 FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
2 recommendations |
to moonpuppy
Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stopsaid by moonpuppy:Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.
The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.
Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime. |
|
 your moderator at work
 hidden : Personal attacks
|
 DaveDudeNo Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stopsaid by FFH5:said by moonpuppy:Seriously, threatening someone in an active litigation should be grounds for criminal prosecution. ATT has no right to threaten someone for not sitting down to talks.
The ATT lawyers involved need to have their licenses suspended or revoked.
Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime. It is retaliatory, and in reaction to a present case of litigation. So its very relevant. Its not just some user, breaking TOS. |
|
| |
to FFH5
I support that. Moreover imagine I am unfairly suing you for molesting mr in court which I loose . Then imagine u can't sue me back for frivolous litigation.
Or maybe something more in line with AT&T, I stop providing tutoring to your kids because u sued me for dog bite when u taunted him. Fair and square and I don't see anything wrong with that! |
|
moonpuppy (banned)
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD |
to DaveDude
said by DaveDude:said by FFH5:Threatening someone with BUSINESS & SERVICE consequences isn't a crime. That is just doing business and happens everyday in thousands of lawsuit negotiations. Now if they threatened to break his legs, that would be a crime.
It is retaliatory, and in reaction to a present case of litigation. So its very relevant. Its not just some user, breaking TOS. BINGO! It is retaliatory and strong arm. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Personal attacks
|
| |
pjcamp to FFH5
Anon
2012-Mar-14 10:06 am
to FFH5
Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stopThe difference is that negotiations are over. The court has already issued a decision and the case is therefore settled unless the guy voluntarily wants to reopen it. AT&T can appeal the decision but until an appeal is granted, the decision stands. This sort of thing does happen all the time in legal proceedings PRE-TRIAL. This is post trial. I agree. This action crosses the line into extortion. |
|
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Off topic
|
 vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA |
vpoko to FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 10:22 am
to FFH5
Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stopThey can probably cancel his service, either at the end of his contract or because he admittedly violated the TOS by tethering, but "meet with us or we'll cancel your service" might well fall under the crime and tort of extortion.
What's more serious for them is the PR hit. They obviously did not want him going to the AP with their threat. |
|
 Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 10:23 am
said by vpoko:What's more serious for them is the PR hit.
Like they ever cared about that. |
|
vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 10:25 am
Of course they do, else they wouldn't have asked him not to disclose the letter. |
|
Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 10:26 am
said by vpoko:Of course they do, else they wouldn't have asked him not to disclose the letter.
No, that's standard procedure. |
|
|
vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 10:31 am
It's standard procedure that exists due to PR reasons. |
|
| |
doghob3 to Anon
Anon
2012-Mar-14 12:08 pm
to Anon
He never said anything useful to begin with smart one! READ! |
|
Robert
Premium Member
join:2001-08-25
Miami, FL |
to vpoko
said by vpoko:It's standard procedure that exists due to PR reasons.
I think it's more for legal and not PR. |
|
 skeechanAi Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170 |
to FFH5
I think their liability would be limited to any consequential damages stemming from the disconnect, such as if the cell phone number were used by a salesperson and the disconnection precluded porting to a different carrier (the lost revenue of sales).
As we all know, just because some escape clause may be buried in a contract doesn't mean it would be enforceable.
And all AT&T needs is to get a judge who has crappy AT&T service to refuse to enforce arbitration and get it get in front of a jury of people with crappy AT&T service. |
|
| skeechan |
to Anon
No it doesn't. People getting pissed about AT&T (like I did) but staying with them anyway (like I did) are the ones who propagate these practices. I can cry until I'm blue in the face, but so long as I keep cutting checks I have no one to ultimately blame but myself.
If EVERYONE who complained would cancel for change in terms of service (thereby avoiding the ETF) they wouldn't pull this crap.
Simply put, AT&T will do this stuff so long as subs tolerate it. |
|
 ChaplainSo It Goes
Premium Member
join:2002-10-11
USA
3 recommendations |
Chaplain
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 11:26 am
But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit. |
|
| |
to FFH5
Threatening to breach a contract IS NOT just doing business. Just because they're mad that he won in small claims court (which he has the right to take them to BY LAW), does not give them any legal reason to not meet their obligations under the contract. In fact, if they did terminate, he would have grounds to sue for breach of contract and seek recoupment of damages. |
|
 Steve B
Premium Member
join:2004-08-02
Auburn, WA |
to Chaplain
said by Chaplain:But with the duopolies that exist, or just plain lack of viable alternatives, ditching one bad carrier for another is pointless. So, laws are in place, and politicians are paid off, to keep things as they are. The only real way to make a difference is to cut off service. If everyone would just cancle their data phones, and cut out their cable, then maybe changes would be made due to lack of demand. Moving that demand from one asshole to another doesn't really do jack shit.
ding ding ding! We have a winner. That's exactly it! Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either. Its easy for the corporate kiss asses to make such judgements because they don't feel affected the way regular consumers do. |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
BiggA to FFH5
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 1:53 pm
to FFH5
Exactly. They should have disconnected his service for just going to small claims court. He was trying to sue them, against what he signed in a contract with AT&T, and thus, he doesn't deserve AT&T service. |
|
vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 1:56 pm
I assume you're being sarcastic, but suing AT&T in small claims court is expressly allowed by the TOS. |
|
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT |
BiggA
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 1:57 pm
I'm not. In the contract that HE SIGNED, AT&T has the right to manage their network. He has no legitimate complaint against AT&T. If he didn't like the contract, he shouldn't have signed it, and should have gotten service with another carrier. |
|
vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA |
vpoko
Premium Member
2012-Mar-14 2:04 pm
In the contract he signed, AT&T explicitly gave him the right to file grievances in one of two ways, at his discretion: arbitration or small claims court. Whether he had an actionable claim was up to the court to decide. Incidentally, it decided that he did. |
|
| |
to skeechan
Well... if he left, he'd have to pay AT&T ETF. So either way, he could do ok.
1. AT&T cancels service (leave without paying ETF)
2. AT&T goes to court and makes a media spectacle - it may cost him, but I'm sure that a Gloria Allred or other public defender would assist in smearing AT&T. |
|
| |
to skeechan
said by skeechan:And all AT&T needs is to get a judge who has crappy AT&T service to refuse to enforce arbitration and get it get in front of a jury of people with crappy AT&T service.
Which is more than 97% of their subscribers. |
|
 TheHelpful1
Premium Member
join:2002-01-11
Upper Marlboro, MD |
to Chaplain
+1. Add to that the fact that unless you jump ship from ATT to Tmobile, you'll have to dump your cell phone hardware and get butt-humped long term when you sign a new 2-year agreement or get butt-humped short term and buy one unsubsidized. |
|
 FutureMonDude Whats mine say?
join:2000-10-05
Marina, CA |
to FFH5
It would be interestingly funny if it is his only phone service; so they'd effectively be cutting him off from emergency 911/lifeline services by cancelling his service.
- FM |
|
| |
to Steve B
said by Steve B:Plus, people lives have evolved now around these things and getting rid of it isn't a viable alternative either. Sure it is; nobody NEEDS a smartphone. People WANT them. When did we forget the difference between NEEDS vs. WANTS? Hell, plenty of people manage to scrape by with no cell phone at all while managing to live meaningful and productive lives without being reachable 24/7. And before you say that some people NEED them for business, well in that instance your employer really ought to be paying for your service. If they are then you don't really have any grounds to complain about the carrier. My best friend is on AT&T and loathes them but given the alternative of paying for his own service vs. his employer picking up the tab he's happy to be with AT&T. |
|
| |
to vpoko
I don't believe its att's call whether or not he can sue. People have rights and its your right to sue. Only the Judge can decide if the suit is worthy or not. Att can put whatever they want in their TOS. But that doesn't necessarily mean squat. |
|
