Privacy.com can ban class actions without binding arbitration agreements, many companies already do this.
To go a step farther, waiving my right to a trial by jury and telling me I can go to a small claims court instead does not engender trust from me. That's not avoiding a class action, that's removing my ability to have a trial decided by my peers.
To go even one more step, I don't get the hate for class action lawsuits.
Class action lawsuits are one of the only really effective ways consumers have to punish companies that misstep. They're not perfect, and they often end up profiting lawyers more than consumers. But at the same time, suing companies is expensive, and companies bank on that fact. They commit small violations, counting on the fact that most consumers will realize that it's not economically feasible to file claims for a few hundred dollars.
Aggregating multiple claims into a single lawsuit (for all of its flaws), solves that problem. It's pretty much the only thing we have right now that helps solve that problem. We've seen that with Equifax, Verizon, Yahoo, etc... the class action lawsuits hurt those companies a lot more than any regulation or criminal probes or boycotts did. If high-profile mistakes like the ones these companies made anger you, there's potentially an argument there for making class-action lawsuits even more powerful, not less.
I get that our legal system in the US is messed up and expensive. I don't understand why the consequences of that have to fall specifically on consumers.
If you're looking for books, have a look at Schaum's Outline of Precalculus [0]. Khan Academy [1] is also good and there's this MOOC on coursera called Data Science Math Skills [2].
It's fair to note it as the most probable of the "Zombie Apocalypse" category, but "impossible" isn't the common theme of that category, it's "civilization ending".
Under all of the scenarios in Problem Space #3, the world is irrevocably changed and there is not necessarily any reason to think it will go back to the way thing are now in the survivors' lifetimes. In the other two problem spaces, you are looking at perhaps-widespread but finite disruptions. Maybe an entire country or region of a large country is hosed for years or decades, but you can either expect things to go back to normal eventually, or you can migrate to somewhere where things are normal. With either a zombie apocalypse or a nuclear one, you don't have that expectation, and whatever you do to prepare for that situation will be largely the same.
To go a step farther, waiving my right to a trial by jury and telling me I can go to a small claims court instead does not engender trust from me. That's not avoiding a class action, that's removing my ability to have a trial decided by my peers.
To go even one more step, I don't get the hate for class action lawsuits.
Class action lawsuits are one of the only really effective ways consumers have to punish companies that misstep. They're not perfect, and they often end up profiting lawyers more than consumers. But at the same time, suing companies is expensive, and companies bank on that fact. They commit small violations, counting on the fact that most consumers will realize that it's not economically feasible to file claims for a few hundred dollars.
Aggregating multiple claims into a single lawsuit (for all of its flaws), solves that problem. It's pretty much the only thing we have right now that helps solve that problem. We've seen that with Equifax, Verizon, Yahoo, etc... the class action lawsuits hurt those companies a lot more than any regulation or criminal probes or boycotts did. If high-profile mistakes like the ones these companies made anger you, there's potentially an argument there for making class-action lawsuits even more powerful, not less.
I get that our legal system in the US is messed up and expensive. I don't understand why the consequences of that have to fall specifically on consumers.