The Future of Class Action Law Suits

Thursday, December 09, 2010

Adam Liptak, who covers the U.S. Supreme Court for the New York Times, discusses the Wal-Mart and AT&T cases before the court and what impact those rulings with have on the future of class action law suits.


Adam Liptak

Comments [8]

I agree with Jim on the 2-pronged corporate attack on the public (in safety, education and economics).

Check out Consumer Reports' 75 retrospective for truly horrendous corporate abuses.

And remember, according to the Supreme Court, Corps are people too. Only they can't be sent to jail for their crimes, only penalized financially.

Dec. 09 2010 03:06 PM
gary from queens

Congress can pass a law that prohibits release of classified materials by anyone----even the press----if it can be shown to a judge that it will harm individuals. The law can be a Constitutional exception to prior restraint. Demonstrating harm might be a low bar to prove, and it would force the leaker to be careful what he leaks.

Dec. 09 2010 12:45 PM
Me from New Jersey

It seems that the ones who always make out the best in class action suits are the lawyers. Consumers generally only end up with a coupon for a slight discount on the same product as was originally purchased.

Dec. 09 2010 11:42 AM

Mr. Liptak will, I hope listen to/read the transcript of yesterday's Diane Rehm Show. The discussion with Prof. Coffee, the Wal-Mart amicus briefer highlighted the similarities between the members of the class as well as the micromanagement that Wal-Mart imposes on its managers.

Dec. 09 2010 11:40 AM
gary from queens

Aside from criminal prosecutions (that would need to be legislated), Wikileaks can be sued for civil damages by survivors of people who had been killed or harmed by the leaks.

Dec. 09 2010 11:39 AM
amalgam from Manhattan by day, NJ by night

Mr. Liptak perfectly states why the WikiLeaks case is a non-issue when it comes to the organization's prosecution for releasing secret documents:

If they received and published these documents in a "passive" way (they didn't work or conspire to get them), then they are NOT liable.


As usual, Joe Lieberman takes the weaker, purely political side of an argument under the guise of "state security." I'm just glad I'm not represented by him in his state.

Dec. 09 2010 11:38 AM

Left or right no matter who becomes president, a supreme court nominee is always PRO big business PRO shareholder ANTI citizen ANTI progress.

as for class actions suit, the lawyers (both sides) always get rich

Dec. 09 2010 11:35 AM
Jim from Brooklyn

There is a two pronged attacked by corporations to destroy safety laws and then remove your rights to seek damages when you are injured.

Dec. 09 2010 11:34 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.