moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Abitration is a scam
Sorry, when you "pay" a judge to hear your case, and it is treated as a business, then there is a built in bias against the other party.
I guarantee that any arbitration company who decides against the party paying it too many times, they will find themselves without a client. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  said by moonpuppy  :Sorry, when you "pay" a judge to hear your case, and it is treated as a business, then there is a built in bias against the other party. But so is the "class action lawsuit" a scam also. Nothing consumer friendly there either. All those lawsuits do is make the legal profession richer to no ones benefit except themselves.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by TKJunkMail :But so is the "class action lawsuit" a scam also. Nothing consumer friendly there either. All those lawsuits do is make the legal profession richer to no ones benefit except themselves. Difference is only the lawyers win in class action lawsuits. In arbitration, the company "buying" the judge wins.
Justice may be blind but can still tell how much they have in the bank. |
|
Youngjm
join:2002-04-01
Ada, MI | reply to moonpuppy
Can't wait for my $5 phone card! |
|
Sabre
Di relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari
join:2005-05-17 | "Lawyer candy"
Ha! That's the best sound-bite description of class-action suits I've heard yet.
Thanks a lot for that one, Karl. I'll be using that. |
|
Dagda1175
join:2001-06-17
Goleta, CA | No responsibility
I miss the days when signing a contract was legally binding. I miss the days when people were smart enough to read a contract before they signed it. I miss the days when I wasn't paying off your mortgages for the same damn reasons. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Dagda1175 :I miss the days when signing a contract was legally binding. I miss the days when people were smart enough to read a contract before they signed it. I miss the days when I wasn't paying off your mortgages for the same damn reasons. Problem is contracts don't mean anything. They can be changed for any reason and you have no recourse. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| said by moonpuppy :Problem is contracts don't mean anything. They can be changed for any reason and you have no recourse. Sure you do. Don't sign the contract. Contracts only can be changed because you allow them to when you sign the original one. If you don't agree to the terms, don't sign the contract. There are other wireless companies out there, or prepaid, or go without. |
|
claco
join:2002-09-29
Tallmadge, OH | Notice last week
Funny. I just got an "updated" tos in the mail last week for my land lines/dsl where one of the first points was that you had to go through arbitration first. Nice. |
|
quetwo
That VoIP Guy
Premium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI
| reply to cdru
Re: No responsibility
I think it's great for the latest trend to not even have the user sign the full contract. When you sign up for wireless service from Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile now, you say that you agree to the terms of the contract. Most places don't have it on site, but rather they will mail it to you with your first bill. They claim that since you have a 30 day out of the contact, this is legal, but what they forget to tell you is that you may not get your bill until the 25th day, really only giving you 5 days to get out of it, if the terms are not what you expect.
Just another way to screw the consumer. |
|
dandin1
join:2008-05-27
| reply to cdru
Well I'd love to call my cellphone service provider and try to haggle with them over ridiculous terms in their contracts, but that's just not gonna fly with them. All the companies have anti-consumer wording in their contracts, and all that's left for us to do is find the least worst, and sign with my eyes closed. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | How about doing the right thing ?
What i dont understand if they refund, or do the right thing, it would never get to this point ? Hey how about working it out before it get this far ? |
|
Shelleyp
@sbcglobal.net
 from:
Rickez
| reply to moonpuppy
Re: Abitration is a scam
Class action lawsuits have helped redefine the pharmaceutical industry, have brought about stronger safety regulations with toys, tools, and especially the auto industry.
Class action lawsuits have ended abusive consumer practices in industries, such as the telecom industry, which includes AT&T, Cingular, and so on.
Yes, sometimes the only ones that win money are the lawyers, but that doesn't mean that we consumers, don't also benefit in the long run.
I think this is also a fair time to mention support for the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009. |
|
fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
 ·Skype
| reply to cdru
Re: No responsibility
Some of these same companies also have contracts stating that they can change the terms of their contracts whenever they decide to. Signing a contract initially doesn't mean you won't be bound to additional terms later whether you want it or not. Then, if they so choose, they could hit you with ETFs for cancelling because you don't agree to the new contract terms. Not saying they will but there's not much to stop them from doing that--particularly if their contract says they can.
If the contract were binding and unchangeable until the end of the contract, that's one thing. The ability to change it mid-cycle is of no benefit to the consumer, only the company. It would be pretty sweet if I decided I suddenly didn't like something in my cellular contract and notified them that I was changing the terms. I don't see that happening.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com |
|
Shelleyp
@sbcglobal.net
from:
Tobester
ross
| reply to cdru
Do you understand the concept of an adhesion contract? These are take ir or leave it contracts that consumers have to sign in order to get a service.
Do you then understand the term "unconscionable"? An adhesion contract that is unfair to the weaker party (the consumer) is unconscionable.
What this all means is that with some services, such as credit cards or cellphone access, there is no recourse for the consumer. If they want a credit card, they have to sign these unconscionable contracts. If they want any cellphone, they have to sign these contracts.
What has happened is that companies have been embedding mandatory arbitration clauses into their service contracts for the last decade, naming arbitration companies that are dependent on repeat business from these companies, and who rule in favor of the companies, and obscene amount of times. Then when a party tries to sue a company because of some abusive business practice, the company's lawyers step in and say, "No, you gave up the right to have your case heard in a court of law". More importantly, you gave up your right to participate in a class action lawsuit against the company.
Now, if you think this is fair, and that a "contract is a contract", great. I'm sure the companies will just love you.
Many of us, though, prefer a level playing ground. |
|
ptrowski
Got Helix?
Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
clubs:
·VOIPo
·Metrocast Communic..
·AT&T DSL Service
·ViaTalk
| reply to Shelleyp
Re: Abitration is a scam
said by Shelleyp :
Class action lawsuits have helped redefine the pharmaceutical industry, have brought about stronger safety regulations with toys, tools, and especially the auto industry.
Class action lawsuits have ended abusive consumer practices in industries, such as the telecom industry, which includes AT&T, Cingular, and so on.
Yes, sometimes the only ones that win money are the lawyers, but that doesn't mean that we consumers, don't also benefit in the long run.
I think this is also a fair time to mention support for the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009.
Someone would not happen to be a laywer now would they? 
--
"So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? »www.venganza.org |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Dagda1175
Re: No responsibility
Contracts should also be able to be negotiated. Let's say you want a cell phone. So you go to AT&T and they tell you to sign this contract. You read it over and say you're going to make some changes. They'll simply tell you the contract is what it is and you can't change it. So you leave and go to Verizon Wireless, Sprint, etc. All of the cell phone companies won't allow you to negotiate what is in the contracts. You either sign what they hand you or you don't get cell phone service.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to fireflier
said by fireflier :Some of these same companies also have contracts stating that they can change the terms of their contracts whenever they decide to. Signing a contract initially doesn't mean you won't be bound to additional terms later whether you want it or not. Then, if they so choose, they could hit you with ETFs for cancelling because you don't agree to the new contract terms. Not saying they will but there's not much to stop them from doing that--particularly if their contract says they can. If the contract were binding and unchangeable until the end of the contract, that's one thing. The ability to change it mid-cycle is of no benefit to the consumer, only the company. It would be pretty sweet if I decided I suddenly didn't like something in my cellular contract and notified them that I was changing the terms. I don't see that happening. I can't speak to other carriers, but with T-Mobile when the contract changes, they are required to notify me, the consumer and allow me to opt out without out penalty. That's been the case when they raise SMS fees, when they raised directory assistance fees, etc. There is a period, usually 14 days or so, to opt out otherwise your continued use indicates your acceptance.
I won't argue that changing the original contract doesn't happen, or that it's rarely in the consumers favor. But I do argue, in my experience, that they aren't changing the contract without giving you the option to just walk away if you don't accept the new terms. |
|
Shelleyp
@sbcglobal.net
from:
viperlmw
loadmaster
| reply to ptrowski
Re: Abitration is a scam
No, I'm not a lawyer. My name is Shelley Powers. I write about technology for a living. I also happen to be a passionate supporter for consumer rights. Enough so that I took the time to understand the issues. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to Shelleyp
Re: No responsibility
said by Shelleyp :
Do you understand the concept of an adhesion contract? These are take ir or leave it contracts that consumers have to sign in order to get a service. Yes, I understand the concept of an adhesion contract. An adhesion contracts aren't necessarily invalid. Most consumer credit, insurance, rental contracts, etc are in some form an adhesion contract. It's take it or leave it, if you don't like the terms, go elsewhere.
Do you then understand the term "unconscionable"? An adhesion contract that is unfair to the weaker party (the consumer) is unconscionable. No they aren't necessarily. They only become unconscionable when they are grossly one sided, or are the result of fraud or misrepresentation.
What this all means is that with some services, such as credit cards or cellphone access, there is no recourse for the consumer. If they want a credit card, they have to sign these unconscionable contracts. If they want any cellphone, they have to sign these contracts. Yes there are terms that have been found unconscionable, but there are just as many that are perfectly valid. Unconscionable or not, people are still signing them when they have other options. Most cellular providers offer prepaid or contract-less accounts. There are thousands of banks offering credit cards, or there is also the option of Visa/MC check cards or gift cards if you don't really need the credit portion of the card. You have choices. The choices may not be to your liking, or your terms may not be as favorable, but you have choices.
What has happened is that companies have been embedding mandatory arbitration clauses into their service contracts for the last decade, naming arbitration companies that are dependent on repeat business from these companies, and who rule in favor of the companies, and obscene amount of times. Then when a party tries to sue a company because of some abusive business practice, the company's lawyers step in and say, "No, you gave up the right to have your case heard in a court of law". More importantly, you gave up your right to participate in a class action lawsuit against the company. And the courts have also ruled in the past that mandatory arbitration may be illegal. Just because some legalese says it's so doesn't make it so, as AT&T is finding out.
Now, if you think this is fair, and that a "contract is a contract", great. I'm sure the companies will just love you.
Many of us, though, prefer a level playing ground. No, I don't think it's fair, but I also don't sign contracts that I think aren't fair. It doesn't excuse the companies from putting the unconscionable clauses, but it doesn't excuse the consumer from reading and understanding what they are signing either. I will guarantee you an overwhelming majority of the people that would be party to the class action lawsuit never even read their contract that they were signing. |
|
