The judge doesn’t care one way or the other, and the class lawyers don’t care about the class members as long as the class lawyers get their windfall.

How about a compromise. Allow class actions where there are mandatory arbitration clauses to do class arbitration.

“And why would I be more dissatisfied with that result than the whopping $0 I’d get otherwise, because nobody sensible takes a claim worth less than $100 to individual arbitration?”

I’m not sure I agree with that, since the companies pay nearly all the costs of arbitration and several studies have shown the on average, complaining customers get a higher award from arbitration than they would from a class action.

And why would I be more dissatisfied with that result than the whopping $0 I’d get otherwise, because nobody sensible takes a claim worth less than $100 to individual arbitration?

It’s also unclear to me why the problem of “a windfall for the class lawyers and pennies on the dollar of recovery vs loss for the class members” must be solved by allowing financial institutions to simply opt themselves out of being subject to the nation’s justice system as opposed to improving class actions so that they work better for all parties.

You’d likely get even less satisfaction out of the results of a typical class action lawsuit.

Few class actions actually go to trial and the vast majority of settlements result in a windfall for the class lawyers and pennies on the dollar of recovery vs loss for the class members.

Because I’ll tell you what kind of experience I don’t find satisfactory. If my bank calculates overdraft fees or interest improperly for years or charges me improperly for insurance on my mortgage, is caught, and I’m told my only recourse, the only recourse for the thousands or millions wronged, is to individually arbitrate my low-dollar claim.