dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
886
share rss forum feed


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


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by coldmoon:

The ruling 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...

Good point. And just a couple of comments.

The reason most arbitrations result in the consumer losing is because most of the time their claim is frivolous and/or can't be proven because the consumer didn't document any communications with the company. Arbitration is not inherently antagonistic to the consumer or stacked against them. They just don't prepare their complaint properly.

A good result of this may be the bankruptcy of many of the ambulance chasing law firms out there that sue, not because of any merits to their filed cases, but because many companies found it cheaper to settle than spend years in court paying for expensive law firms. It is only a benefit to society if these firms go belly up.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb8 ··· 84d45c88


jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
Do large corporations actually hire expensive law firms to go fight for them in court? I figured that they already had a crack team of expensive lawyers on their payroll.

Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network

1 edit
said by jmn1207:

Do large corporations actually hire expensive law firms to go fight for them in court? I figured that they already had a crack team of expensive lawyers on their payroll.

Most of the time. Very few in-house legal departments have the resources to staff up large litigation matters.

In-house counsel set strategy, provide direction and ensure that the briefs and filings meet their needs, since they know the corporation and its end goals. The outside firms execute the strategies.

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to FFH5
said by FFH5:

said by coldmoon:

The ruling 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...

Good point. And just a couple of comments.

The reason most arbitrations result in the consumer losing is because most of the time their claim is frivolous and/or can't be proven because the consumer didn't document any communications with the company. Arbitration is not inherently antagonistic to the consumer or stacked against them. They just don't prepare their complaint properly.

A good result of this may be the bankruptcy of many of the ambulance chasing law firms out there that sue, not because of any merits to their filed cases, but because many companies found it cheaper to settle than spend years in court paying for expensive law firms. It is only a benefit to society if these firms go belly up.

Bullcrap. The reason most consumers lose in arbitration is because the arbitrators are on the half hidden payroll of the companies they "arbitrate".


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:

Do large corporations actually hire expensive law firms to go fight for them in court? I figured that they already had a crack team of expensive lawyers on their payroll.

Actually, it is a little of both. Most corporations have lawyers on staff for std contract issues; proofing marketing materials; checking SEC & IRS mandated documents before they are filed; advising executives on financial matters; etc. But when things are threatening to go to court, they hire outside counsel that specializes in the subject matter involved.
--
Record your speedtest.net results in DSLReports SpeedWave
»www.speedtest.net/wave/afe201cb8 ··· 84d45c88

Badonkadonk
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Dish Network
Not really accurate.

Large companies have heads of litigation and some number of staff attorneys (the number depending on the size of the organization and its corporate structure). And, most large companies have litigation attorneys that come from strong litigation backgrounds.

I've worked for companies ranging from $1B to $40B and it's been the same everywhere. Just the numbers of attorneys are different.

bonorum

join:2004-04-03
Winston Salem, NC
reply to coldmoon
I moved my phone to Vonage and for years did not do any business with AT&T. Last year, Time Warner's poor service and high prices made me put some business back in their hands. It was a calculated risk. I agree with Mike that consumers should be ready to protest with their feet and move to another provider. Give them churn, if nothing else. Also, check who voted for the Federal Arbitration Act and give them their excessive Congressional retirement (thanks, Camelot One). BTW, in all my communications with AT&T to date, I have been "misinformed" in every one. An amazing record, worthy of Guinness Book of.

DBman190

join:2002-06-10
New York, NY

1 recommendation

The federal arbitration act is from 1925...looking up who voted for it won't matter because they're all dead.

patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
reply to coldmoon
said by coldmoon:

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.

That disruptive company will get a buyout offer shareholders CANT refuse.