dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
11

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to BiggA

Premium Member

to BiggA

Re: O.k. stuff like this has to stop

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.

FLATLINE
join:2007-02-27
Buffalo, NY

FLATLINE

Member

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.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

One would think so, but in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood (10-948), the US Supreme Court ruled that mandatory arbitration clauses in terms of service agreements are, in fact binding. In this case, though, AT&T expressly left the right to sue in small claims court in the agreement.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA to vpoko

Premium Member

to vpoko
No he didn't. The court was wrong.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

We'll see what happens on appeal. Right now there's a judgement that says he was right.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT

BiggA

Premium Member

Well, that judgement is wrong. It's crystal clear, and written in the contract.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

Their advertising has to reconcile with the contract. If they clearly advertise "unlimited" and then use vague verbiage in their contract like "right to manage the network" it's very possible that the fine print won't get interpreted how they wanted. That's why we have courts.
CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium Member
join:2011-08-11
NYC

CXM_Splicer to BiggA

Premium Member

to BiggA
So it is your belief that he was throttled because AT&T knew he was violating the TOS by tethering and it had nothing to do with going over the limit of their unlimited plan?

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to BiggA

Premium Member

to BiggA
Oops, AT&T dropped the appeal and paid the judgement. »news.yahoo.com/t-scotche ··· 134.html

You'll have to test out your legal theory elsewhere.
BiggA
Premium Member
join:2005-11-23
Central CT
·Frontier FiberOp..
Asus RT-AC68

BiggA to CXM_Splicer

Premium Member

to CXM_Splicer
No. It has nothing to do with tethering. It has to do with the fact that the AT&T contract clearly states that they have the right to manage their network.

Exactly. People need to understand what is in their economic best interest. Example: if I can buy the iPhone 5 and flip it on Craigslist for a $450+ profit, who cares that I gave up my upgrade and that I'm in a contract, no matter what I want in the future, I'd still be ahead. Of course that wouldn't work if more than a tiny fraction of people understood what was in their economic best interest.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

said by BiggA:

No. It has nothing to do with tethering. It has to do with the fact that the AT&T contract clearly states that they have the right to manage their network.

How much latitude do you think that gives them? What if part of "managing their network" means one day they decide to limit everyone to 1 phone call a month? What if their advertising is clearly at odds with the contract? Could a jury conclude that their advertisement was made to convince the user of terms inconsistent with their contract and they should be estopped from applying those terms? Google "estoppel" for the relevant law.