exocet_cm
In memory of dadkins
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
clubs:   |  Listen Up ComCrap
Your next!  |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | TOS's Blow
This is another reason why a TOS should not be allowed to change during a term. |
|
rds24a
Teach Your Children
Premium
join:2000-12-13
Springboro, OH
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| I hope there is a point where this all ends
In a perfect world, there will be a point in the near future where some regulation is put into place that bans terms of service that are not readable by the average person in the time allotted. No more 4-foot-long receipts from Best Buy. No more 100-page booklets in your Time Warner bill. No more abuse of the consumer because just about everthing is a monopoly with more monetary and political power than the government. No mor eshjfdalkjhf xmmn
Oh, crap, sorry. I fell asleep. Must have been dreaming.
--
All hail JoePa |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
1 edit | reply to exocet_cm
Re: Listen Up Health Care / Kaiser Permanente
The medical industry should watch.
Kaiser Permanente has a similar clause in their HMO Insurance.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  Arbitration clauses a result of shark class action lawyers
While all contract terms should be readable and not in obscure legalese, the mandatory arbitration clauses came about because of those opportunistic law firms that tended to file class action lawsuits at the drop of a hat and frequently without any reason other than greed. The costs of defending these suits became prohibitive and weren't in anyone's interest but the suing law firms. The so-called winners in a class action suit were NEVER those on whose behalf the suits were filed.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Old News
This was covered on other news sites several months ago. |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
| said by hottboiinnc  :This was covered on other news sites several months ago. What AT&T did may have been covered on other new sites several months ago, but the ruling was filed August 17, 2007. Far from being "old news". |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to exocet_cm
Re: Listen Up ComCrap
said by exocet_cm :Your next! Like ComCAST invented the arbitration clause.
It would be a painful task to try to find business of any size that doesn't have the arbitration clause. Anyone that has a credit card should know that...
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
1 edit | reply to rds24a
Re: I hope there is a point where this all ends
So then what you are saying is that anytime you buy something from a company that provides you something, it should just be anything goes? no contracts? and what's the "time allotted?"
Like it or not, the contracts are written in the very same legal terms that EVERY citizen lives under. The fact that people don't want to take the time to read what they are getting into with an entity in a business relationship is no reason to toss out contracts or terms of service. The TOS, like them or not, are not going away, and they are not going to be dumbed down so that people can be lazy. Plain English is vague and isn't very easy to hold up in court because of interpretation. When a problem occurs, the contract or terms are based on law that a court, where the problem would wind up, is going to sort out.
I'm sorry to say that I do not agree with you in the least that things should be in plain English or that there should be no long books that make up agreements. I refuse to dumb down America for those that are too lazy. It will cause nothing but problems.. not to mention, the last time I read a comcast TOS agreement, it IS written in plain English. Further, people cry all the time that "they didn't know" this or that... well? That's why there are TOS agreements.. only no one cares to read them until its too late.
I DO, however, no agree with arbitration clauses.. (only other than to the reason TCH stated below about opportunistic law firms) I have NEVER EVER agreed with the signing/agreeing away of your rights of a citizen of the United States to not be able to file a complaint against another person or entity when they have done wrong. This nation was founded on law and order and to allow arbitration... that's un-American.
But TOS agreements can stay.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN | When is it going to stop
This is why Castro kicked these idiots out of Cuba. He asked them to play fair and not exploit the people or resources. They chose not to agree so bye bye. I think the govt should temp suspend them from any fcc auctions. |
|
Stumbles
join:2002-12-17
Port Saint Lucie, FL | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Arbitration clauses a result of shark class action lawyers
Then the courts should have been slapping the opportunistic lawyers instead of giving companies a new kind of power. T
Though you are right in that the only real winners in a class action lawsuit are the participating lawyers. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to Rob
Re: Old News
The ruling was announced long ago making it old news. Just because it was actually filed today on record doesnt mean it was just announced today. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Stumbles
Re: Arbitration clauses a result of shark class action lawyers
said by Stumbles :Then the courts should have been slapping the opportunistic lawyers instead of giving companies a new kind of power. Why? Such an action would reduce the need for more judges.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | And why would more judges be in the interest of existing judges? |
|
Rob
In Deo speramus, God Bless the USA
Premium
join:2001-08-25
Kendall, FL
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to hottboiinnc
Re: Old News
said by hottboiinnc :The ruling was announced long ago making it old news. Just because it was actually filed today on record doesnt mean it was just announced today. Sure. But it was filed 8/17, making it news. Tada. |
|
N3OGH
Bear patrol must be working like a charm
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to vpoko
Re: Arbitration clauses a result of shark class action lawyers
Because all judges above the district justice / justice of the peace level must be lawyers.
More lawyers in positions of power (judges) the more power lawyers have.
More judges means more power for the judges in power all ready...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… |
|
JTRockville
Data Ho
Premium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD
clubs: | reply to TKJunkMail
I can't speak to ATT's reasoning, but I've been following news about Comcast for a few years now, and I'm not aware of even one class-action mighty enough that could cause Comcast to amend their terms. Can you cite any? |
|
No to ESPN
@comcast.net
| COMCAST TOS
I got the COMCAST TOS in my last bill. I wrote on my check to them that I did not accept the language of their TOS with some addtional legal stuff. It would be interesting to see if they cashed my check and accepted my language. Am waiting on a copy of the cleared check to arrive in the monthly bank statement. Stay tuned. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | reply to Rob
Re: Old News
w/e DSLReports reports news only when they think it is. CNN and Washington Post had this when it was first ruled. |
|
jc100
join:2002-04-10
| reply to rds24a
Re: I hope there is a point where this all ends
We only have ourselves to blame for the legal disclaimers longer than your average book. If it weren't for idiots using hairdryers in the bathtub or suing for millions on spilled coffee, we wouldn't be inundated with this crap. Yet, thanks to your village idiots, companies have long legal mumbo jumbo to protect themselves. While I disagree with this clause of arbitration, I can at least see where they are coming from. They want to avoid a disasterous lawsuit, which in the end, gets offset by its members. It's a catch 22 in the real sense. Even though I think their intentions are good (for the most part), no company should be immune from bad conduct. Hence, this is where you draw the fine line between protecting the consumer and not screwing the company. That is where it gets tricky, and I think a more acceptable balance must be found, than some forced arbitration. Some suggestions might include a nonbinding mediator to help resolve disputes, in order to prevent them from turning "legal". One other idea might be to treat customers better. Whatever the choice, this decision to force arbitration is definitely overzealous. I applaud the courts for recognizing this fact. |
|
