AT&T Supreme Court Case Could Cripple Your Legal Rights AT&T takes their fine print to the top court... Tipped by ericn32 
For years Judges have been telling ISPs (both wireless and terrestrial) that they can't ban a customer from joining a class action lawsuit by using fine print in user contracts. AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon and Comcast have all tried (and failed, in the eyes of the law) to instead force users to accept binding arbitration, a system of complaint resolution companies prefer because the firms they hire to do this service rule in the corporations' favor 95% of the time or more. Now AT&T's taking the issue to the Supreme Court: If a majority of the nine justices vote the telecom giant's way, any business that issues a contract to customers -- such as for credit cards, cellphones or cable TV -- would be able to prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits. This would take away in such cases arguably the most powerful legal tool available to the little guy, particularly in cases involving relatively small amounts of money. Class-action suits allow plaintiffs to band together in seeking compensation or redress, thus giving substantially more heft to their claims. It seems likely this particularly collection of Supreme Court Judges will rule in AT&T's favor, something that will please those who narrowly view class actions as solely a way to line attorney pockets. But while lawyers usually do make out like bandits, that shouldn't justify cheering for your own legal rights erosion. Class actions serve as one of the only real deterrents we have for poor corporate behavior (they recently resulted in pro-rated ETFs, and stopped carriers from covertly extending user contracts every time users made tiny plan changes) -- especially in sectors with spineless regulators.
|
 |  |  Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. said by Mr Matt:THE CORRECT WAY TO DEFINE A PERSON IS AN ENTITY THAT HAS A PULSE. NO PULSE, NOT A PERSON. USING THAT TEST CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PERSONS. The judges and politicians wouldn't pass that test either, lol. | |
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Mr Matt:  The Roberts Supreme Court has demonstrated their bias on behalf of the wealthy and corporate America. An earlier biased supreme court defined a corporation as having the same rights as a person. I like to see ANYWHERE in the Constitution where the bill of rights applies to companies. It's pretty obvious when the founding fathers meant PEOPLE when they wrote it. | |
| | | | A corporation is a group of people, much like the 'class' in a class action lawsuit. Funny how you leftists say corporations aren't real entities, but you can certainly find them at tax time. | |
| | | | | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. You're distorting the premise of the previous post in order to fit your conclusion.
No one above you said that corporations are not real entities, they say they are not *people* and therefore do not derive rights under the Constitution.
Perhaps Glen Beck will devote 5 minutes to inform you of the difference between a person and a construct of a state government. | |
| | | | | | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. said by clickie:You're distorting the premise of the previous post in order to fit your conclusion. No one above you said that corporations are not real entities, they say they are not *people* and therefore do not derive rights under the Constitution. Perhaps Glen Beck will devote 5 minutes to inform you of the difference between a person and a construct of a state government. In your rush to deride Glenn Beck (who hasn't been mentioned until you brought him up), you missed where I compared one group of *people* to another group of *people*.
Plus you avoided my entire point, which is that one group of people called a corporation is blasted as not being 'real' and not having rights while being specificly targetted for taxes, while another group of people called a class are lauded as noble and deserving of praise.
The inequity is obvious, unless you're being willfully blind.
--
Dresden - I work in Accounts Payable.
Random Bad Guy - In what capacity?
Dresden - I make sure everyone gets what's coming to them. | |
| | | | |  wesmPremium
join:1999-07-29
Redmond, WA | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. said by footballdude:Plus you avoided my entire point, which is that one group of people called a corporation is blasted as not being 'real' and not having rights while being specificly targetted for taxes, while another group of people called a class are lauded as noble and deserving of praise. A corporation, or any other form of legally-distinct entity, is not real. It is, in all seriousness, a "legal fiction," or an entity that exists inasmuch as the law deems it to exist and only has the privileges that the law grants to it. Yes, a functional requirement of a corporation is to have real people (another legal term, akin to real property vs. personal property) creating and running it, and those people do not lose their rights by virtue of creating or participating in a corporation. That said, a corporation does not have any inherent rights. However, as a function of the law, it is subject to taxation and regulation separate from the people running it because of its status as being a legally distinct entity with benefits desirable to the people that created it.
A "class," for the purposes of a lawsuit, is completely different. For one, the class members must be specifically and publicly identified; a corporation is under no obligation to disclose its shareholders, employees, or even discrete sources of revenue. In addition, a class is "formed" for a different purpose--to effect a change or enforce liability for a grievance--than a corporation's purpose of ensuring that the principals of the company targeted by the class don't lose their shirts.
--
Opinions expressed here are mine and not my employer's. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. | |
|
| | | |
| | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by footballdude:A corporation is a group of people, much like the 'class' in a class action lawsuit. Funny how you leftists say corporations aren't real entities, but you can certainly find them at tax time. Ok so when the Constitution says the right to vote begins at age 18 then companies over 18 years of age can vote? How does a company vote exactly? | |
| | | | | | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. said by BF69:said by footballdude:A corporation is a group of people, much like the 'class' in a class action lawsuit. Funny how you leftists say corporations aren't real entities, but you can certainly find them at tax time. Ok so when the Constitution says the right to vote begins at age 18 then companies over 18 years of age can vote? How does a company vote exactly? dont forget running for office... oh wait they just did that didnt they? :| | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. said by thedragonmas:said by BF69:said by footballdude:A corporation is a group of people, much like the 'class' in a class action lawsuit. Funny how you leftists say corporations aren't real entities, but you can certainly find them at tax time. Ok so when the Constitution says the right to vote begins at age 18 then companies over 18 years of age can vote? How does a company vote exactly? dont forget running for office... oh wait they just did that didnt they? :| They do what a corporation does: They govern by proxy. They get some elected official to vote for laws and policies that favor them. Any negative consequences are laid at the elected officials feet, thereby proctecting the corporation from losing it's shirt if things go badly. | |
|
| | | | You are right they are a group of people. Just like a club or any other hobby organization or other label you want to place on more than one person that has the same interest.
Corporations themselves have no right to be considered a person and thus treated as one. They are a business owned by many people and that is no different then any other business other than the fact that the people in the corportation are able to drive it to the ground and walk away and have no responsibility for anything that is done by the corporation on their behalf (provided they did not break the law).
The single biggest mistake ever made in the country was defining a corporation as a person. The second biggest mistake was our founding fathers not putting term limits on ALL elected seats. | |
| | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. said by Skippy25:You are right they are a group of people. Just like a club or any other hobby organization or other label you want to place on more than one person that has the same interest. 
Riiiiight. Please don't display ignorance to support your persona view on things. I guess the small business that I have "incorporated" and to which I'm the sole party involved, that my company is "a group of people".. right? I think you need to look at what a "corporation" is and what it is YOU are talking about. You're talking about a PUBLIC company with stock holders and share issued. The fact is that MANY individuals have a "corporation" and it's a corp one 1. There are S corps and C corps.. there are also LLCs, etc.. they're tax codes.
There's a HUGE difference.. well, except in the eyes of liberal whiners who really don't know what it is they are angry about but just want something to bitch about.
Corporations themselves have no right to be considered a person and thus treated as one. They are a business owned by many people..... Again with the ignorance of the facts. We'll just stop there.. and say no more.
and that is no different then any other business other than the fact that the people in the corportation are able to drive it to the ground and walk away and have no responsibility for anything that is done by the corporation on their behalf (provided they did not break the law). Ummm.. a corporation is ALSO a way for that small business owner TO get into business and set up a shield between him/herself and the money grubbing self-victimizing, sue happy people out there so the business owner individual can protect things like their home and their car and their personal belongings..
Case in point - the idiot at a bar who jumps up on a table, while drunk, falls off, breaks his leg, gets a creep lawyer, sues the bar owner and takes everything he owns because the bar owner was somehow personally responsible for a patron getting up on a table where he never had business in the first place. Sometimes insurance alone isn't enough. Very rarely can you "pierce the corporate shield" and many times for a good reason.
But yea, again, back to the mis-representation of what "all corporations" are..
The single biggest mistake ever made in the country was defining a corporation as a person. The second biggest mistake was our founding fathers not putting term limits on ALL elected seats.
I don't think a corporation should be defined as a "person" but I do believe that corporations have rights. They pay taxes, and they have a duty under the law like every other part of this nation that makes it go around. You also forget that there are REAL people behind those corporations who have the same rights as you and me.. the same rights to make their business work.. While they are not "people" .. they ARE their own entities.
And again, I do agree with you that there should be term limits on all elected seats.. at the FEDERAL level. I also believe in States Rights which is part of the constitution. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. I just want to stress corporations already have certain rights even before being considered as persons. And the bar owner had the same protection from stupid drunks before this.
On the other hand, we don't send corporations to jail when people die from some company's wrong doing. We try to find the people responsible for letting the wrong doing to happen.
In terms of politics, counting corporations as persons destroy the basis of democracy: one "person" one vote. If corporations dont' get to vote then what is the real purpose of counting them as persons?
Even if we don't limit corporations' ability to make political speeches, letting anyone or any entity make anonymous and many times misleading, at best, ads is simply crazy. | |
| | | | | | | I know exactly what a corporation is but went with simplicity for simplicity's sake, so I will take that bump on the head. You are correct that one person could be a corporation and they are for the exact reason you gave: to shield themselves from the sue happy world.
However, in the content of this conversation your "type" of corporation has no standing to what I was saying. Simply because it does not have the money and/or clout to influence any elected official especially one of congress.
The rights that were given to the corporations YOU have already, as do all the other people that purchased their stocks that live in the US and are free to express them. The problem with what it has become is that instead of all those people (that have the rights already) expressing their rights individually they have this corporation doing it on their behalf whether it is something they agree with or not. In addition to that, the corporation also gets to extend that very right by proxy to all those foreign investors as well. So now not only do you have corporations speaking to and influencing our congress for US people, but they are doing it for those of foreign soil which do not have, nor should have any voting rights in our country at all. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. Actually, I am more worried about the employee of large corporations than investors (workers practically have no right in this matter other than quitting). Being locked out of most companies in certain industries (I assume most industries would have a few common views at the very least) doesn't seem right. What if you trained for a certain profession (some take many years and lots of money), in the middle of your career, and is the best option by far for you but you just don't agree with the political statements your employer is making and general industry norms?
I totally agree with the last part but to some extent that has always been the case. It is just now it is a lot harder to track and easier for foreign entities or foreign interests of multi-national corporations to do so.
I am personally for more restrictions on influence of foreign interests but I would most strongly argue for very detailed disclosure of all political speech (I suppose outside that of word of mouth). Right now, the are tons of fronts for many groups that leads to dead ends.
I mean, you have freedom of speech and right to privacy but that has been proven time and time again to mean in your own home so that when you make political speeches, it should be in the public domain and not private domain which entitles you to privacy. | |
|
| | | shouldn't they be reduced to $2400...... just like real, live people?? | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Not much hope for ordinary citizens. said by ryder9:shouldn't they be reduced to $2400...... just like real, live people?? This is something I'd agree with as well. I believe in equality.. so if public companies and corporations want to have a voice, it's a single voice, not many.
While I'm not one to agree with most people and most things stated on this site,.. this is one that I would agree with. Fair is fair. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by Mr Matt: The Roberts Supreme Court has demonstrated their bias .... It's WONDERFUL that the Supreme Court is made up of NINE (9) justices and that it takes a majority decision to decide on issues. "Roberts" can rule against every single case heard, but his opinion may always be in the minority. Or, did you not know this fact... ?
Justices are appointed by the POTUS.. confirmed by congress. Obviously the POSTUS is likely to appoint a Justice that he feels will uphold HIS views.. but history will also show that a Justice, once confirmed, will not always stand by the POSTUS and Congress that put them there. Or, did you not know this fact....?
One a SCJ gets on the bench, they're there for life and has to answer to no one. So really, who do they owe? There's a reason why the SC is set up the way it is.. while there is going to be some bias, it's only an issue when that view doesn't match yours - and it's natural for one to see "bias" with the Justice who they disagree with. The simple explanation is that you, yourself, are not always right. Or, did you not know that either?
The rest of your post I really take no objection to.. its just that you're placing all the blame on the Chief Justice when even he can be sitting on the minority of a case and lose his own view.
But, the while you sit here and slam the "Greedy Old Pigs" who were selected and all that junk.. remember, YOU were part of that decision. And, who you should REALLY be slamming is yourself, your mother, father, siblings, neighbors.. your fellow American. The government IS in fact trickle up.. NOT trickle down. The WILL OF THE PEOPLE are who put these "Greedy Old Pigs" in positions.. the POPULAR vote is what represents this nation. You don't like it? .. change it. All you can do is vote your mind. Right now, the people spoke and fired the dems for doing EXACTLY what they accused the republicans of doing for 8 year before. I fail to see how it all comes from the top, as you suggest. Collectively, every individual with the same right cast their vote for their representation know all well who they voted for.. that's how it works. 2 years ago, the nation thought the dems would do the job.. today, the people want the pubs in place.. that's how it works. In 2 years, we'll likely see it swing again. | |
| | Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA | Or at the very least imprison all shareholders and corporate officers for any conviction of any crime. | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited
If the Supreme Court is to rule against mandatory arbitration and to let unfettered class action lawsuits continue to harass businesses, then they should qualify that ruling. The law firms fees in class action lawsuits should be limited to say $100/hr and they get no part of the settlement. Then we will see how many lawsuits are filed to "help the little guy" and not just line the pockets of all the bottom feeding law firms out there. | |
| |  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited You know, I totally agreed with your first paragraph, usually the award given to each litigant is laughable, while the lawyers pocket 1/3 of the verdict.
But are you being facetious in your second paragraph? If there would ever be a textbook case of legislating from the bench, the Supreme Court deciding to cap attorneys fees in a case involving totally unrelated legal issues would be it.
In my opinion the problem with EULAs has nothing to do with class action lawsuits and everything to do with the fact that they are not like normal contracts where both parties have enough bargaining power to force the other party to negotiate. Statutes should spell out exactly what is allowed in an EULA, and no other terms should be enforceable. | |
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited said by vpoko:If there would ever be a textbook case of legislating from the bench, the Supreme Court deciding to cap attorneys fees in a case involving totally unrelated legal issues would be it. All I read in his post is that the fees SHOULD be capped at $100.. he didn't say WHO should do it.. I think his post was a mixing of views and the process. He specifically stated what the SC should do and then talked about what should take place.. that part is a function of Congress.. quite honestly, I can agree with most all his post.
I'm just not sure about forced arbitration in the current sense. I believe pretty much this:
First step, arbitration. Most courts are going to ask/make the parties to sit down at a table first and talk before coming before the judge anyway. So, let that happen.
Second step, if no reasonable agreement can be made at an arbitration meeting, then it goes to court. But arbitration should not be an absolute end. I believe the right for an individual to sue is founding of this country. We are a nation of laws and we have a right to challenge laws in a court when we're damaged.
Third.. if there is something that would be on the scale of a class action, this is where the AG should be handling it. IE: Verizon's over billing stunt. That's a case where the AG should be the party suing Verizon.. the settlement would be a repayment of ALL the money they wrongfully billed.. and on top of that, the company pays all court costs to the state.
Class actions - to be honest, should not be handled as they are today and certainly not by private law firms. If something ever has to get to the level of a large class, it usually means that there was a violation of the law or basic rights and safety - THIS is where the government SHOULD be involved. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Romney2012:Seems like class action lawsuits(a plague on the US economy), is greatly favored by many as defending the little guy. It does little of that. It is mostly just a money grab by shady law firms looking to line their own pockets. These lawsuits do nothing but raise the prices for all goods in the US as companies bake in legal fees and insurance as the price of doing business. So your solution is just to let companies get away with fucking over the American consumer? If there is no fear of getting sued for milions then companies will have no qualms about fucking over customers which will do more to raises prices than these lawsuits.
Everyone thinks lawyers are the scum of the earth until THEY are in legal trouble then THEIR lawyer happens to be the one "good, honest" lawyer out there. Funny how that works. | |
| | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited So your solution is just to let companies get away with fucking over the American consumer? He's an investor in many of these companies. As such, that's in his best interest.
I always think it's kind of cute when people who support multi-billion dollar corporations (which consistently engage in sleazy behavior) ignore what these giant companies do, but get all bent out of shape when a class action attorney applies the exact same degree of morality (little to none) to ambulance chasing. | |
| | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited said by Karl Bode: people who support multi-billion dollar corporations ignore what these giant companies do, but get all bent out of shape when a class action attorney applies the exact same degree of morality (little to none) to ambulance chasing. Except these companies actually provide a useful product to the public and try to keep costs as low as possible, while many of these class action law firms provide no service to the public at all. In fact all they do is drive up costs, while doing virtually nothing to stop what actions they claim is bad. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited Some do quite a lot, some do very little. The only reason you oppose them is because they hurt your stock portfolio, it's not like you're taking some kind of broader principled stand here.... | |
| | | | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited said by Karl Bode:Some do quite a lot, some do very little. The only reason you oppose them is because they hurt your stock portfolio, it's not like you're taking some kind of broader principled stand here.... Have you added mind reading to your blogging abilities? You have no idea what my motivations are by making some over-simplified analysis based on making devil's advocate posts in a tech forum.
P.S.>> My stock portfolio is diversified enough that policy changes by gov't or corporations has little effect on results. I would hardly base my political views based on what little effect these changes has on my portfolio. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited Have you added mind reading to your blogging abilities? No, watching you troll our front page with overly simplistic and incredibly divisive rhetoric for a decade under a dozen different names provided suitable insight. | |
| | | | | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited said by Karl Bode: Have you added mind reading to your blogging abilities? No, watching you troll our front page with overly simplistic and incredibly divisive rhetoric for a decade under a dozen different names provided suitable insight. Ha, overly simplistic, that's a good one coming from Karl. | |
| | | | | | | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited Technically I'd say I'm more ridiculous and grumpy than overly-simplistic, but to each their own.
I highly doubt capping class action rewards would have Tom/TKJunkMail/MMH/who-the-hell-ever's desired effect, you'd still see people suing on principle. | |
| | | | | | | | | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited said by Karl Bode:Technically I'd say I'm more ridiculous and grumpy than overly-simplistic, but to each their own. I highly doubt capping class action rewards would have Tom/TKJunkMail/MMH/who-the-hell-ever's desired effect, you'd still see people suing on principle. And the point stands that you do need the ability to punish companies that don't deliver on what they promise, when the individual damages done to each customer would be too small to justify litigation. I just hate that the litigants get crap even though they were the ones affected. | |
| | | | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by Karl Bode:Technically I'd say I'm more ridiculous and grumpy than overly-simplistic, but to each their own. I highly doubt capping class action rewards would have Tom/TKJunkMail/MMH/who-the-hell-ever's desired effect, you'd still see people suing on principle. Why are you concerned with what he calls himself? Behind the poster is still the same person.
For the record, if *I* made a post like you just did, you'd be ALL over that delete button... | |
|
| | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by Karl Bode: Have you added mind reading to your blogging abilities? No, watching you troll our front page with overly simplistic and incredibly divisive rhetoric... Wow! and here we have it! Karl is right.. everyone who disagrees with him is... 'a troll'.. .
Thanks for showing your true colors Karl.
You really need to keep reality on "trolling" and what it is.. according to you, and I know this ALL too well, a "troll" is anyone who disagrees with YOU or your view.
A TROLL is someone that simply interjects something into a conversation that's baseless, off topic, or meant to cause a rise out of people with out ANY base..
Last I checked, MMH's posts are, like mine, well thought out and have a base to them.. it's just that they don't always agree with you.
I'm not sure about you.. or many others.. but a "good conversation" in an open forum will encompass all views...
This theory of yours is much like NPR. one view, one opinion, one thought.. even The View is more diverse and is able to disagree and still continue. Around here, if one's view isn't of your liking.. POOF, it's gone. How well did that get the dems in the last two years? It got Nanci Pelosi sent home with her famous gavel and shoved the country RIGHT BACK into the hands of the republicans.
Karl, seriously, even Rush Limbaugh warned the republicans during GW's term to not get overly cocky and one minded because they'd be tossed out.. and they were. The dems got in, did the same thing and got tossed out.. guess where we are again, today, because of that kind of thinking.. maybe trolling, as you call it, is a good thing. Otherwise, why even have this forum open.. why not just post YOUR view and close replies.. you say it all and enough, right?
Not everyone will agree with you.. a GOOD op-ed person will accept all views, be it that he agree with them or not.. and NOT control the speech of someone else. That is exactly what the very politician you call slimy at every turn does.. I guess that makes you just the same as them? ... prove us wrong.. ALL of us that is. | |
|
| | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Romney2012:Except these companies actually provide a useful product to the public and try to keep costs as low as possible, By fucking them over apparently. Remember if they weren't doing anything wrong they wouldn't be getting sued. | |
| | | | | | Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited said by BF69: Remember if they weren't doing anything wrong they wouldn't be getting sued. There are hundreds of meritless lawsuits filed every day with no other purpose than to try and shakedown a company in to settling because it would be cheaper than paying the court costs. | |
| | | | | | |  NYR 56Premium
join:2000-12-05
Smithtown, NY | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited You are arguing about different issues. I agree that lawyers are often scum and many simply file frivolous lawsuits, but that has nothing to do with EULAs. The fact is that a company should not legally be protected from lawsuits because they wrote in their EULA that you cannot sue them. How would you feel if doctors made you sign clauses that said no matter what they do, you can't sue them? It would certainly help our economy, if that's all you are concerned about. Don't let your despise of lawsuits cloud your judgement of what rights consumers have. | |
| | | | | | | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: Class action lawsuits ok'd; only if lawyers fees limited said by NYR 56:The fact is that a company should not legally be protected from lawsuits because they wrote in their EULA that you cannot sue them. For this I ABSOLUTELY agree with you!
The way *I* see it, the consumer IS forced to waive their rights, and I'll even go as far as to say, under duress.
Duress is usually when someone has a gun to your head and makes you do something.. for something like cable tv, phone, or internet, I would go as far as to say this IS the same because it does use public resources that are limited. This is not to say that I'd condone the ability for the public to walk all over and control every aspect of these businesses, but I don't think that they should be able to say you have to waive a basic right to have service.. the EULA should be in regards to the service, what it IS they are selling you, and that's it. The part on how you can handle them in court is well defined already.. in the law. | |
|
| | | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by Karl Bode:So your solution is just to let companies get away with fucking over the American consumer? He's an investor in many of these companies. As such, that's in his best interest. ... as are MANY people on this website. I think it's equally as cute when people here forget that they have a 401K and are also investing in these very companies that they hate so much.. have a 401k Karl?
Basically, you can't sit there and make a derogatory statement against MMH for having investments and how it's in his best interest when many other people here, too, benefit from the very companies they hate so much.
Think about it.. and be honest..
Many PEOPLE, as well, are have about the same level of morality (little to none) as these corporations. It doesn't make it ANY better... there are MANY people that go after a company for FAR more than they are out or were damaged because they simply want a pay-day. I can tell you this much, Karl.. the small business I have now, before I got it, was sued by a lady in a wheel chair who went up and down the street to each business looking for EVERY ONE that didn't have a handi-capped bathroom.. it didn't matter to her that many of the business were old and exempt from new building codes as they hadn't done any new construction or pulled any permit work.. no, it didn't matter to her.. NOR did it matter to her that she never EVER patronized these businesses.. INCLUDING MINE.
Here's how it ended.. it settled out of court for $30,000.00 and cost $40,000 to construct A new bathroom ... it hit in a bad economic time and put several employees out of work so that the bills could be paid. In the end, this black and white morality fence you think exists,.. does.. in your mind. I bet you that lady ultimately made at least half a million.. couldn't tell you because they were mostly settled out of court and gagged. I bet she also did all this "for people in wheel chairs everywhere" too right? If THAT were the case, I wonder just how much of that money she shared to benefit those she would have been fighting for..
You sit here like many others cheering on the "people good, business bad" theory.. I guess you don't look at things like THIS do you..
It's a two way street Karl. In the end, it's not about a company versus people... people are involved in ALL the above.. it's PEOPLE in general and their OWN personal lack of morality.. in extreme cases, it involves about 10% of the population.. they're called Sociopaths.. they're good at what they do. A "business" isn't capable of anything.. "humans", however, are. | |
|
| | |  swhx7Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia | You and the writer are missing the more important aspect: it's not only class-action lawsuits. These arbitration clauses take away all access to the courts.
The right to "petition government for redress of grievances" is in the 1st Amendment for a reason - it is one of the fundamental rights. If the Supreme Court rules for ATT in this case, within about a month every company that sells anything to consumers will require a contract with an arbitration clause, and millions of citizens will be shut out of the court system in regard to those companies.
So, essentially, no one will have any protection from corporations anymore. There will still be consumer protection, worker rights and other laws to protect individuals, but they will be unavailable and unenforceable, because citizens won't have the ability to get any disputes decided according to the law. Only the arbitrators' decisions, unconstrained by any law, will rule. It would amount to everyone living under private laws made up and enforced by corporations.
The idea that this could be avoided by merely going to a competitor is stupid. Once companies find out that they can require consumers to give up their basic legal rights as a condition of ordinary transactions, every one of them will be on the bandwagon as fast as they can have their lawyers draw up the forms. | |
|
| | at&t can eat my shorts!!! So what. Is this at all new and/or surprising?
at&t has lobbyists paid to push the position of 'ma bell' for years.
Granted this is the 'new' at&t ... so it's inbred uncle twice removed bell, not ma' bell anymore.
Look. It's real easy folks. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of at&t, all users have to do is stop giving at&t one red cent. That will hurt more than ANY class action suit. at&t is counting on the bread & butter services they feel users 'cannot live without'. In the old days, POTS was the bread & butter. Nowadays, DSL/U-Verse is that bread & butter.
Don't like at&t? Kick them to the curb!
Sure, one or two users doing it won't teach them a lesson, but if everyone who would have joined a class action suit against at&t, simply cut them off, that would hit at&t in the pocket!
I have been a loyal at&t customer, employee, and stockholder. Today I am happily none!
at&t can eat my shorts! | |
| | | power u have the power people dont buy there stuff and they die | |
| | | bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| Re: You pay the lawyer, join action class suit said by chgo_man99:If the legal system is not the same in Canada, and laywers there are paid by taxes, no wonder 99% of the time they always rule in corporate's greed behavior even when it hurts customers. Prosecutors and public defenders are paid with government money, same as in the US. But no lawyer involved in a civil case is paid with public funds (unless, of course, the government is actually part of the case).
said by chgo_man99:Thats why they have very low caps (lower than we have, especially on cable), outrageous overage charges, probably longer contracts (3 years), throttling (p2p), and other outrageous behaviors. No, that's all due to a combination of spineless/ineffective/corrupt (take your pick) regulators and dominant telcos/cablecos knowing they can likely get away with it.
Though this specific situation is one of the few cases where some Canadian legislators have come through. Binding arbitration clauses in consumer contracts were made illegal in Ontario by the Provincial government in 2002. | |
| |  elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
·Cybersurf Intern..
| said by chgo_man99:If the legal system is not the same in Canada, and laywers there are paid by taxes, no wonder 99% of the time they always rule in corporate's greed behavior even when it hurts customers. Huh?
I'm Canadian, and that's the first time I've heard we have free legal system. We have a healthcare system paid for by taxes and a myriad of social services (similar to America I suspect) but no "free legal".
--
Jake: "Four fried chickens, and a coke" Elwood: "And some dry white toast, please" | |
|
| | fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | Re: Never mentioned in this newsletter. said by Mr Matt: In the United States we have in addition of the formal legal system a phantom legal system. The phantom legal system consists of Credit Bureaus, Collection Agencies, Credit Card Companies and Banks which operate in the background with very little oversight. Recently the Credit Card Companies were put on a shorter leash. Unfortunately this phantom legal system can sanction citizens by increasing interest costs, decreasing credit availability and causing loss of employment. The phantom legal system operates on the premise that any business can sanction a citizen by reporting the citizen to a credit reporting agency and collection agency with no oversight and whether or not the report is valid. The citizen must at their own expense prove the report is invalid. Credit is not a "right".. in insinuate that people have a right to it as you are is to, yourself, give credibility to the system. MANY people live with out ever touching a credit card. Revolving credit is meant for short term use anyway while many load up their cards and pay minimums - that's not what it's for. NO one HAS to use credit.. people don't want to save.. it's easier to borrow and then when they can't live to the terms, they cry.
I do agree that card companies needed some reform,.. but that's in the terms where they shouldn't be able to charge a higher interest rate on existing balances. The "reform" however, really did screw people over. If you didn't agree to the new rate, your choice was to close the card.. closing the card destroys/degrades your credit. When your balance becomes the available credit, your score goes down.
With out a credit report, banks have no idea who they're lending to. For that, I agree with a credit report, however, I think a credit report should belong to the person, not the reporting agency. I think at ANYTIME a credit report should be able to be closed by the consumer. However, the lack of a report also means the lack of credit.. ie: banks have no obligation to lend. I don't agree that credit reporting agencies should be freely open information either.. again, it should be the consumer choice.
Further, what most people don't realize is that cleaning up a credit report is actually VERY easy to do.. so few take the time to understand their credit reports and their rights under the FCRA. In fact, you're wrong.. the consumer has to prove nothing.. its the CREDITOR that must prove the information. If they can't, or don't, the information is removed. If it's not accurate, you can actually and very EASILY sue for $1,000 - there are MANY FCRA attorneys who do that all the time.
This is an area where the ignorant consumer goes through the world blindly LETTING the "system" run over them..
For the record.. the law CLEARLY provides that the consumer doesn't have to "pay" anything to have their credit activity ACCURATELY REPORTED.. it's a matter of Federal Law.. Sorry.. you're very much wrong here.. you're talking about a subject I know VERY well.. the FCRA and FDCPA, that is. In all honesty, the scales are tipped in the favor OF the consumer. The system of reporting, in itself, is just rather sloppy.
Class action may be ONE of the ways to fight a business.. but many people forget there is an AG in each state.. if enough people are properly informed in life, they'd file complaints with the AG.. enough complaints will trigger the AG to respond. But, no matter how many PSAs run, or how much public information is put out there and available to the consumer - including GOOGLE and the interwebz, people remain ignorant, and down right stupid to be honest.. instead they go around with their head shoved so far up into things like Facebook and Hulu to spend a little time in areas of the world that really do matter.
As much as people like to think poorly of the SC, I REALLY doubt they'd rule for AT&T on this one.. they're not that stupid. The SC doesn't want or need another controversial ruling for Americans to fight over for the next 100 years.. to be honest, the only reason the SC most likely even took this case is so that it puts it to bed and stops what could be an endless cycle of Federal court cases over this very topic. I don't even think the courts would over turn R v. W if they had the chance.. even in controversial cases like that, they really only live in the agenda based media so that people are made to feel that it's still an top rail important issue. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I think the resolution.. depends on whether or not AT&T and the telcos are able to influence the supreme court the same way they influence the legislatures and the government agencies such as the FCC: slip them money and gifts under the table. wonder what the going price is for a vote from a supreme court justice? | |
|  MurdocPremium
join:2009-02-08
Manitowoc, WI
 ·Comcast
·AT&T DSL Service
1 edit | Why damage your PR more? You have great technicians out that are trying to improve your image and you are bound and determined to damage it further then you already have. You got immunity and now you think you can get away with more.
When att screws up they decide they are a person, but when they want to take away your rights or screw you over they are a corporation.
If this passes I am dumping both dsl and phone service, and just get wireless internet, and keeping my voip too. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
Not much hope for ordinary citizens.
·