dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2011-04-27 16:30:00: For years now, companies like AT&T have tried to bury fine print in user contracts stating that they cannot participate in class action lawsuits, but must instead participate in binding arbitration -- a process overseen by companies hired by AT&T wh.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

Riusaki

join:2000-09-14
Space

1 recommendation

And so it begins....

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.
--
Make the homies say HO and the girlies wanna SCREAM!

silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

Re: And so it begins....

said by Riusaki:

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did

88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

2 recommendations

Re: And so it begins....

said by silentlooker:

said by Riusaki:

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did

what's wrong with corporations running American and Americans losing their rights? Please leave the US.

silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

1 recommendation

Re: And so it begins....

said by 88615298:

said by silentlooker:

said by Riusaki:

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did

what's wrong with corporations running American and Americans losing their rights? Please leave the US.

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.

en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA

Re: And so it begins....

Hmm... I wish that I could make myself work like a corporation. Anyone attempting to sue me would have to end up in arbitration.

Personally dislike frivolous lawsuits that only exist to waste time, transfer money from party A to B (whether they deserve it or not). Eg Kid rides a bike down a dark road, crashes and sues the bike manufacturer for not providing a warning label on riding on a dark road.

I am against corporate fraud - eg. Misrepresenting a product so that it can sell more and run the competition into the ground (eg. MS vs. Netscape back in the day).

jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL

Re: And so it begins....

Um didn't the Supremes just determine that you can, under the Federal Arbitration Act?

David
hours are m-th 1130-10p central
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:96
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
said by silentlooker:

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.

That's probably where it needs to head.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Re: And so it begins....

said by David:

said by silentlooker:

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.

That's probably where it needs to head.

That law would be unconstitutional. It would take a constitutional amendment to overturn the high court.

Remember this is a contract between two willing parties. If one party doesn't like it he can change the language no law needed. One can get POTS without a contract.

I know what you are going to say the corporation will not agree to the change. Let me say this about that. I bought a new car a little over two years ago. Ford was desperate dealers were desperate. They took over $8,000 off a $30,000 sticker. Before I signed I struck out the clause about binding arbitration. "Oh you can't do that." OK no problem I'll look elsewhere. "No wait, let me check with my manager." Car sold.

A word of caution do not try this with the IRS by striking out that you are signing under penalty of perjury.

NOCMan
MacChatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

2 recommendations

Re: And so it begins....

I doubt AT&T would care about the 5 customers a year that would try to do this.

People need to realize that our rights are being eroded every day. Our country is slowly becoming a corpratist dictatorship. Republicans cant win an election, fine figure out how to disqualify voters, make it nearly impossible to vote etc. Cause new voters who are sick of the status quo probably wont vote republican this round after all the crap they promised has not come to pass.

Congress passing a law beneficial to consumers? Please when did that last happen. Was it in 2008 when credit card companies could now get money from bankrupt customers eliminating that whole concept of "Unsecured Debt", or maybe it was the Bankruptcy reform that made it more difficult to file bankruptcy, and you have to wait longer to do so after a bankruptcy. All of this right before our economy went to $hit. This government helps those who have the most money, and oh wait, yeah in 2010 the supreme court on the same vote line, voted to allow corporations and PAC's to be able to contribute unlimited money to a candidate.

The regular people are limited to 2500 dollars spread across any election even your mayor.

I guess if I want to donate unlimited money I have to go out and get a LLC done.

Wake up people. The Rich are in control and they're doing everything in their power to make sure it stays that way and that they get even more of "Their Share." It's the same group of people who will be able to live in another country after they've sucked us dry.

silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01
said by batterup:

said by David:

said by silentlooker:

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.

That's probably where it needs to head.

That law would be unconstitutional. It would take a constitutional amendment to overturn the high court.

Remember this is a contract between two willing parties. If one party doesn't like it he can change the language no law needed. One can get POTS without a contract.

I know what you are going to say the corporation will not agree to the change. Let me say this about that. I bought a new car a little over two years ago. Ford was desperate dealers were desperate. They took over $8,000 off a $30,000 sticker. Before I signed I struck out the clause about binding arbitration. "Oh you can't do that." OK no problem I'll look elsewhere. "No wait, let me check with my manager." Car sold.

A word of caution do not try this with the IRS by striking out that you are signing under penalty of perjury.

Court didn't rule it was in violation of the constitution, court ruled under the law corporation can have arbitration clause. All congress would have to do is ban arbitration clause.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Re: And so it begins....

said by silentlooker:

Court didn't rule it was in violation of the constitution, court ruled under the law corporation can have arbitration clause. All congress would have to do is ban arbitration clause.

True but you know that the SCOTUS will have to rule on that. Remember these are contracts willingly entered into for nonessential unregulated services.

I have POTS, town water, natural gas and electricity and I did not have to agree not to sue to get them. In fact it is the law that they have to supply them as long as I pay my bill. In fact gas and electric can't be shut off in the winter even if I don't pay my bill.

Ma Bell is dead and yet the people bitch.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: And so it begins....

Now get a credit card or debit card without not agreeing not to sue them.
TheRogueX

join:2003-03-26
Springfield, MO
Reviews:
·Mediacom
Internet services and cell phone services are no longer nonessential. For example: Take a look in your newspaper's classifieds section, try to find a job. Count them. Then go online and look at Monster, CareerBuilder, or your state's career sites. Guess where you'll have a better chance to find a job?

As for cell phones, living in the modern day without one is very difficult.

Oh, and Ma Bell *was* dead, but then we deregulated and look what happened! Ma Bell rose from the dead.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Re: And so it begins....

said by TheRogueX:

Oh, and Ma Bell *was* dead, but then we deregulated and look what happened! Ma Bell rose from the dead.

Ma is still dead; what rose from the dead is a three headed un-regulated monster. That unregulated monster is necessary as only an unregulated monster can compete with the unregulated monster that is CATV.

It works for Newark NJ; 100/15 from Cablevision and 50/50 from Verizon. No caps wide open 24/7 365. Cory Booker is still waiting for the people and businesses with money to move to Newark.

BTW Prudential, Rutgers, and the FBI regional office were there before "residential" super broadband was available.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
This would never work as with most companies you do not sign anything and they have clauses to change their terms at any time.

I have never signed paperwork for any of my ATT services.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Re: And so it begins....

said by r81984:

This would never work as with most companies you do not sign anything and they have clauses to change their terms at any time.

I have never signed paperwork for any of my ATT services.

People check the box that they agree with whatever it is they didn't read just like when they install software.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

Re: And so it begins....

said by batterup:

said by r81984:

This would never work as with most companies you do not sign anything and they have clauses to change their terms at any time.

I have never signed paperwork for any of my ATT services.

People check the box that they agree with whatever it is they didn't read just like when they install software.

I never checked any boxes. I signed up entirely over the phone.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.

silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

Re: And so it begins....

said by r81984:

said by batterup:

said by r81984:

This would never work as with most companies you do not sign anything and they have clauses to change their terms at any time.

I have never signed paperwork for any of my ATT services.

People check the box that they agree with whatever it is they didn't read just like when they install software.

I never checked any boxes. I signed up entirely over the phone.

You were sent copy of a contract, before you activate your phone you were instructed to read it first and if you didn't agree to it to send phone back. By activating the phone you agree to the contract.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Re: And so it begins....

said by silentlooker:

By activating the phone you agree to the contract.

Like the sticker on a software CD that says if you open it you agree to whatever we say now or what we may say tomorrow.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
said by silentlooker:

You were sent copy of a contract, before you activate your phone you were instructed to read it first and if you didn't agree to it to send phone back. By activating the phone you agree to the contract.

Nope.
I have both a cell and dsl.
Neither mailed me anything as I set it up for email only. I never had to agree to anything to activate either service.
The people on the phone never ask me if I would accept their TOS.
I did not agree to anything. I just pay a bill each month.

It makes no sense to say if I use their service then I automatically agree to anything they want without them telling me.

Why can't I say if they accept my money then they agree to my TOS. What is the difference?
They give me service I give them money. They should know better than accepting my money if they do not agree to my terms, right?
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Re: And so it begins....

said by r81984:

It makes no sense to say if I use their service then I automatically agree to anything they want without them telling me.

You can type all you want and protest all you want. We can't help you.

This is the facts of life in the deregulated world of telecommunication. Notice the bold words. Did you or did you not do subscribe? I respect a person that will stand up for his rights. Call them tomorrow and demand they exempt you from the agreement or you will un-subscribe.

quote:
The primary document that explains the relationship between you and AT&T when you subscribe to postpaid wireless service from AT&T.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

Re: And so it begins....

said by batterup:

said by r81984:

It makes no sense to say if I use their service then I automatically agree to anything they want without them telling me.

You can type all you want and protest all you want. We can't help you.

This is the facts of life in the deregulated world of telecommunication. Notice the bold words. Did you or did you not do subscribe? I respect a person that will stand up for his rights. Call them tomorrow and demand they exempt you from the agreement or you will un-subscribe.

quote:
The primary document that explains the relationship between you and AT&T when you subscribe to postpaid wireless service from AT&T.

I never agreed to anything.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Re: And so it begins....

said by r81984:

I never agreed to anything.

You da man, or woman. I'm behind you all of the way. So what are you going to do to challenge that draconian contract at&t says you agreed to?

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44

Re: And so it begins....

said by batterup:

said by r81984:

I never agreed to anything.

You da man, or woman. I'm behind you all of the way. So what are you going to do to challenge that draconian contract at&t says you agreed to?

I would tell them to prove that I agreed to anything in court....
Oh.... Wait?!?
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
I hate to tell you but you need to study up on the House of Reps and the power they have over the Supreme Court. However, the Reps can actually pass legislation that DOES over-rule the SC. It's only been done once in history so far, and most recently tossed around during the Bush Jr. administration as an option if the Supreme Court were to "allow" same-sex marriage.

So, I'm sorry, but such a law, if passed using the correct methods in the House of Reps, can actually become the law of the land.

I forget the name of this rule, but I'm sure google will turn up some results. I BELIEVE that the first and only time this was used was related to "gun rights" during the civil war time.

silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

Re: And so it begins....

said by fiberguy:

I hate to tell you but you need to study up on the House of Reps and the power they have over the Supreme Court. However, the Reps can actually pass legislation that DOES over-rule the SC. It's only been done once in history so far, and most recently tossed around during the Bush Jr. administration as an option if the Supreme Court were to "allow" same-sex marriage.

So, I'm sorry, but such a law, if passed using the correct methods in the House of Reps, can actually become the law of the land.

I forget the name of this rule, but I'm sure google will turn up some results. I BELIEVE that the first and only time this was used was related to "gun rights" during the civil war time.

It's called constitutional amendment and it been done many times. There is no other way to pass a law that overrules us supreme court.

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
said by fiberguy:

I hate to tell you but you need to study up on the House of Reps and the power they have over the Supreme Court.

So, I'm sorry, but such a law, if passed using the correct methods in the House of Reps, can actually become the law of the land.

I'll try to keep this simple. The US of A has three branches of government. Executive, legislative (upper and lower house) and the SCOTUS. For a bill to become a law requires the House of Reps and the Senate to pass it by 51% and the president to sign it. If the president vetoes it it still can become law if both houses pass it by a 75% vote.

If the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional the only way it can become law is with a constitutional amendment. This is 5th grade civics.
Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Re: And so it begins....

So are you claiming this ruling gives corps the constitutionally protected right of binding arbitration?

I did not read the ruling and probably wont, but did they find this to be AT&T's constitutional right to do this or did they just say that they are within current law to include it and the lower courts were incorrect in their reasoning for not allowing it?

batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ

Re: And so it begins....

said by Skippy25:

So are you claiming this ruling gives corps the constitutionally protected right of binding arbitration?

I did not read the ruling and probably wont, but did they find this to be AT&T's constitutional right to do this or did they just say that they are within current law to include it and the lower courts were incorrect in their reasoning for not allowing it?

The ruling states that it can be in a contract it does not force anyone to agree to it. In fact if force is used the contract would be null and void.

Let me give it to you cold and hard; a residential or small business subscriber is low ROI and if they don't get one no big deal. So if one doesn't agree to arbitration most likely no service except POTS.

Now a Bloomberg or the State of New Jersey is a large ROI and they negotiate their own contracts.

This is an example; a small, very small, 10 x10 mom and pop store that sells cigarettes, newspapers and lottery tickets has his land line go out at 2 AM. He will be given a 24 hour time frame for repair. Now if his lottery machine goes out a tech would be dispatched immediately because the machines are under contract to the state.

This ruling just says a company can put whatever is legal in a contract and a subscriber has the right to agree to it, change it, or not sign it. These are not vital regulated services.

I find it much more disturbing that they can change the language of the agreement or cut off your service for any reason. This has not been challenged because there is no money in it for the ambulance chasers.
xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
Right up until you forfeit your rights the next time you have to sign an offer letter at work, buy a service that doesn't work, or buy anything with an TOS agree button.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time.

silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

Re: And so it begins....

said by xrobertcmx:

Right up until you forfeit your rights the next time you have to sign an offer letter at work, buy a service that doesn't work, or buy anything with an TOS agree button.

You can decline to accept that job unless they change contract. Why should company be prohibited from writing such contract?

Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA
said by silentlooker:

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.

Because the corporations give millions upon millions to everyone in DC so chances of such a law passing are zero to nil....whoever the party

wdoa

join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA
Corporate Shill, what a surprise.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
It means you also lose, even when you are right.

You get screwed, you lose.

You fight it, you lose.

You go to court, you lose.

When all legal recourse is exhausted, all that remains is illegal recourse.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
said by silentlooker:

said by Riusaki:

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did

So you think corporations should have more rights than citizens???
Really?
It is an American's right to a court trial in cases of being wronged.
This supreme court ruling is anti-american citizen.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.

•••••••••

M A R S
Premium
join:2001-06-15
Long Island
kudos:1
You hate the people of America, i can feel it. You have LUST for Corporations. YOU HATE AMERICA!

silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

Re: And so it begins....

said by M A R S:

You hate the people of America, i can feel it. You have LUST for Corporations. YOU HATE AMERICA!

No its called rule of LAW. All supreme court did was declare that law permits company to have arbitration clause and overturn those judges that say they do not. Congress can always change that, that is how our country works.

M A R S
Premium
join:2001-06-15
Long Island
kudos:1

Re: And so it begins....

said by silentlooker:

said by M A R S:

You hate the people of America, i can feel it. You have LUST for Corporations. YOU HATE AMERICA!

No its called rule of LAW. All supreme court did was declare that law permits company to have arbitration clause and overturn those judges that say they do not. Congress can always change that, that is how our country works.

You hate the people of America and until you figure out why your lost.

Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
Amen. And companies wonder why people hate them so.

I wonder how much they paid for the vote?
--
To All Real Dads. For All Real Moms Every Real
Service.
firedrakes

join:2009-01-29
Arcadia, FL
this is bs.

45612019

join:2004-02-05
New York, NY

Hahaha America is so screwed

You guys better get used to living in a banana republic. I have never seen a country so determined to degrade themselves from a modernized, wealthy first world empire into a corrupt, broken third world country.

The destruction of the American empire is going to be a truly unique chapter in the history books and will serve as a testament to the limitless greed the human species is capable of. At least it will be a good lesson for future generations of more civilized countries so they hopefully don't end up going down the same path.

•••••••
maubs

join:2010-02-26
Farmington, IL

SCOTUS can't get anything right lately

What's up with the Supremes? Corporations are persons and have rights to speech? Now they're exempt from fraud via arbitration? It's like they've all been dropped on their heads.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

coldmoon
Premium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
Reviews:
·Windstream

2 recommendations

This might be an opportunity

Now that the issue has been settled, there might be an opening for a a disruptive company to come in and compete on the basis of NOT forcing arbitration. I will admit at first blush this might not happen, but it could if enough people are ready to protest against this type of consumer protection erosion.

The rulling said that the companies COULD force arbitration but said nothing about companies all having to USE or FORCE arbitration approaches...

Something to think about at least...
JMHO
Mike
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC

•••••••••

Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Saint Paul, MN

BOHICA

America, we have the best politicians that money can buy.

Well, guess we'll have to try and get congress to pass laws making binding arbitration illegal. Wonder how well that will go.

I look around and see uprisings all over the world and have started wondering if these people don't think it will happen again here. The people will only take so much and all over the world that line has been crossed.
--
When will the people realize that with DRM they aren't purchasing anything?
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: BOHICA

Give it a bit more time. The vermin are moving at an accelerated rate with their greed and the people will revolt.

The only issue is the massive amount or mercenaries (uh, "contractors") plus many criminals/retards or foreign non thinking nationals we have in the armed forces. They WILL fire on the American protesters and many people will die. I hope the majority of the soldiers will know where their loyalties lie and do the right thing.
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1

Re: BOHICA

said by WernerSchutz:

Give it a bit more time. The vermin are moving at an accelerated rate with their greed and the people will revolt.

The only issue is the massive amount or mercenaries (uh, "contractors") plus many criminals/retards or foreign non thinking nationals we have in the armed forces. They WILL fire on the American protesters and many people will die. I hope the majority of the soldiers will know where their loyalties lie and do the right thing.

All revolutions are funded. Who would fund a revolution in the USA? The USSR? They tried in the 60s/70s. They were only slightly successful (discrimination, voting age, abortion, TANF, universal college bound education, etc).

The US War of Independence was a proxy war between France and Britain. Civil war was was a proxy war between the USA and Britain (the south, cotton for british industrial revolution factories). Serfs and proles can never rebel, they dont have the resources to, they are working to pay taxes to their masters and keep their kids fed.

Intelligence agencies do a pretty good job of keeping things quiet in the USA. Whistle blowers never win in the USA. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning Watergate was the only time out of 1000s that they were caught.

zalternate

join:2007-02-22
freedom land

arbitration or millions of single lawsuits

An Arbitrator is to be a "disinterested third party" »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration and not someone that the company hires(and houses in the corporate office) to make sure that he rules for the company.

So how about instead of one class-action, people submit 5 million single 'small claims court' lawsuits. That will hit the scum in the pocket book and since with so many cases, the corporate scum will definitely not show up for all those cases spread over the 50 States. Since the company is doing business in your State, they have to comply with your State Laws and not some lame ass 'company registered State', that is corporate friendly.
--
Prisoners are treated better than supposedly free North Americans.

••••

jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ
kudos:3

So...

If I send my own TOS to a company, then they have to abide by it?

••••

buddahbless

join:2005-03-21
Premium
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
·Verizon Online DSL

Just how many big wigs does ATT realy have paid off?

WOW we knew they had a lot of senators, house REPS, and FCC big wigs.. but with this ruling it seems they have the Supreme Court in there pocket as well. If they dont get the TMO merger pass from the FCC they will just run an appeal over to there friends at the supreme court... Lord help us all...

t3ln3t

@qwest.net

Give me some!

Can I have some of that "good stuff" the the SCOTUS be smokin'??
WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX

Re: Give me some!

$ bills ?

elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
said by t3ln3t :

Can I have some of that "good stuff" the the SCOTUS be smokin'??

Not allowed they'll toss you in jail for possessing just a itty bitty amount of it.
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, please"
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

2 recommendations

They got it right

Class action suits are a joke - all they do is enrich the bottom-dwelling lawyers, while the customer gets a 15% discount on leather accessories.

If you're ignorant enough to sign with AT&T, too bad.

Koil
Premium
join:2002-09-10
Irmo, SC
kudos:2

Re: They got it right

said by elray:

Class action suits are a joke - all they do is enrich the bottom-dwelling lawyers, while the customer gets a 15% discount on leather accessories.

If you're ignorant enough to sign with AT&T, too bad.

The point is that this now opens the door for all corporations, not just ATT... look for this wording to become the standard boiler plate for all contracts now.
--
My Blog - Raising Connor Updated - 11/03/10
elray

join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·EarthLink

Re: They got it right

said by Koil:

said by elray:

Class action suits are a joke - all they do is enrich the bottom-dwelling lawyers, while the customer gets a 15% discount on leather accessories.

If you're ignorant enough to sign with AT&T, too bad.

The point is that this now opens the door for all corporations, not just ATT... look for this wording to become the standard boiler plate for all contracts now.

Works for me.

In my entire life, class action suits have only served to clutter my mailbox with meaningless claim forms. Lawyers get rich, defendants lock in future business, populists write headlines, a few more supposedly intelligent kids choose law over medicine. Take away the payoff for the lawyers, and we're all better off.

If you think it "unjustly" enriches the corporation, then buy their stock, and donate the dividends to your favorite charity.

anon6

@comcast.net

at&t

is a pretty bad company when it comes to consumer rights.

DcGamer05

join:2001-07-05
Danbury, CT

Re: at&t

this is all just nuts. this needs to be over turned

ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..

1 recommendation

While were at it.

We should allow this arbitration ruling to be fully retroactive. Perhaps now at&t and other companies can sue to get back the monies that they had owed consumers in the past for making, marketing, distributing, selling and poisoning /killing consumers with?
--
»were.boldlygoingnowhere.org if we don't change out ways!

warwick

join:2009-06-05
Hollywood, FL

Incredible

Well we all know how it all ends, I suppose thats a comforting thought.

The following numbers will have significant meaning in the very near future.

.50/7.62/6.8/9/.45

"Projectiles begets change, not words; they fade without remembrance" - Warwick

•••
Donut

join:2005-06-27
Romulus, MI

meh

I call bullshit and Shenanigans.
--
Mr. Donut

Cake Eater

@spcsdns.net

Let them eat lead

Ya say you want a revolution? I'd love to see the plan....

AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1

Re: Let them eat lead

said by Cake Eater :

Ya say you want a revolution? I'd love to see the plan....

quote:
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
--
Standard disclaimers apply.
Atomic batteries to power. Turbines to speed.
slynerve

join:2011-04-11

Horrifying.

Anybody defending this should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely, 100% ashamed. How do you sleep at night? Honestly. You cannot possibly get more morally bankrupt. Dracula would recoil in horror from your touch. You are the reason the country is being bled dry, cent by cent, while honest Americans work and toil several jobs because corporations think employees don't need a living wage and consumers should be lab rats.
qworster

join:2001-11-25
Bryn Mawr, PA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

So now no one will ever get paid....

....and corporations will literally be able to get away with murder.

They will be able to pollute and make scads of people sick without recourse. They will be able to put out untested drugs without having to worry about any real recourse. You do know that if this decision had happened before the Exxon Valdez disaster no one would have received a penny don't you?

This is the most anti-consumer decision EVER-and those that agree with it have no semblance of a clue.
rradina

join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO

I don't like this "solution" but something had to be d

Most class action law suits seem to be run by the same type of folks who accumulate patents and then troll corporations for money. My company, along with hundreds of other retailers, are currently involved in a lawsuit from a company that claims to have a patent on the popular "Store Locator" feature (i.e. where you enter your zip code and the site tells you about nearby stores.) This company exists only on paper, it has never created anything or offered any services but apparently they had an idea back in the mid 90s about an on-line Yellow Pages concept. (Why someone can patent the idea of putting the Yellow Pages on-line I simply don't understand but...)

My dad was recently notified of a class action lawsuit where the car dealer was charging a $150 fee every time they sold a car. He'll probably get his $150 refunded, the lawyers will get a bundle and the car dealer will likely continue to charge the fee but identify it differently.

Apparently someone bought a car and later they were upset about the added $150 fee.

I agree with some who say we are losing avenues of recourse when uncomfortable or truly bad things happen to us. However, I don't know if I would go so far as to say we have a "right" to collectively ban together and whack a company upside the head. We can still individually bring a suit against a company but obviously we are at a disadvantage.

In my opinion the biggest losers (which is shocking) is the class-action lawyers.

••••••

IowaCowboy
Want to go back to Iowa
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Class Action Lawsuits = Cash Cows for attorneys

Many times, class action lawsuits are cash cows for trial lawyers with consumers getting little to no money back for their claims. A few years ago, Sears and their Automotive repair division got hit with a class action lawsuit over mechanics having to meet sales quotas which led to unnecessary repairs, even to the point of replacing perfectly good parts. The plaintiff's lawyer in the case walked away with millions in so-called attorney's fees and the plaintiffs walked away with coupons for percentages off of future repairs (like I am going to take my car back to a shop that ripped me off in the first place). So in a way, these arbitration clauses protect consumers (from cash hungry plaintiff's lawyers). If you look at the fine print of these arbitration agreements, you still have the right to go to small claims court for certain types of claims.

annonomus

@rcn.com

Re: Class Action Lawsuits = Cash Cows for attorneys

Yes there are a lot of bad class action suits. But you would hope they would shake out of the system before reaching court. But this decision is a slap down to all class action suits.
Should we give back money to the tobacco companies?
I cant believe it, it is such a stab in the back to the american people. What does this mean? You buy a fed judge but not state judge? I cant believe such a decision was made? Especially in light of at&t buying t-moble. At&t has mazde it clear, that grandfather contracts will not be honored. And t-mobile 3g will not work on their network either. Looks like at$t has it's future sowed up quite nicely.
genzoulv

join:2004-10-05
Las Vegas, NV

Big corp screwing the little guy as usual..

I'm against this ruling because it's in favor of corporations taking advantage of us and despite what people say about class-action suits it's still a right that we, as consumers, would lose. It just looks like this is more crap on ATT's "let's screw the consumer as much as we can" list. I'm sure there's much more to come. UBB and this are just the start of things. The thing that bothers me the most is that people would rather get that shiny new iPhone and give ATT their money over not giving them their money and going with another provider. When will people learn that if you're going to give them your money; it's the same thing as supporting them even if you're bitching. If you don't support ATT, then don't use them; despite them having that fancy phone u like. That's really the only way to send them a message. If enough people would start doing this and not just giving them their money and dealing with it; maybe then ATT wouldn't be trying to pull such crazy shit because they wouldn't have the power to. All the money they make is because of all their subscribers. Consumers make them what they are today.