What's the point of near worthless class action lawsuits?

[QueBert]

Neighbor is one of the many AT&T has been bullshitting on the DSL package he was paying for and what he actually got. For 2.5 years now he's been paying for the Elite, but been getting the basic. The price difference is about 2x for the Elite. To my surprise he's only going to be getting a $3 credit a month. Now this wasn't a simple oversight on AT&T's part, I'm sure it was very deleberate, it was bad enough a class action law suit had to be filed. At $3 a month it will take him about 20 years to actually get the money they swindled him out of back. I guess something is better than nothing, but shouldn't these people be fairly compensated? And if he drops AT&T all together what happens? My dislike for those fuckers went up greatly after hearing this news. I know this is probably old news but it's new to me.

 

[moshquerade]

The point is to make the lawyers involved a lot of money.

 

[MJinZ]

Say you got damaged by AT&T by $20 bucks a month.

OK.

Well Lawyers don't work for free.

So they take $17 bucks a month.

And you get $3 bucks.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Lawyers get 25-50% of the settlement.

Rock salt.

 

[BoomerD]

The point is to make the lawyers involved a lot of money.

Exactly. These lawsuits aren't worthless. They make lawyers hundreds of millions of $$ every year. Don't kid yourself...making lawyers money is the ONLY desired end result of class-action lawsuits.

Say you got damaged by AT&T by $20 bucks a month.

OK.

Well Lawyers don't work for free.

So they take $17 bucks a month.

And you get $3 bucks.

Is MJinZ a lawyer? If he can justify what he posted...if he thinks that's right and fair, he MUST be.

IMO, the lawyer should get the $3.00 while the ripped-off consumer gets the $17.00.

 

[coldmeat]

Say you got damaged by AT&T by $20 bucks a month.

OK.

Well Lawyers don't work for free.

So they take $17 bucks a month.

And you get $3 bucks.

$3 bucks? Those are some cheap bucks.

 

[Dirigible]

Lotta cynics here.

It's not just about plaintiffs' lawyers getting a big pot of money. It's also about AT&T's defense team cashing in.


Still, without class action suits, AT&T woulda gotten away with it scott-free, which sucks. Anyone got an idea for a better way to stop such behavior without enriching lawyers? Good. Now go start a thread in P&N. I don't want to see it here.

 

[Genx87]

Lotta cynics here.

It's not just about plaintiffs' lawyers getting a big pot of money. It's also about AT&T's defense team cashing in.


Still, without class action suits, AT&T woulda gotten away with it scott-free, which sucks. Anyone got an idea for a better way to stop such behavior without enriching lawyers? Good. Now go start a thread in P&N. I don't want to see it here.

Sue them in small claims court. I doubt his neighbor had damages more than small claims would cover and require a jury trial. AT&T would probably just pay it to not pay their 300 dollar an hour lawyer from having to fight 200 dollars worth of settlement.

 

[MJinZ]

Exactly. These lawsuits aren't worthless. They make lawyers hundreds of millions of $$ every year. Don't kid yourself...making lawyers money is the ONLY desired end result of class-action lawsuits.




Is MJinZ a lawyer? If he can justify what he posted...if he thinks that's right and fair, he MUST be.

IMO, the lawyer should get the $3.00 while the ripped-off consumer gets the $17.00.

:awe:

:sneaky:

Cost of lawsuits is also a great deterrent for deviant corporate behavior, so not only to make Lawyers earn their keep. Class Action of course is pretty generic, so you can't expect much. Mass Tort - different story. And of course, if you individually file suit ... you can expect to keep most of the winnings (lawyer's fees are generally paid out as part of judgment by losing party, and then usually the retainer will specify % of earnings).

 

[Nik]

I took part in a RAM settlement a couple years ago. I got a check for $0.38. Lawyers made bank.

So pointless to even bother.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

as people have said, class action lawsuits usually benefit the lawyers (esp. the plaintiff side if victorious)....usually they get the most benefit while the plaintiffs get the short stick.

other than that, I hesitate at calling class action suits "worthless" because sometimes only the threat or very likely prospect of heavy fines / lawsuits can prompt changes in business behavior. Massey in W.Va was heavily fined but they contested it, so there was no short-term incentive for them to alter their behavior.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

In most (possibly all) states, the members of a class must be given the option to remove themselves from a settlement or damage award. Typically, the members are given notice through the mail. Your neighbor might have thought the notice was junk mail and thrown it away. So it is likely that he is bound by the damages award/settlement and will have to enjoy his $3 a month credit. IF he opted out, he scould have sued AT&T himself. If damages were awarded in the class action suit (as opposed to settlement being reached), res judicata likely would have applied.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

as people have said, class action lawsuits usually benefit the lawyers (esp. the plaintiff side if victorious)....usually they get the most benefit while the plaintiffs get the short stick.

The lawyers representing a class typically take 30% of the settlement/damages. The rest is divvied up between the members of the class, with lead members (i.e., the named plaintiffs) taking a considerably greater share than the rest of the members (to account for their increased level of risk, time commitment, etc. associated with the case).

 

[guyver01]

Logical response:

The point of a class action lawsuit, is not to earn "big bucks" ... but to bring to light deceptive or corrupt business practices and force the offending company to correct them, so future customers are not harmed by these practices.

 

[0roo0roo]

While the lawyers get too much, its the only thing keeping companies from being super douchbags apparently

 

[dud]

The point is to make the lawyers involved a lot of money.

This. The only parties that make any money in a CAL are the lawyers.

 

[bignateyk]

Lotta cynics here.

It's not just about plaintiffs' lawyers getting a big pot of money. It's also about AT&T's defense team cashing in.


Still, without class action suits, AT&T woulda gotten away with it scott-free, which sucks. Anyone got an idea for a better way to stop such behavior without enriching lawyers? Good. Now go start a thread in P&N. I don't want to see it here.

Carpet bomb their headquarters?

 

[MotF Bane]

The point is to make the lawyers involved a lot of money.

/thread

 

[marvdmartian]

The point is to make the lawyers involved a lot of money.

And that is the ONLY point. Anything the claimants receive is just icing (spread oh so thinly) on top of the cake (that is the compensation the attorneys receive).

The problem is, most people blindly trust that the class action attorneys will have their best interests at heart, and will get them fair compensation. Most of the time, if the company figures out they can save by settling, they will do so, at far less than the class action suit was asking for in the first place. Where do the attorneys consider a fair point to settle? That point that gives them all the major fees they've supposedly worked so hard for, and gives a pittance to the people who really were cheated by the company. D:

 

[ViviTheMage]

Keeps the lawyers going round.

 

[Jeeebus]

To follow-up on the other lawyer's response (soxfan), most of you are missing the point. Yes, lawyers always get paid. In a class action, as in most tort cases where lawyers work on contingency, that amount can be anywhere from 20% upwards of 40% of the total settlement/judgment.

It's a bad example though to use the "I get $5 for my overcharged phone fees, mehhhh" as a criticism of class actions. Lets say you were actually overcharged $100 by AT&T - as soxfan pointed out, you have a choice to join a class action or sue AT&T individually.

You join the class, do absolutely nothing other than sign some forms, and you get $5. You don't join the class, hire your own attorney, file a complaint, conduct depositions, go through motion practice, and eventually settle for $60. Of course you're out $5000 in legal fees, but hell, you got a bigger judgment than you would have with the class, right?

Class actions don't always make sense, nor do they always net you some minuscule amount. They do make sense sometimes, and as mentioned above, are a powerful tool in forcing a company to change its practices and/or forcing a settlement (what does AT&T care more about - five $1000 lawsuits or one $100,000,000 lawsuit?).

**Note, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a class action attorney.

 

[tk149]

The point of class action lawsuits is usually to address a perceived minor wrong.

In your AT&T example, it's just not worth it for a consumer to sue a mega-corporation over $200. Therefore, the gubment has provided lawyers with an incentive to sue on the behalf of the numerous plaintiffs, none of whom would have filed a lawsuit on their own.

As pointed out, the pros are that the company must change its evil ways. The cons are that the lawyers get all the money, the people wronged get diddly squat, and lawyers are incentivized to create spurious lawsuits.

 

[DayLaPaul]

Anyone involved in a class action lawsuit is entitled to opt out of the class action and sue their own if they want big bucks.