c, Flame (continued)

Last night, during the Passover dinner, I had an oportunity to discuss my flame with 3 good and honest lawyers (1 my son, the others, the daughter of a very good friend and her fiance).
They argued that while there have been abuses of class action suits, my position was too radical.  We are talking about chump change for each affected individual which collectively mean millions to the provider.  No affected individual has the patience or wish to recover a $20 overcharge that occurre by charging $0.50 more per month over years. Only by combining these overcharges (and giving 33% or more to the lawyers that do) can such excesses from providers be avoided.
Giving the affected the option of enrolling (rather than opting out) would mean that most, if not all, would not enroll. This would vitiate the ability of our altruistic lawyers to go after the extortive vendors.

There is some merit to the argument, since I frequently classify as "spam" invitations from stocks I own to vote proxies.  But is this sufficient to make the practice of enrolment by fiat and exclusion by specific action a good practice.

I am presently conflicted.  I believe it is not.  If I am not interested in a $.50 a month charge, it does not affect my psyche.  If the charge becomes too large, and if another vendor comes around with a better offer, I'll just switch to that new vender.  This process will keep vendors in line, unless they are monopolies of oligopolies.
Leon