| Yeah this isn’t some textbook or ideological economics “what’s better for everyone” scenario where we can just push a button to choose the better one. It’s far more complicated. It’s just a product of better lawyering but also critically access to information, not some easily controllable incentives system where regulators or some sort of centralized agency can effectively tip the balance back towards some abstract group of victims, in only a subset of cases (which cases do they help with? Proactively looking for ones they deem need the victims help the most? Etc it’s a hard solution to build and probably an unrealistic one). The other option of arbitrarily downplaying investors power in the courts in general sounds like it could be full of unexpected downsides and false positives IRL. Consumer class action suits are already seedy and full of unfair ‘captain retrospect’ sort of policing and the lawyer groups again also make most of the money anyway (and often are the biggest motivator and resource backer too). Which at the end of the day doesn’t make the ‘bad’ companies operate any better in a realistic world. The courts may be flawed but they tend to be way better than almost anything else available. Any new ‘system’ or balancing act would have to deal with counter balancing certain parties having better motivation/resources/positioning/information. Which historically in other systems has been even more ripe for abuse by power holders who end up being pushed and prodded by the same groups with above said advantages. A far better solution IMO is more and better organizations advocating for victims groups in such cases. An adaptation to the reality of the courts and the markets, rather than a rejection of them. Otherwise we’re just pointing the overlaid lawyers in a new direction and nothing in the consumer world actually gets better through the process. |