> When people file a lawsuit, it is given due consideration because sending it down to the dumpster

Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers.

If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer. As an investor, you typically need a lawyer, but with that hurdle met you're similarly powerful. As a worker, the system seems to presume you're SOL on arrival.

> Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers

> If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer.

I have never heard someone claim that (which doesn't make it false). Almost everyone I interact with says the large investors and executives have far more power - and now far more power than ever. Companies trample on consumers and treat them like crap all the time - I don't know anyone who thinks consumers are powerful.

Use the legal system and you can end up buried in paperwork, discovery, and an unaffordable lawsuit that consumes many years of your life with no reliable outcome. Most people have to settle cases rather than fight deep-pocketed parties. Often you can't even get to court because of arbitration agreements, etc.

Who has done the things you claim? Is there some measure of how many?

> large investors and executives have far more power

This is accurate. Money is power. The point is that independent of wealth, the hierarchy holds. Even among the wealthy, the most powerful suits allege breaches of consumer rights or fundamental freedoms.

> Even among the wealthy, the most powerful suits allege breaches of consumer rights or fundamental freedoms.

Could you give examples? The most 'powerful' (not sure what you mean exactly) suits are that I can think of off the top of my head are about M&A.

> Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers.

That is not true. Failure to pay employee salaries is a very easy way to pierce the corporate veil. It is not just you become another creditor like a consumer or a supplier would be.

> Failure to pay employee salaries is a very easy way to pierce the corporate veil

Legally, yes. Practically, many employers bounce paycheques and get away with it. It’s tedious to enforce worker rights in a way it isn’t for consumers. (In most states, you can get the AG basically working for you by copying their office on a complaint to the company.)

> Legally, yes. Practically, many employers bounce paycheques and get away with it. It’s tedious to enforce worker rights in a way it isn’t for consumers. (In most states, you can get the AG basically working for you by copying their office on a complaint to the company.)

Not sure what the point of your argument is. Many employers get away with bouncing paychecks but you can get the state AG working for you by CCing them on email? The above comment claimed the law favored consumers and investors over employees and I gave a common case where they are not. Not the practicality of enforcing the law.

The same goes for employers too where employees steal or skip work and they are just fired instead of paying a lawyer (if they are incorporated a small business the owner can not represent the company usually) or going through the hassle of collecting proof, filing a factual police report and showing up in court to testify.

Doesn't change what the law is when it is worth it to pursue, and it was worth it to pursue against Meta for withholding material info to investors.

> Many employers get away with bouncing paychecks but you can get the state AG working for you by CCing them on email

Yes, this is the practical reality of the law. What the law says on paper that isn’t enforced isn’t relevant to one’s day to day experience of it.

> going through the hassle of collecting proof, filing a factual police report and showing up in court to testify

The point is as a consumer various public bodies will do this for you. As an employee (or investor) you have to do it for yourself.

> Yes, this is the practical reality of the law. What the law says on paper that isn’t enforced isn’t relevant to one’s day to day experience of it.

You can say that about any law. It is a negative argument. The law not being enforced has no relevance to my earlier statement; you incorrectly arguing employees have far fewer rights over consumers.

> The point is as a consumer various public bodies will do this for you. As an employee (or investor) you have to do it for yourself.

Once again, not true. Investor protection is literally the job of the SEC. OSHA protects employees from hazard workplaces. Every state has an agency that investigates wage theft. Many states governments make most of their money from personal incomes-they have an incentive to prevent wage theft.

Honestly, I would argue consumer protection is the weakest in the US of the three.

> Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top.

This is a cool thing to believe, your stories about this must be fascinating.

What have been the differences between your personal experiences engaging in the regulatory system in the United States as a consumer versus the times you’ve engaged with the regulatory system in the US as an investor?

> What have been the differences between your personal experiences engaging in the regulatory system in the United States as a consumer versus the times you’ve engaged with the regulatory system in the US as an investor?

The latter requires counsel. The former can command state attorneys generals, regulatory bodies and small-claims courts and arbitrators who, while imperfect to flawed, are paid for by the taxpayer or company.

I’m also making an in-system comparison. An American consumer is worse off, on average, than a European consumer.

This makes sense. While arbitration may be heavily skewed against consumers due to the incentives created by corporations paying for them, it is often free for the consumer to be ruled against with no recourse. This is a great example to introduce in support of the idea that the system is stacked in favor of consumers becau

> Broadly speaking, our post-War system of laws puts consumers at the top. [...] If you engage the legal and regulatory system properly as a consumer, you can move mountains. Even without a lawyer.

Are you living in the same reality where e.g. the US has vigorously broken up monopolies the past few decades, prevented mergers that hurt consumers, constantly enforced laws like the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and prevented banks from closing the accounts of customers that are doing legal things they don't like?

Do you seriously believe we still live in such world? I'll start believing when I will see breakups of for example: Boeing, Meta, Google.

I am not holding my breadth regardless of who is in white house, not even for single one.

> puts consumers at the top. Right below them, investors. Way below them, workers.

I think you've got consumers and investors swapped there. Take a look at the EU, US consumers have extremely few protections.

Elizabeth Holmes was only found guilty of ripping off investors with her fake bloodtests - the paying customers, no harm no foul.

It's not funny, it's by design. Property owners and investors are usually given the most attention by courts because they matter more broadly speaking.

Another reason is that the harm can often be quantified and remedy easily justified.

Matt Levine recently covered how it's much more lucrative/easy to sue Chipotle for skimping out on their portions from the investor/security fraud angle than it is the customer angle [1]

Unfortunate how that's just how the system works.

[1] https://archive.ph/mhEQA

"Now, my caddie chauffeur didn't need to inform me that holding stock is where people put money that is properly invested, therefore a shareholder lawsuit involves the most heinous of crimes: Theft of money. And the others don't."

(Futurama ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8z1RYf9mM&t=1m11s)

As I see this: the US is built on money. Money is the most valued thing. So if someone hurts your basic need of shelter food or water no one cares. If someone makes you lose money or makes your investment go bad the court will intervene. Although it might sound awful I don't think it is necessarily that way. I just wish it could be more balanced.

But then again, I'm a foreigner, I know nothing about the US.

> If someone makes you lose money or makes your investment go bad the court will intervene.

Yes, but there's a very important caveat: Only if you still have enough money to pay experienced lawyers at least >$50k to make that happen (and more money, to ensure your own lawyers are at least a little worried about any potential malpractice suit).

However corrupt you think the US legal system is, I guarantee you it's worse. But you're basically 100% correct; money is the most valued thing.

In many circles, of every socioeconomic class, things like honesty and integrity are openly derided - they get in the way of making money. Somehow, protecting people's basic needs falls into that class too. It's shockingly stupid, yet somehow normal - and even spun as a good thing - 'freedom'.

Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that says invading people's privacy for profit, or to provide it to political parties, is legal and therefore not subject to lawsuits or legal challenges in future.

> Alternatively the Supreme Court wants to issue an ruling that (...)

According to the article, the supreme court actually declined to issue a ruling in this case. Curious if that causes you to update your beliefs in any manner.

But it’s much easier to comment immediately with my preconceived notions than to actually read the article and risk that it disagrees with them.