Republicans Just Passed A Bill Banning Lawsuits Against Corporations

[L. Coyote]

Link to tweet

[Old Terp]

1. Didn't the Supreme Court rule (case was campaign finance) that corporations were people.

So if corporations are people, then you should be able to sue them. Thus the law should be declared unconstitutional.

[Chasstev365]

2. J. D. Rockafeller would be so proud!

Bring back the Robber Baron Days!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. That isn't quite accurate: The bill refers only to class action lawsuits,

not all lawsuits. That's bad enough, but information should be accurate and not just inflammatory click-bait.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Yeah, all class action lawsuits is pretty huge in and of itself.

[Ms. Toad]

4. Please don't spread fake news.

The bill passed by the house makes class action suits more difficult.

No suits are banned.

While it is true that the target of most class action suits will be corporations, the bill is not limited to actions brought against corporations

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act was approved 220-201. It requires proof that each proposed member of a class-action suit has the same extent of injuries before a federal court can certify it.

[Baitball Blogger]

5. It still has to pass a court challenge.

[marybourg]

7. I think you need to amend your header.

It's this kind of pot-stirring (now known as fake news) that makes the left look bad.

[DonaldsRump]

9. With respect, I get your point, but fake news doesn't make just "the left" look bad.

Apparently, the biggest purveryor of fake news was NOT the left, but folks to the right of the lefties (and to the east, like Russia).

This news, fake or not, pales in comparison to what the right and the Russians did. Period, end of discussion.

[marybourg]

13. Well, we know that about the right, but we don't have

to copy them, do we?

[lordsummerisle]

8. This probably wouldn't pass the senate

to say nothing of the legal challenges it would face if it were passed and signed by tRump...

[onenote]

11. what legal challenges would it face?

Its a bad bill -- a similar bill passed in January 2016 - but went nowhere in the Senate.

But the description in the OP is somewhat misleading, and I can't think of a possible legal challenge that could be brought if it somehow became law.

[lordsummerisle]

19. The SCOTUS has ruled

that corporations are people, therefore you should be able to sue them.

[onenote]

20. Apparently you haven't bothered to read the bill

Or the posts here about it that explain that the bill doesn't prevent lawsuits against corporations. It clarifies (although I'd argue it actually makes less clear) the existing limits on class actions. See post number #18 for a more detailed explanation.

[lordsummerisle]

21. If the title had read

"House Republicans vote to curb the rights of plaintiffs in class action lawsuits" or similar, I never would have even commented on it...

[onenote]

10. Hyperbole in description of bill, which also passed in 2016

and went nowhere in the Senate.

[Warpy]

12. Unconstitutional, it won't last long in the courts.

Fucking Republicans are really overreaching, trying to grab everything they can to disconnect the people from the government while they've got an ignorant patsy in the WH who will sign this bullshit.

[onenote]

15. Why is it unconstitutional?

[Warpy]

17. We're guaranteed the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Those are fancy words for the civil court system.

[onenote]

18. There is no constitutional right to bring lawsuits in the form of a class action

Indeed, until the principle of allowing people to "opt out" of class actions (and thus not be bound by the outcome) was firmly established in the mid 1960s, there were arguments made that class actions themselves were unconstitutional. I disagree with that view and, in any event, the opt out requirement largely negates that argument.

Class actions are an exception to the general rule that lawsuits are to be conducted only by or on behalf of individual named parties.

This limited "right" (not constitutionally mandated) to bring a class action suit is subject to a variety of limitations. Specifically, Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a party seeking to commence a class action demonstrate that
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

All four requirements (known colloquially as "numerosity," "commonality", "typicality" and "adequacy of representation&quot must be satisfied to get class certification and it is within the purview of Congress to amend them if it so chooses.

I think the proposed legislation, which attempts to "clarify" the commonality and typicality requirements is too vague and ambiguous and will foster drawn out, expensive disputes over class certification. But there is not basis for claiming it is in any way unconstitutional.

[onethatcares]

14. "the same extent of injuries"

would that mean if your pinto blew up and your neighbors pinto blew up, he suffered 3rd degree burns of his face and hands, while you only burned your feet a bit,and a few hundred others received various degrees of harm from the same cause that would make a class action suit untenable?

I'm just a carpenter so please explain.

[onenote]

16. it leaves too much discretion with the court to interpret that phrase

According to the legislative history, the intent of the bill is to prevent class action attorneys from lumping together those who have incurred significant actual harm with those only facing potential harm, a practice that the legislative history claims reduces the amount of an award available to those who actually are harmed. Thus, presumably, in your example the "class" for purposes of the class action could not include both those people whose Pintos blew up and those people who own Pintos that never exhibited any problem. However, as you suggest, the wording of the statute is far more ambiguous and could result in a requirement that those with one measure of injury be certified separately from those with lesser injuries for purposes of bringing a class action -- undermining the benefit of proceeding as a class.