dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
211

fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium Member
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

fireflier

Premium Member

They're just lowering the bar. . .

Eventually, they'll be the defendant in a class-action suit for restricting the rights of their customers and forcing them into binding arbitration as opposed to the normally available legal channels.

If several judges have already pointed out they can't erode consumer rights via fine print, there's already a precedent they've done so by the fact that they keep doing it.

I may be wrong, but I can't imagine it would take a good attorney very long to blow a lot of large holes right through that part of the contract.

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

said by fireflier:

If several judges have already pointed out they can't erode consumer rights via fine print, there's already a precedent they've done so by the fact that they keep doing it.
There has been precidents set both ways according to this list discussion post from the /. article. Laws vary from state to state and apparently nothing has been set at the federal level, so it will remain that way for the time being.
I may be wrong, but I can't imagine it would take a good attorney very long to blow a lot of large holes right through that part of the contract.
You'd probably be wrong. If it was an easy (aka cheap) process it would have been done already. I'm not saying that it can't or won't be done, only that it's harder then you would expect. Any challenge to it would come at a sizable cost, only to turn around and potentially having even a greater cost when it goes to trial if you succeeded.