dslreports logo

story category
Mouseprint Arbitration Pushes Continue To Fail
T-Mobile the latest to be stopped by the courts...
by Karl Bode 10:14AM Friday Jan 25 2008
Both AT&T and Comcast were recently slapped down by the courts for trying to bury language in your terms of service that would limit your legal rights. The companies tried to force consumers to take place in mandatory arbitration instead of having their grievances heard in a court of law. This week T-Mobile was shot down by the courts for trying to do the same thing.

In T-Mobile's case, the company was trying to derail a class action lawsuit brought about by two customers who were suing the company for burying rate hikes in below the line bogus fees (among other suspect charges), according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Click for full size
Obviously arbitration companies will be more loyal to their clients than to you, but a recent report by Public Citizen showed just how loyal. The report stated that one arbitration outfit frequently used by credit card companies ruled in favor of its corporate clients 95% of the time, if not more:
Between Jan. 1, 2003, and March 31, 2007, arbitrators working for the Minneapolis-based NAF ruled for businesses in 95 percent of the California cases examined. In fact, 90 percent of the NAF cases were handled by just 28 arbitrators, who awarded businesses $185 million. One arbitrator handled 68 cases in a single day – an average of one every seven minutes, assuming an eight-hour day – and ruled for the business in every case, awarding 100 percent of the money requested.
Of course, that's not what the National Arbitration Forum website tells consumers who are trying to understand the process. The site soothes consumers by noting that "a 2003 American Bar Association study of employment arbitration found that claimants prevailed more often and received larger awards in arbitration than in litigation."

71 comments .. click to read

Recommended comments

Torrance, CA

2 recommendations

reply to JasonD

Re: Nasty

No you get a F-clue....The business wouldn't be the business if it wasn't for their consumer. There are a lot of businesses that are square with the consumer, and they do just fine. Most of these companies would not have these issues if they would just listen to their customers issues and try to come to an understanding with them. The corporations would have you think that everyone is sue happy, when most of the time they just wanted someone to listen to their problem and work with them.

"Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? "

that is part of the problem. People take the business at it's word that thats what they will get and when you call them on it, it seems to disappear and you then become a trouble maker.




2 recommendations

reply to rudnicke
said by rudnicke:

Why are all these corporations so nasty to consumers?
Get a F-ing clue. Do you know what it's like to operate a business? Do you as a consumer like the services and benefits businesses offer? The business environment companies have to deal with is the nasty place, and mandatory arbitration is the only way for businesses (some more than others) can offer a functional business model- without having their legal team being the largest piece in the organization. I'm not entirely blaming customers for this, our judicial system makes it far too easy for cases to be brought, and the courts to be abused.

Without companies having the flexibility to offer mandatory arbitration means the best case would be that your consumer costs would be higher, worst case at least some business services would be non-existent. And as always, companies always spell out dispute resolution terms up front. Don't like it? DON'T BUY IT!