Skip to navigationSkip to content
Close
The Secret Vote That Could Wipe Away Consumer Rights

The Secret Vote That Could Wipe Away Consumer Rights

Read more on The American Prospect

Contributions

  • I don't fully understand this, but how in the hell does a non-governmental, unelected body get to decide this? And why do consumers always get hosed?

  • The very existence of this society is a grave threat to the rule of law in America— an unofficial and unaccountable “shadow legislature”, no matter how respectable its members are, is inherently dangerous for a democracy for reasons that should be self-explanatory.

    This proposal, for example, would

    The very existence of this society is a grave threat to the rule of law in America— an unofficial and unaccountable “shadow legislature”, no matter how respectable its members are, is inherently dangerous for a democracy for reasons that should be self-explanatory.

    This proposal, for example, would be an absolute nightmare scenario for customer rights— giving advertisers and tech companies carte blanche to screw you over however they like, and to utterly crush citizens’ fundamental right to bring lawsuits against corporations.

    There is absolutely no justification for that decision, aside from sheer greed and handing corporations even more power over society than they already have. But, because of the absurd level of secrecy and underhandedness, there’s also no real way to hold anyone to account if it were to go through. This particular proposal isn’t even based on any actual law— it’s completely made up, out of thin air— but if they decide to adopt it, who the hell is going to do anything about it?

    I certainly recognize the need for some sort of convention to review precedents and interpretations, but this system as it stands is a national embarrassment and has to go— now. Secret cabals are supposed to be how tinpot dictatorships make laws, not the richest and most powerful country on the planet, and definitely not the “land of the free”.

  • What is most outrageous is the fact judges avail themselves of opinions of a shadow legislative body...

  • I await the first legal challenge. Precedent overturned by an association. What will the judges say ?

  • How can anyone be in favor of this? No really, I want to know.

  • Terms and conditions of service are disregarded by the large majority of users. Terms and conditions have a material impact on everything from genetic testing for ancestry or heritage, to credit cards, payment systems, social media, data privacy, and pretty much any application or website in the public

    Terms and conditions of service are disregarded by the large majority of users. Terms and conditions have a material impact on everything from genetic testing for ancestry or heritage, to credit cards, payment systems, social media, data privacy, and pretty much any application or website in the public domain. Changing the terms and conditions to just predicated on presence alone will be severe on consumers. The empowerment that the internet brought to consumers will actually end up being conscription.

  • This change, if enacted, will take away the limited choice for the customer to walk away from a online service if they do not understand the terms. The only larger good that I can imagine from this change is increased litigation which means more business to the community. 🤔

    As a user, I may not be

    This change, if enacted, will take away the limited choice for the customer to walk away from a online service if they do not understand the terms. The only larger good that I can imagine from this change is increased litigation which means more business to the community. 🤔

    As a user, I may not be able to understand all of the terms in its essence everytime I have to agree to one. However, I still agree to it and that is a consent. I don't want to walk into a store and be binding to its rules if I don't want to buy the goods or services, specially so after entering that store. Anyway, if this change is implemented, it is going to invite very creative drafting in the future and lot of work for the courts and lawyers. Caveat emptor! 😊

  • A legal society is reinterpreting the law on consumer contracts to make it even easier to fool people with bad terms and conditions, critics charge. Judges are relying on these secret groups to interpret laws for them

  • I believe consumers should have reasonable protections. But this appears to be being wayyyyyyyyyy overblown.

    Most consumers don’t read the terms and conditions. If you’re providing any personal information that’s a bad idea.

    What we need is a simplified pictorial representation of terms and conditions

    I believe consumers should have reasonable protections. But this appears to be being wayyyyyyyyyy overblown.

    Most consumers don’t read the terms and conditions. If you’re providing any personal information that’s a bad idea.

    What we need is a simplified pictorial representation of terms and conditions. Standard. And large. And on every home page. It should cover privacy. Data sharing. Compensation. Tops five or six categories. Represent each with a bar from, for example, selling data to third parties on one end to zero sharing, even internally, on the other. You would know where you stand at a glance.

    I doubt we have any rights now. Making a legal presumption that we don’t isn’t the problem. Consumers click away their rights and then complain they don’t have any. Let’s fix the real problem. Terms and conditions as obscure legal mumbo jumbo doesn’t serve consumers.

  • In 21 years of practicing law, there have been very few times when anyone showed up in court citing a Restatement as authority. Even more importantly, I have never seen a judge overturn precedent with a Restatement. In reality, the groups who author the Restatements do not appear to be as dangerous as

    In 21 years of practicing law, there have been very few times when anyone showed up in court citing a Restatement as authority. Even more importantly, I have never seen a judge overturn precedent with a Restatement. In reality, the groups who author the Restatements do not appear to be as dangerous as this article suggests.

    Regardless, suggesting one can be bound by an agreement of which they were never aware flies in the face of contract law. An agreement requires a “meeting of the minds.” If one is unaware of an agreement, by definition, there can be no “meeting of the minds.”

    How do these groups keep choosing to make things more difficult for the little guy? It defies precedent AND common sense.

  • "The (...) co-authors, known in the (American Law Insitute) ALI’s lingo as “reporters,” have no consumer or litigation experience (and...) are adherents to the “law and economics” movement, which originated at the University of Chicago and emphasizes cost-benefit analysis and economic efficiency. The

    "The (...) co-authors, known in the (American Law Insitute) ALI’s lingo as “reporters,” have no consumer or litigation experience (and...) are adherents to the “law and economics” movement, which originated at the University of Chicago and emphasizes cost-benefit analysis and economic efficiency. The law and economics movement has cast an enormous shadow over the U.S. justice system, holding seminars attended by nearly half of all federal judges in the 1970s and ’80s that had a real impact on the drift in the law in a conservative, pro-business direction."

    This sounds like exactly a main reason reason why the Consumer Financial Protection Agency is still needed.

  • This is a serious issue that requires more public attention, ASAP. #consumerprotection #ali

  • Follow up: DID THIS VOTE HAPPEN? I can't find anything on the Google. 😁

    Original post:The fact ALI is "prickly" should be a red flag to *themselves*. They should know their work is shoddy and regroup.

    Or, you know, be disbanded because how in holy hell did this even happen?!

    Of utmost concern as the

    Follow up: DID THIS VOTE HAPPEN? I can't find anything on the Google. 😁

    Original post:The fact ALI is "prickly" should be a red flag to *themselves*. They should know their work is shoddy and regroup.

    Or, you know, be disbanded because how in holy hell did this even happen?!

    Of utmost concern as the economic divide increases daily.

  • I feel like there is more to this story. Would like to see something from the other side. This looks like a group whose job is defining terms, cleaning up ambiguities. They tend to be, but are not always, impartial. At least the successful ones.

  • This could well be the best thing to happen to us 'consumers', once we get over that is and look beyond the secret society working at it.

    When we enter into a place of business, say a hospital, regardless if it was a casual check up or wheeled in bleeding into the emergency room, we are automatically

    This could well be the best thing to happen to us 'consumers', once we get over that is and look beyond the secret society working at it.

    When we enter into a place of business, say a hospital, regardless if it was a casual check up or wheeled in bleeding into the emergency room, we are automatically bound by the policies and T&C of that place of business and are held liable for any services received or violations committed during our visit to that place of business.

    Now imagine being stopped at the doors and asked to read the policies and T&C before continuing to enter the building. Not that it never happened, but alot of consumers would be put off if that was the case everytime.

     “The deliberate act of entering the business’s proprietary environment and remaining in it long enough to gain access to the content and benefits it confers constitutes a manifestation of assent by the consumer to a transaction.”

    All of a sudden, that is starting to sound very reasonable.

    And when you add in the safe- guard, in the form of a standard of “unconscionability,” meant to protect consumers from entering into a blatantly one-sided contract. In other words, deniability of any existence of said law's for not having been served to you in the first place, is the OG standard as it was for millennias.

    So don't be to quick to dismiss, it just maybe the consumers final saving grace.

  • The term "consumer" in itself is something we should all drop from our vocabulary as in my opinion it degrades a person and reduced her simply to a cog in the great machine of profit making, which allows things like this to happen.

  • Restatements of The Law are “secondary authorities” which don’t alter State Statutes. They are also considered as lower authority than published legal opinions of a state. The articles title is way over broad.

  • Paging Robert Caro...

  • Kinda terrifying.

  • Because the courts interpret the laws, and that sets precident, right? So even a non-gov body can set laws by influencing the judges interpretations. Sounds like a super powerful organization. I didn't know this existed.

  • Can someone please explain what this means with a real life example? Let’s say I visit x website, what happens to me if this law passes?

  • Niceee