[jfengel]

Much of the time the actual harm to individuals is fairly small, but there are so many that the aggregate harm is hard to ignore.

It's a quandary. You can ignore it, but that encourages criminal behavior. Or you can pursue it, but proving your case beyond a reasonable doubt is time consuming and difficult. Often, there is no money to pay the lawyers in advance, so they expect to be compensated for the risk of getting nothing.

If the lawyers worked for free you might get double or triple the settlement, but it's hardly better to get $300 off a paint job than $100. The cash equivalent is probably only $30.

[shiroiushi]

>If the lawyers worked for free you might get double or triple the settlement, but it's hardly better to get $300 off a paint job than $100. The cash equivalent is probably only $30.

No, the cash equivalent is probably $-200 or so.

The problem is that the individuals affected didn't get anything of value. They got a $100 off coupon at the dealership for a paint job there. Which means the dealership is just going to inflate the price by at least that much, and dealerships are already known to have higher prices than competing businesses anyway.

If they had gotten a $100 voucher for a paint job at any paint business, or better yet a $100 check to spend as they wish, then this would have cost GM something at least. But instead, they stood to profit from the "payout".

[Y_Y]

I'm not in that class, but I think that (like any other case) cash is the right way to settle, in the absence of a mutual agreement to the contrary. The beneficiaries didn't get to bargain for a voucher, and shouldn't have to go to the dealer in order to be made whole.

The only thing that seems fair to me is if the settlement is held in trust and disbursed with minimum friction to anyone eligible. If Chevy wants to give those people a $100 voucher for thirty bucks if they show their eligibility for the action then go ahead!

[nyokodo]

> proving your case beyond a reasonable doubt is time consuming and difficult

Civil cases aren’t generally required to be decided beyond a reasonable doubt but merely with a preponderance of the evidence. It’s more that court in general is often time consuming and difficult.

> they expect to be compensated for the risk of getting nothing

It depends on the lawyer and the case, e.g. most class action suits the lawyers charge nothing up front but take a cut of the damages.

[BobbyTables2]

The problem in large class settlements is the “damages” awarded per capita are often a trifle compared to a similar situation with a smaller set of plaintiffs.

Look at the award from Equifax data breach settlement… The CFPB fine was about $0.66 per person. The class action award averages to about $2 per person.

Could your bank plaster your personal info on a billboard for two years, but make it up to you with a nice paper cup of coffee? (How would you even prove damages?!?). Don’t get your hopes up — that coffee would be too expensive…

Would $1000 be fair for you? Multiply that by 150 million…

Same with the airbag recalls.

The problem is worse than lawyers’ cuts… Proper restitution isn’t even possible (orders of magnitude greater than company’s assets).

At the individual level, a $10k automobile can do far more damage to people and property than just $10k…

But, As a society, we often fail to punish companies that do more harm than good.