it should be possible for individuals to form organizations for any lawful purpose, including an ad-hoc purpose. This purpose can include profit-making or not. It can include filing a lawsuit, which is a lawful purpose. So generally people could form an ad-hoc organization with the purpose of suing somebody. The organization could file a lawsuit and would have to claim that its members were injured in some specific way, and they'd have to present evidence, and ask for damages, which (if the judge ruled in their favor) would then be distributed among the members of the group, and then the organization would cease to exist. This is different from the way class-action lawsuits are done now, because right now you can basically be "drafted" into a group without your knowledge or consent, and you are not notified until there is a verdict, and then you have to ask to be excluded from the group if you want to sue on your own. Also, the plaintiffs, since they don't even know who they are, don't have to provide evidence in a class-action lawsuit; instead, the evidence seems to come from the accused (along with the list of who is in the class), and I think that's wrong in a country that purports to have a right against self-incrimination. So I think there is something valid about the idea of "class action lawsuits" but I also think there are some serious problems with the way they are presently implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted September 23, 2024 Report Share Posted September 23, 2024 51 minutes ago, necrovore said: So I think there is something valid about the idea of "class action lawsuits" but I also think there are some serious problems with the way they are presently implemented You zeroed in on the fundamental flaw of class action lawsuits. The first problem is that the class of plaintiffs (not defendants) is indefinite and open ended: by definition it is not an action between individuals, it is an action initiated by a “description”, anyone who has so-and-so characteristic. Second, although there is a requirement that the representatives of the class (there have to be a few named individuals) are “typical” of the claims of the class and the representatives will protect the interest of the class, there is zero procedure for even communicating with supposed class on these issues, and no real attempt to determine that a majority of class members agree with the representatives. This is because of the third problem, that by simply describing a class and purporting to be acting on behalf of the class, the representatives are deemed to be acting on behalf of the class, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. The present standard is that unless you follow a particular procedure for objecting, you are deemed to be a member of the class. The alternative procedure would be to allow interested parties to join in with the class by following the same procedure and checking a different box. Inertia is a strong force, especially if you have to mail a letter to the party who wants something out of you. Opt-in lawsuits only effectively exist for suits involving specific and highly-variable damages (e.g. exploding airbags), but they used to be the standard until 1966. The burden of proof needs to be shifted back to the plaintiffs, to require that they prove their claims and not just assert them and say “we have no counter-evidence”. In fact, there is no evidence that out-outs were even tabulated and brought to bear on the numerosity question, the ruling simply accept as facially true that the class is “numerous”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.