Exposing Verizon's FiOS Fine Print Trickery > Nothing new

Nothing new

reply to Dogfather
Wasn't that clause struck down by the courts when other telcos (ATT anyway) tried to sneak it in ???

reply 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.

reply 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.

reply 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.

How 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.

reply to ptrowski

reply to Dogfather
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.

reply 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.

reply to kherr
I 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/news04/2···ion.html I am sure there are more.

reply to Dogfather
This 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.
--
Canada = Hollywood North

reply 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.

reply 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.

reply to vpoko

reply to Skippy25
Let'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/news/sho···06504123 is why Verizon has to have arbitration clauses.

reply to ptrowski
Sure 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.

reply to Dogfather
How 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.

Just 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.

The study is here »www.citizen.org/documents/Final_wcover.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.