Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
Dogfather
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 11:54 am
Nothing newJust about every contract these days have arbitration clauses. | |
|
| n2jtx join:2001-01-13 Glen Head, NY |
n2jtx
Member
2008-Mar-19 12:20 pm
Re: Nothing newsaid by Dogfather:Just about every contract these days have arbitration clauses. Of course you usually agree to that BEFORE you sign up not after they have you locked in with your money and then tell you "oh by the way...". I am sure it does work well for Verizon this way. | |
|
| kherr Premium Member join:2000-09-04 Collinsville, IL |
to Dogfather
Wasn't that clause struck down by the courts when other telcos (ATT anyway) tried to sneak it in ??? | |
|
| | dispatcher21911 Where is your emergency? join:2004-01-22 united state 1 edit |
Re: Nothing newI also thought that a federal court stated that arbitration clauses were invalid. Edit: Here is one story I found on the court case » www.consumeraffairs.com/ ··· ion.html I am sure there are more. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Nothing newWho cares if there are arbitration clauses anyway? Most ISP TOS basically remove all responsibility from the companies as far as honest service provision and billing goes. Even if you tried to sue them, you'd lose because the companies' TOS states that if (insert complaint here) occurs, It's not their fault and the end user is responsible. If there even is an anti-arbitration clause, it's probably put in there to stop the whiners from wasting everyone's time and money. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Nothing newWow.
You really have NO knowledge of contracts. I'm no lawyer, but we all have to deal with contracts.
The stuff in the TOS is the company's stated position.
It has zero force of law unless and until it's vetted through the courts. And it's a guaranteed fact that most clauses in these formula contracts would never ever be upheld by any court.
The arbitration clause is just a scare tactic to try to dissuade you from more formal legal remedies where the balance of power shifts to the weaker party.
Your best protection is to agree without ever reading the documents.
Since this is common practice, and the writers of these contracts know this, and take steps to promote keeping the other party in the dark, the odds of them ever being able to enforce any of it are remote.
Having the contract online further advances the consumer's position. Normally, both parties would have the opportunity to edit the contractual documents until a satisfactory 'meeting of the minds' is reached.
With an after the fact 'agreement' presented in a way to make negotiation impractical, I have no doubt that any court would toss it with a quickness.
If I were ever in a dispute, I would simply take the position that the agreement was entered into under duress, there was no meeting of the minds, and that it's null and void.
I would decline any arbitration attempt and proceed with civil action unless the other party were to make me whole. | |
|
| ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
to Dogfather
True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shoter than a few thousand pages. | |
|
| | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 1 edit |
Dogfather
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 12:46 pm
Re: Nothing newsaid by ptrowski:True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shoter than a few thousand pages. Where are you getting that the agreement is a few thousand pages? A 2,000 word service agreement isn't unusual in the slightest and has to be there, like arbitration, to combat the litany of bloodsucking ambulance chasers. Blame the bloodsucking lawyers for these hoops, not Verizon. Hell, I have to wait 30 seconds to get to my Acura's navi screen because of blood sucking lawyers who would sue Acura if some dumbass drove into a lake. Meanwhile she was told ahead of time that to get the deal she would have to go online and read the agreement. | |
|
| | | en102Canadian, eh? join:2001-01-26 Valencia, CA |
en102
Member
2008-Mar-19 1:01 pm
Re: Nothing newThis isn't anything new, however, you typically have A) Blood/money thirsty lawyers "for the consumer" B) Greedy corporations that want to have their cake and eat it too. I see this more in the health insurance industry than telco. Eg. Kaiser Permanente (probably others as well) have arbitration clauses. | |
|
| | | |
to Dogfather
Lets get some facts straight.
First and foremost it is the courts that should decide if a case has merit or not. If it doesn't, then it should be tossed. EVERY lawsuit should be reviewed by a panel and have the "Duh!" factor applied to it before even considering any evidence to allow it to proceed.
Second, if a company wants to do it then there are 2 things for sure. First, it hurts the consumer more than them. Second, it adds to their bottom line.
Third, companies like Verizon have a full time staff of lawyers that are paid regardless of whether or not they are sued.
Fourth, companies like Verizon use arbitration because it restricts the consumer's right to bring a true hearing against them which would be public record and put the consumer on a somewhat even playing field.
Lastly, companies like Verizon use arbitration because they know without question they will win virtually every case. | |
|
| | | | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 2 edits |
Re: Nothing newLet's get some facts straight, juries, not courts decide awards and that is why corporations have to have arbitration. Arbitration doesn't mean immunity or automatic victory for corporations. It just means that the chances of avoiding a multi million dollar payout for something stupid like losing a notebook is far less likely. To some here at DSLR, anything short of $50 million for a fried laptop is the corporation screwing over the customer. This » www.informationweek.com/ ··· 06504123 is why Verizon has to have arbitration clauses. | |
|
| | | | | vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 1:38 pm
Re: Nothing newHow about that study that showed that Comcast wins 97% of their arbitration cases? Remember, the arbitator is NOT neutral, they're hired by the company. If a high enough percentage of cases don't go their way, they can be replaced. That's not what arbitration is supposed to be. | |
|
| | | | | | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
Re: Nothing newJust because Comcast won doesn't mean they weren't justified in winning 97% of the time and it depends on what is defined as winning. I would like to see that study if you have a link to it.
And arbitration is a far better solution than having a subscriber funded bottomless trough for the bloodsucking lawyers.
I'm no fan of corporations, I just hate the blood sucking vampire lawyers who are ruining this country. | |
|
| | | | | | | vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 1:56 pm
Re: Nothing newThe study is here » www.citizen.org/document ··· over.pdf and it was 94%, not 97 - my mistake. I have no problem with mandatory arbitration - if the company handling the arbitration doesn't have a relationship with either party. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
Re: Nothing newI wonder who funds that think tank. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 2:00 pm
Re: Nothing newWhy don't you spend some time wondering who funds the arbitrators? And how can an arbitrator that's paid BY a company be neutral when handling that company's disputes? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA 3 edits |
Re: Nothing newsaid by vpoko:Why don't you spend some time wondering who funds the arbitrators? And how can an arbitrator that's paid BY a company be neutral when handling that company's disputes? Cause I know who funds them (arbitrators) and its' easy to be neutral. In my business I pay my worker's comp auditor, ISO auditor, and a few others and they tell me to fix stuff and I don't fire them for it. Meanwhile I always follow the money no matter who is telling their story. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 2:32 pm
Re: Nothing newsaid by Dogfather:Meanwhile I always follow the money no matter who is telling their story. No, you're obviously not following the money going to arbitrators. Why can an arbitrator remain neutral, even though it's in their interest to rule towards the company that hires them, but a think tank must have an agenda influenced by the source of their funding. Sounds like you have a double standard when it comes to following the money. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
Re: Nothing newAs I stated, just because the company pays them doesn't automatically mean they aren't neutral. In the course of my business pay auditors (the closest think to arbitrators I use) who are neutral. No problem.
No double standard. I always follow the money. Arbitration is far better that subscribers giving millions to greedy bloodsucking lawyers because the ISP blows up a notebook. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 4:36 pm
Re: Nothing newsaid by Dogfather:As I stated, just because the company pays them doesn't automatically mean they aren't neutral. In the course of my business pay auditors (the closest think to arbitrators I use) who are neutral. No problem. Sure it's a problem, remember Arthur Anderson? That's why we have the Sarbanes-Oxley Act now, to try to prevent auditors from getting in bed with the companies they're hired to audit. We need the same thing for arbitration. Would you be opposed to the consumer choosing the arbitrator, with the loser paying the costs? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
Re: Nothing newI would love nothing more than a loser pays system. It will fix everything from heathcare to patent trolling. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
to Dogfather
Sorry, I meant words, my bad. 2000 words I think is a bit long as is 7000. You have to wait 30 seconds? Mine in my Nissan comes up in 10 seconds. | |
|
| | | | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
Re: Nothing newSure seems like 30 seconds but if I counted it off it's probably 15 or 20. Damn lawyers. They're the scourge of the Earth. | |
|
| | | Cheese Premium Member join:2003-10-26 Naples, FL |
to Dogfather
said by Dogfather:said by ptrowski:True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shoter than a few thousand pages. Where are you getting that the agreement is a few thousand pages? A 2,000 word service agreement isn't unusual in the slightest and has to be there, like arbitration, to combat the litany of bloodsucking ambulance chasers. Blame the bloodsucking lawyers for these hoops, not Verizon. Hell, I have to wait 30 seconds to get to my Acura's navi screen because of blood sucking lawyers who would sue Acura if some dumbass drove into a lake. Meanwhile she was told ahead of time that to get the deal she would have to go online and read the agreement. "This was the first time she was being presented with the full contract for her new FiOS setup, and the service had already been installed and activated." | |
|
| ptrowskiGot Helix? Premium Member join:2005-03-14 Woodstock, CT |
to Dogfather
True, they are nothing new but you usually get to review them AHEAD of time instead of after you drop the money and subscribe. They are also usually a wee bit shorter than a few thousand pages. | |
|
| rit56 join:2000-12-01 New York, NY |
to Dogfather
so you're saying it's ok for corporations to screw customers or are you just commenting that everyone does it these days which would seem that a return to regulation would be a welcome thing for consumers especially now that the economy is collapsing, the dollar is about worthless and inflation is pretty bad.... with the recession we are now in maybe the corporate apologists on this site are ready to admit that some government regulation and over site is good. Alan Greenspans deregulate and let the market regulate itself sure was a good idea. did anyone here notice last week we officially became the number 2 economy in the world ? the EU is now number one. | |
|
| | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
Dogfather
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 12:42 pm
Re: Nothing newHow are customers getting screwed? By not being able to get titanic and totally unjustified jury awards? And Verizon's arbitration clauses have zero to do with our horrid trade policies, Chinese currency manipulation and people borrowing more to buy a house than they could afford to pay back. | |
|
| | | vpoko Premium Member join:2003-07-03 Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 12:49 pm
Re: Nothing newWait, so you're saying it's OK for a company to not disclose a contract that you have with them until after you've agreed to it? Contract law generally requires you to know what you're signing for the contract to be enforcable. | |
|
| | | | Dogfather Premium Member join:2007-12-26 Laguna Hills, CA |
Re: Nothing newsaid by vpoko:Wait, so you're saying it's OK for a company to not disclose a contract that you have with them until after you've agreed to it? Contract law generally requires you to know what you're signing for the contract to be enforcable. You can't agree to a contract you haven't agreed to. | |
|
| | | rit56 join:2000-12-01 New York, NY 1 edit |
to Dogfather
Verizons corporate policies of "it's ok" to screw customers and deny them due process contributes heavily to the overall problem of commerce here in the United States and the overall problem of the "greed is good" philosophy. it's not good when it wrecks an economy like it has done here. how can you say it's ok for a corporation to screw customers? why are they afraid of full disclosure prior to signing up customers? you don't think that's wrong and after locking the customer into an unfair contract they should not be allowed to sue the corporation or ask for their money back without a termination fee? you obviously either work for Verizon or a lobbyist. a telecom company is no different than a lender if it screws people. | |
|
gatorkramNeed for Speed Premium Member join:2002-07-22 Winterville, NC |
gatorkram
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 12:41 pm
SoftwareSoftware does this all the time. You go to the store, buy X software, come home, and then you have to agree to whatever. | |
|
| hopeflickerCapitalism breeds greed Premium Member join:2003-04-03 Long Beach, CA |
Re: Softwaresaid by gatorkram:Software does this all the time. You go to the store, buy X software, come home, and then you have to agree to whatever. Still doesn't make it right. | |
|
|
cableties
Premium Member
2008-Mar-19 12:45 pm
Bingo!karl, you put it right: "...truly exceptional technical service, marred by typical incumbent phone company contract legalese and sub-standard billing support."
Class action suit coming up.
Verizon's "non-arbitrating" clause opens that door. You can't provide a service, install it and then qualify the bundle price AFTER without full disclosure.
"our way or the highway" is narrow-dysfunctional thinking. And yes, their billing system is the ultimate bureaucracy! | |
|
jimbo48 join:2000-11-17 Asheville, NC |
Verizion et alA single client could not afford to bring a corporation like Verizon to court to sue because of the massive legal fees involved and the endless ability of lawyers under retainer or on staff at Verizon to file delay after delay wearing down the individual. A Class action or a suit brought on by a State AG would be more successful as it would benefit the public. Forcing a client to sign a contract without revealing the complete terms of the contract or hiding the terms of the contract by deception is illegal and any terms are unenforceable.Problem is you can't get a Verizon rep to sign a complete contract when its on-line or over the phone and its all to easy to alter the facts electronically to cover up the illegal business practices. Corporate America has sunk to a new low in terms of ethics and legality. They just "assess the business risk" and make decisions on the risk of negative revenue flow and to hell with it being legal or not. | |
|
| •••• |
HarleyYacLee Premium Member join:2001-10-13 Allendale, NJ |
HummmmI'll sue for the No Sue Lee | |
|
|
Fiberuberalles
Anon
2008-Mar-19 2:57 pm
Fios Deceptions?I am amazed at all this crybabying. Verizon is offering the best broadband connection in the world bringing fiber to peoples' homes and we get this trivial nonsense! After having endured Comcast and its ever spiralling costs I got a far better, far faster connection that cost considerably less. You never had it so good. | |
|
|
Campaign contributions return many benifits to Telcos. Obviously the Federal Legislative Branch will have no interest in passing a law providing full disclosure to customers, in simple english, as long as the Telecommunications Sector continues to pay off our government officials through generous campaign contributions. Under these circumstances the Legislative Branch will continue to pass legislation favorable to the telecommunications industry and unfavorable to the consumer. By the way if you purchase an automobile with a navigational system your will have to sign an undisclosed shrink wrap contract before you will be able to use it. You will have to press a Radio Button on the Screen of a button on the dashboard accepting the terms of the contract before you can use the navigation system. I am sure at this rate drivers will have to take a written test, through their dashboard computer screen, each and every time they start their automobile. | |
|
| •••• |
|
uhhh, you're in the USBusiness rules in the U.S.A.:
1. You can run over the customer as much as you want while the government looks the other way (ala Providian depositing your payments late, charging you a late fee or over the limit fee or both while the OCC who regulates them could care less until the media broke the story).
2. See number one except when the mass media catches you violating too many customers rights and then the government finally comes down on your business with a heavy hand (rarely happens).
Moral to the story: business owners don't get too greedy, just stay moderately greedy and you'll be fine raking in the bucks of your customers with no one to turn to. Get too greedy and p*ss off too many customers and then you're sunk. | |
|
|
When you sign the contract,you get bundle prices. Until then, you're month-to-month with the right to terminate service at any time. And with the exception of the Activation Fee, you can cancel without charge on internet and TV within 30 days from installation. Admittedly, it's a PITA to sign up then cancel, but you're within their terms of service as disclosed at order signing. In the confirmation email sent to me the same day I ordered triple play, there was the link to read and sign. I understood clearly it was "Agree to Get Bundle Price" or "Not Agree and Get Month-to-Month". I read (yes, I really did) and accepted the Agreement well enough ahead, that I could have cancelled the whole thing before anything was even started. Since there are so many people who say "whatever" to TOS anyway, there are really only a relatively few who would actually need to see the TOS before agreeing to the service in the first place. Not that much of a big deal. Well, at least until they have more of the system outages like this morning. Then, I guess I did agree to no recourse but to bitch and moan. | |
|
81399672 (banned) join:2006-05-17 Los Angeles, CA |
81399672 (banned)
Member
2008-Mar-20 2:04 am
Fine print is irreleventPeople need to understand that fine print is just that, fine print. Once lawyers get on the case and get in to court, a lot of that fine print get dismissed by the judge. Verizon can put that in its fine print that it owns you for life. Obviously, no judge would ever enforce that clause. | |
|
| AngeloThe Network Guy Premium Member join:2002-06-18 |
Angelo
Premium Member
2008-Mar-27 3:32 am
Re: Fine print is irreleventsaid by 81399672:People need to understand that fine print is just that, fine print. Once lawyers get on the case and get in to court, a lot of that fine print get dismissed by the judge. Verizon can put that in its fine print that it owns you for life. Obviously, no judge would ever enforce that clause. are you really that stupid? | |
|
|
|