This Supreme Court Case Could Give Corporations Even More Power to Screw Consumers (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/supreme-court-hear-important-corporate-immunity-case)
QuoteOn Wednesday, the US Supreme Court will hear a case that has the potential to give big corporations free rein to write contracts that prevent consumers from ever holding them accountable for fraud, antitrust violations, or any other abuses of consumer and worker protection laws now on the books. It's a case that hasn't gotten much attention, but should.
The case, Italian Color v. American Express, was brought by a California Italian restaurant and a group of other small businesses that tried to sue the credit card behemoth for antitrust violations. They allege Amex used its monopoly power to force them to accept its bank-issued knock-off credit cards as a condition of taking regular, more elite American Express cards—and then charging them 30 percent higher fees for the privilege.
The small businesses claims were pretty small individually, not more than around $5,000 per shop. So, to make their case worth enough for a lawyer to take it, they banded together to file a class action on behalf of all small businesses affected by the practice. In response, Amex invoked the small print in its contract with them: a clause that not only banned the companies from suing individually but also prevented them from bringing a class action. Instead, Amex insisted the contract required each little businesses to submit to the decision of a private arbitrator paid by Amex, and individually press their claims. (Arbitration is heavily stacked in favor of the big companies, as you can read more about here and here.)
The restaurants estimated, with good evidence, that because of the market research required to press an antitrust case, arbitration would cost each of them almost $1 million to collect a possible maximum of $38,000, making it impossible to bring their claims at all. After a lot of litigation, the little guys prevailed in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the arbitration clause was unconscionable because it prevented the plaintiffs from having their claims heard in any forum. The court said the arbitration contract should be invalidated and that the class action should go forward in a regular courtroom. (Sonia Sotomayor sat on one of the appeals before heading to the high court and is recusing herself from the case as a result.) Now Amex is appealing and arguing that some of the high court's recent decisions in favor of big companies mean it has every right to use contracts to deprive the little guys of access to the legal system.
Consumer advocates are worried about how the court's going to decide this case. Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has been especially amenable to the sorts of arguments Amex is making, and the results have been pretty damaging to consumers. The Alliance for Justice has a list here of some of the types of cases that were thrown out after the court's last pro-business decision about mandatory arbitration, which allowed companies to use arbitration clauses to trump state consumer and worker protection laws. It's not pretty.
If the court rules in favor of Amex, big companies will essentially be able to immunize themselves from any legal accountability, simply by forcing customers and employees to sign a contract to get a job or a cellphone or a bank account. Civil and consumer rights laws will stay on the books, but big companies will be able to ignore them.
I can't.
How is this unexpected?
Try reading the user agreement on any Microsoft product.
IS THEY PEOPLES, OR IS THEY AINT?
Ah, the joys of the Free Market™. You have the choice to use their service and not complain, or not use their service and go out of business.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2013, 06:51:57 PM
How is this unexpected?
It's not, because, well. It's America, and America in the 21st century, no less. It still makes me angry as fuck, though.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
IS THEY PEOPLES, OR IS THEY AINT?
Ah, the joys of the Free Market™. You have the choice to use their service and not complain, or not use their service and go out of business.
What a system!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2013, 06:52:57 PM
Try reading the user agreement on any Microsoft product.
Incidentally, Microsoft have essentially been given a digital Letter of Marque by the Justice Department, recently.
Microsoft techs seize and shut down domains spreading malware...and a lot of people's perfectly innocent sites besides. Justice Department doesn't care, because, well, it's Microsoft.
Same principle here. Justice Department doesn't care, Amex is worth $14 billion and is one of the world's top 20 companies. They probably farm out Justice Department accounts to Amex consultants.
Also, the dairy industry would like to add shit like aspartame to your milk, and not have to include it in a list of ingredients:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products
Quote from: Cain on February 26, 2013, 06:57:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2013, 06:52:57 PM
Try reading the user agreement on any Microsoft product.
Incidentally, Microsoft have essentially been given a digital Letter of Marque by the Justice Department, recently.
Microsoft techs seize and shut down domains spreading malware...and a lot of people's perfectly innocent sites besides. Justice Department doesn't care, because, well, it's Microsoft.
Same principle here. Justice Department doesn't care, Amex is worth $14 billion and is one of the world's top 20 companies. They probably farm out Justice Department accounts to Amex consultants.
Not to conflate, but I feel like there's a connection between this bullshittery and the Slavery problem, no?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2013, 07:04:01 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 26, 2013, 06:57:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2013, 06:52:57 PM
Try reading the user agreement on any Microsoft product.
Incidentally, Microsoft have essentially been given a digital Letter of Marque by the Justice Department, recently.
Microsoft techs seize and shut down domains spreading malware...and a lot of people's perfectly innocent sites besides. Justice Department doesn't care, because, well, it's Microsoft.
Same principle here. Justice Department doesn't care, Amex is worth $14 billion and is one of the world's top 20 companies. They probably farm out Justice Department accounts to Amex consultants.
Not to conflate, but I feel like there's a connection between this bullshittery and the Slavery problem, no?
Of course there is. There is power, and there is weakness.
You will do as they say or you will starve. Because "lawful" is rich and powerful, and "fucked in the eyesocket and LIKE it" is poor and weak.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
IS THEY PEOPLES, OR IS THEY AINT?
Ah, the joys of the Free Market™. You have the choice to use their service and not complain, or not use their service and go out of business.
Dunno. What would happen to me if I killed one?
You'd get deported to Israel and pressed into manual labor on a kibbutz where you'd work 12 hours a day and sing songs every evening with all the other Kibbutzers about how wonderful Jewish Life is?
But only if you have some type of palestinian ancestry somewhere...
Quote from: V3X on February 26, 2013, 06:58:47 PM
Also, the dairy industry would like to add shit like aspartame to your milk, and not have to include it in a list of ingredients:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products
I'm exceptionally tired, and having a little trouble parsing this:
Quote
Therefore, while the milk standard of identity in § 131.110 only provides for the use of "nutritive sweetener" in an optional characterizing flavor, milk may contain a characterizing flavor that is sweetened with a non-nutritive sweetener if the food's label bears a nutrient content claim (e.g., "reduced calorie") and the non-nutritive sweetener is used to add sweetness to the product so that it is not inferior in its sweetness property compared to its standardized counterpart. However, IDFA and NMPF argue that nutrient content claims such as "reduced calorie" are not attractive to children, and maintain that consumers can more easily identify the overall nutritional value of milk products that are flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners if the labels do not include such claims. Further, the petitioners assert that consumers do not recognize milk—including flavored milk—as necessarily containing sugar. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can "more easily identify its overall nutritional value."
Are they really asserting that consumers can "more easily identify" the nutritional value of a bottle of milk that does
not list what is in it, as opposed to a bottle that does?
I just can't - how does someone actually stand up and without an ounce of shame present that "argument" as being perfectly valid?
I want to vomit. More specifically, I want to vomit on the person who proposed that shit.
I think a more concerning question is, "why were they sweetening milk in the first place?"
However, if they're talking about "flavored" milks, like chocolate, stawberry, etc, then I would suspect that it should be immediately obvious that the shit is bad for you, no matter what they're sweetening it with.
Because milk tastes bad unless it's sugary sweet. Clearly.
He says as he takes another sip from his can of Red Bull...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 27, 2013, 01:15:50 PM
I think a more concerning question is, "why were they sweetening milk in the first place?"
However, if they're talking about "flavored" milks, like chocolate, stawberry, etc, then I would suspect that it should be immediately obvious that the shit is bad for you, no matter what they're sweetening it with.
They're not, though. Flavored sweetened milk isn't "bad" for you as long as you're within a reasonable intake of sugar for the day, just as fruit-flavored yogurt isn't "bad" for you and jam isn't "bad" for you. Chocolate milk still has protein and calcium; the sugar adds extra calories, but the milk still has its basic nutritional value. It could, however, become "bad" for you if they are allowed to put artificial sweetener in it without labeling it, which they almost certainly want to do so they can reduce the calories and sugar content on the label without disclosing that the reduced sugar is compensated for with artificial sweetener.
Ok, you're right. I mis-used the word "bad".
However, I personally feel there's too much sweetener out there in our foods already, making it much harder to be reasonable in the amount of sugar one is eating, and adding it to milk is, I feel, perhaps overdoing it a bit, especially if it's being added to so-called "plain" milk, which I'm still not sure if it is or not. But you are correct, that's a different subject than what we're discussing.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 27, 2013, 03:56:03 PM
Ok, you're right. I mis-used the word "bad".
However, I personally feel there's too much sweetener out there in our foods already, making it much harder to be reasonable in the amount of sugar one is eating, and adding it to milk is, I feel, perhaps overdoing it a bit, especially if it's being added to so-called "plain" milk, which I'm still not sure if it is or not. But you are correct, that's a different subject than what we're discussing.
There's too much sweetener in prepared foods, I agree. This is not a problem I run into much because I'm a filthy hippie and I cook most everything from scratch, but I do think it's important to distinguish between products that are SUPPOSED to be sweet treats, like chocolate milk, ice cream, caramel corn, etc. and the really insidious shit that extra sugar is added to that reasonable people don't usually think about it being in, like spaghetti sauce and linguini alfredo and tamales and chili con carne and ravioli and essentially all other ready-to-eat foods in the grocery store.
I mean, the average person isn't going to go "SUGAR IN MY BROWNIE MIX? YOU MONSTERS!!! :argh!:"
But they might, if they knew, wonder WTF sugar is doing in their enchilada sauce.
if they could be arsed to read the ingredients maybe.
I just went and doublechecked my linguini.
I'm OK. This time.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 27, 2013, 04:05:52 PM
I mean, the average person isn't going to go "SUGAR IN MY BROWNIE MIX? YOU MONSTERS!!! :argh!:"
But they might, if they knew, wonder WTF sugar is doing in their enchilada sauce.
I'm not so sure. Sugar, like salt is in great quantities of foodstuffs. I think these things may have reached cultural acceptance. When was the last time you heard umbrage about E-numbers?
For the vast majority, you could probably list cyanide, arsenic and my shaved arse into the ingredients and see no substantial changes. Brand name goods would never do anything suspect. I guess if you'll see any change here it will come from the back of the current horse-meat hoo-ha.
Something like you can give information to the consumer but you cannot make them think beyond "HUNGRY/THIRSTY/WANT"
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 26, 2013, 08:34:38 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2013, 06:53:07 PM
IS THEY PEOPLES, OR IS THEY AINT?
Ah, the joys of the Free Market™. You have the choice to use their service and not complain, or not use their service and go out of business.
Dunno. What would happen to me if I killed one?
You might get to run for president. Mitt Romney was pretty much a serial killer of corporations. They're a bit harder to kill than the human sort of people though.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 27, 2013, 05:27:57 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 27, 2013, 04:05:52 PM
I mean, the average person isn't going to go "SUGAR IN MY BROWNIE MIX? YOU MONSTERS!!! :argh!:"
But they might, if they knew, wonder WTF sugar is doing in their enchilada sauce.
I'm not so sure. Sugar, like salt is in great quantities of foodstuffs. I think these things may have reached cultural acceptance. When was the last time you heard umbrage about E-numbers?
For the vast majority, you could probably list cyanide, arsenic and my shaved arse into the ingredients and see no substantial changes. Brand name goods would never do anything suspect. I guess if you'll see any change here it will come from the back of the current horse-meat hoo-ha.
Something like you can give information to the consumer but you cannot make them think beyond "HUNGRY/THIRSTY/WANT"
That's because most people don't read the ingredients list, and not only that, but if they do (as we are increasingly learning to) manufacturers deliberately seek ways to circumnavigate the listing laws by breaking substantially similar ingredients into different categories in order to mislead consumers.
I would caution heavily against placing blame on the end consumers, as the schemes to mislead them are myriad, even assuming they are so informed as to realize they are likely to be misled in the first place.
The interesting thing is that many of you are missing the point that the new regulations sound like they're oriented toward misleading a populace who is, in fact, increasingly likely to read the label.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 28, 2013, 06:54:43 AM
The interesting thing is that many of you are missing the point that the new regulations sound like they're oriented toward misleading a populace who is, in fact, increasingly likely to read the label.
This! It already takes a magnifying glass and a degree in Newspeak to work out what the fuck is in the swill they sell over here. Something like this would only serve to muddy the waters even more. Case in point - UK consumers are freaking out over the revelation that there's horsemeat in their findus lasagne. Horsemeat is the one single ingredient in that long list of carcinogenic bioeffluent that I wouldn't bother too much about putting in my body but everyone is already conditioned to ignore the other shit.
"Waiter - there's meat in my raw sewage!" :argh!: