Charles Burck writes about the reaction to the Netflix class-action settlement. (Charles Burck, “Bloggers Challenge a Class-Action Settlement”, Corporate Board Member Magazine, March/April 2006). The opponents of the settlement cite two problems with the settlement: 1) Only the lawyers got cash, and 2) the coupons Netflix is sending to customers are really a low-cost marketing program for them, like locking you into a magazine subscription with a free first month, and doesn’t really punish Netflix or compensate customers at all. So, either there was no harm, and the suit was a big frivolous mess, or there was harm to customers, in which case the settlement utterly failed to redress it.
Apparently, there is a website to protest the settlement which announces a hearing set for tomorrow (Feb 22). Ted and Walter have been all over this on Nov 3, Jan 11, Jan 21
5 Comments
Bloggers Fight Lawsuit Abuse
Overlawyered.com writes daily about lawsuit abuse like the infamous McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit. Today they are reporting that bloggers have stepped up to the plate to …
The Daily Memo – 2/21/06
Automakers are using the law to get ahead. No way! (The Legal Reader) It appears that the states are not taking kindly to the Supreme Court’s eminent domain laws. (Althouse) The restructured Supreme Court grants cert on its first major…
class actions exist to create another regulatory authority to oversee commerce, i.e. Lawyers act as gatekeepers of commerce by enforcing consumer protection laws, securities laws, etc. Class actions do not exist to provide redress to injured parties. That may not seem “fair”, it is the way things work.
Might I suggest then that, since Plaintifflawyer is litigating with goals similar to criminal proceedings, he should get to work under the same constraints as the state’s attorney does:
1) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.
2) He has to pay for the defense.
“class actions exist to create another regulatory authority to oversee commerce, i.e. Lawyers act as gatekeepers of commerce by enforcing consumer protection laws, securities laws, etc.”
If that’s true, then they should all be in jail for crimially depriving people of their rights through extra-Contritutional means.
In other words, doing what you say class-actions ar efor is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as those involved have been neither elected nor appointed by someone elected, etc. They are self-selected.