'Absolute Crap' but Brilliant: Corporate America's Plan to 'Misbehave
Without Reproach'
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/corporate_americas_plan_to_misbehave_wit
hout_reproach_20151101/
Posted on Nov 1, 2015
By Jon Queally / Common Dreams
aisletwentytwo / Flickr (CC-BY)
An independent investigation by journalists featured in the New York Times
on Sunday offers an in-depth look at the way American corporations have used
the inclusion of "arbitration clauses" within consumer contracts to
strategically circumvent judicial review of their behavior and immunize
themselves from class action lawsuits -"realistically the only tool citizens
have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices."
What the Times found was a pattern of legal dead ends for consumers seeking
to find redress for perceived injustices due to various forms of corporate
fraud and malpractice. Often buried deep within lengthy and
difficult-to-read contracts that purchasers of products or services are
forced to sign, legal experts say the injection of these arbitration clauses
"have essentially disabled consumer challenges to practices like predatory
lending, wage theft and discrimination." As the newspaper reports:
Over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to apply for a
credit card, use a cellphone, get cable or Internet service, or shop online
without agreeing to private arbitration. The same applies to getting a job,
renting a car or placing a relative in a nursing home.
Among the class actions thrown out because of the clauses was one brought by
Time Warner customers over charges they said mysteriously appeared on their
bills and another against a travel booking website accused of conspiring to
fix hotel prices. A top executive at Goldman Sachs who sued on behalf of
bankers claiming sex discrimination was also blocked, as were
African-American employees at Taco Bell restaurants who said they were
denied promotions, forced to work the worst shifts and subjected to
degrading comments.
Some state judges have called the class-action bans a "get out of jail free"
card, because it is nearly impossible for one individual to take on a
corporation with vast resources.
According to William G. Young, a Reagan-appointed federal judge in Boston
who spoke with the Times, the rise of this anti-consumer mechanism is "among
the most profound shifts in our legal history." Calling it an "ominous"
development, Young said, the increasing inability of individuals and groups
of consumers to file suit means that "business has a good chance of opting
out of the legal system altogether and misbehaving without reproach."
Earlier this month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
announced it is considering proposing rules that would ban consumer
financial companies from using these arbitration clauses to block consumers
from participating in class-action lawsuits against them. According to a
CFPB study released in March, more than 75 percent of credit card users in
the U.S. are unaware of whether they were subject to an arbitration clause
in their contract and fewer than 7 percent realized how these clauses
restrict their ability to sue in court.
Citing interviews with some of the people who helped develop the corporate
strategy as well examination of court records, the Times says the effort to
block class action lawsuits "was engineered by a Wall Street-led coalition
of credit card companies and retailers," has been more than a decade in the
making, and had a goal "to kill class actions and send plaintiffs' lawyers
to the 'employment lines.'"
However-and despite the success of their stratefic effort-Paul Wallis, a
business observer writing for the Digital Journal responded to the Times
investigation by arguing that even as this trend to immobilize consumers
with arbitration clauses show that corporate crime is again "on the rampage"
in the United States, the whole legal concept is actually built on a
fallacy.
Though acknowleding business interests have used the strategy brilliantly to
their advantage, the other way to look at contract arbitration is by
recognizing that it is "absolute crap, from start to finish."
By way of explanation, Wallis continues:
Contract law is written under the legal framework created by the
Constitution.
Contracts do not exempt anyone from prosecution under criminal law or other
statutes. A contract is a contract, not a statute. It has no force at all,
if deemed to be illegal, coercive, or otherwise not viable.
Therefore, actions taken under that contract are not immune to prosecution
or other legal processes. You can't shoot someone or rob a bank and say
"It's OK, I have a contract."
In his eyes, the entire-and deplorable-situation described in detail by the
Times investigation is both uniquely American, but also totally
"unenforceable" when looked at through the lens of the U.S. Constitution.
The entire concept, he writes, is "a load of garbage" and "shouldn't exist"
because it has "no status under the Constitution" and the idea of
inalieanable "legal protection" is a core constitutional right.
Sadly, Wallis argues, given the powerful stranglehold that corporate
interests have on the U.S. legal and political systems, it might be some
time before the damage can be undone. "Now wait for a few decades while the
mighty intellects of the Supreme Court and Congress grapple with this
issue," he concludes. "Only in the senile, decrepit, and unbelievably
corrupt modern version of the United States would this sickening decadence
even be considered possible, let alone doable."
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
'Absolute Crap' but Brilliant: Corporate America's Plan to 'Misbehave
Without Reproach'
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/corporate_americas_plan_to_misbehave_wit
hout_reproach_20151101/
Posted on Nov 1, 2015
By Jon Queally / Common Dreams
aisletwentytwo / Flickr (CC-BY)
An independent investigation by journalists featured in the New York Times
on Sunday offers an in-depth look at the way American corporations have used
the inclusion of "arbitration clauses" within consumer contracts to
strategically circumvent judicial review of their behavior and immunize
themselves from class action lawsuits -"realistically the only tool citizens
have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices."
What the Times found was a pattern of legal dead ends for consumers seeking
to find redress for perceived injustices due to various forms of corporate
fraud and malpractice. Often buried deep within lengthy and
difficult-to-read contracts that purchasers of products or services are
forced to sign, legal experts say the injection of these arbitration clauses
"have essentially disabled consumer challenges to practices like predatory
lending, wage theft and discrimination." As the newspaper reports:
Over the last few years, it has become increasingly difficult to apply for a
credit card, use a cellphone, get cable or Internet service, or shop online
without agreeing to private arbitration. The same applies to getting a job,
renting a car or placing a relative in a nursing home.
Among the class actions thrown out because of the clauses was one brought by
Time Warner customers over charges they said mysteriously appeared on their
bills and another against a travel booking website accused of conspiring to
fix hotel prices. A top executive at Goldman Sachs who sued on behalf of
bankers claiming sex discrimination was also blocked, as were
African-American employees at Taco Bell restaurants who said they were
denied promotions, forced to work the worst shifts and subjected to
degrading comments.
Some state judges have called the class-action bans a "get out of jail free"
card, because it is nearly impossible for one individual to take on a
corporation with vast resources.
According to William G. Young, a Reagan-appointed federal judge in Boston
who spoke with the Times, the rise of this anti-consumer mechanism is "among
the most profound shifts in our legal history." Calling it an "ominous"
development, Young said, the increasing inability of individuals and groups
of consumers to file suit means that "business has a good chance of opting
out of the legal system altogether and misbehaving without reproach."
Earlier this month, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
announced it is considering proposing rules that would ban consumer
financial companies from using these arbitration clauses to block consumers
from participating in class-action lawsuits against them. According to a
CFPB study released in March, more than 75 percent of credit card users in
the U.S. are unaware of whether they were subject to an arbitration clause
in their contract and fewer than 7 percent realized how these clauses
restrict their ability to sue in court.
Citing interviews with some of the people who helped develop the corporate
strategy as well examination of court records, the Times says the effort to
block class action lawsuits "was engineered by a Wall Street-led coalition
of credit card companies and retailers," has been more than a decade in the
making, and had a goal "to kill class actions and send plaintiffs' lawyers
to the 'employment lines.'"
However-and despite the success of their stratefic effort-Paul Wallis, a
business observer writing for the Digital Journal responded to the Times
investigation by arguing that even as this trend to immobilize consumers
with arbitration clauses show that corporate crime is again "on the rampage"
in the United States, the whole legal concept is actually built on a
fallacy.
Though acknowleding business interests have used the strategy brilliantly to
their advantage, the other way to look at contract arbitration is by
recognizing that it is "absolute crap, from start to finish."
By way of explanation, Wallis continues:
Contract law is written under the legal framework created by the
Constitution.
Contracts do not exempt anyone from prosecution under criminal law or other
statutes. A contract is a contract, not a statute. It has no force at all,
if deemed to be illegal, coercive, or otherwise not viable.
Therefore, actions taken under that contract are not immune to prosecution
or other legal processes. You can't shoot someone or rob a bank and say
"It's OK, I have a contract."
In his eyes, the entire-and deplorable-situation described in detail by the
Times investigation is both uniquely American, but also totally
"unenforceable" when looked at through the lens of the U.S. Constitution.
The entire concept, he writes, is "a load of garbage" and "shouldn't exist"
because it has "no status under the Constitution" and the idea of
inalieanable "legal protection" is a core constitutional right.
Sadly, Wallis argues, given the powerful stranglehold that corporate
interests have on the U.S. legal and political systems, it might be some
time before the damage can be undone. "Now wait for a few decades while the
mighty intellects of the Supreme Court and Congress grapple with this
issue," he concludes. "Only in the senile, decrepit, and unbelievably
corrupt modern version of the United States would this sickening decadence
even be considered possible, let alone doable."
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stunning_amid_violence_and_fear_turkish
_president_erdogan_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stunning_amid_violence_and_fear_turkish
_president_erdogan_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/stunning_amid_violence_and_fear_turkish
_president_erdogan_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_gop_divide_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_gop_divide_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_gop_divide_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/glenn_greenwald_daily_beast_inte
llectually_bankrupt_for_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/glenn_greenwald_daily_beast_inte
llectually_bankrupt_for_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/glenn_greenwald_daily_beast_inte
llectually_bankrupt_for_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/female_equality_--_not_the_one-c
hild_policy_--_cut_births_in_china_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/female_equality_--_not_the_one-c
hild_policy_--_cut_births_in_china_20151102/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/female_equality_--_not_the_one-c
hild_policy_--_cut_births_in_china_20151102/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/about/advertising/http://www.truthdig.com/user_agreement/http://ww
w.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.truthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
