Again: ISPs Can't Force Binding Arbitration Via Fine Print Verizon Wireless the latest to find this out... For years Judge's 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 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. Verizon Wireless is the latest to be told that this tactic simply isn't going to work: A federal appeals court on Friday threw out a ruling requiring Verizon Wireless customers to resolve disputes over alleged fraudulent cell phone charges individually through arbitration rather than as a class. The ruling, by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, is a defeat for the largest U.S. mobile service provider, a joint venture of Verizon Communications Inc and Britain's Vodafone Group Plc. Of course many class actions end with you getting five bucks and the lawyers getting millions, but occasionally such suits do force a company to correct or improve anti-competitive behavior (pro-rated ETFs are one such example). Whether you agree with class actions or not, carriers can't erode your right to participate in them via fine print. The issue is a broad one, and a related case involving AT&T will soon be heard by the Supreme Court.
|
  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
3 edits |  The Supremes will ultimately decide this one
Check out Sections 2,3,&4 of the Act which come in to play when contracts specify arbitration.
Section 2. Validity, irrevocability, and enforcement of agreements to arbitrate
Section 3. Stay of proceedings where issue therein referable to arbitration
Section 4. Failure to arbitrate under agreement; petition to United States court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration; notice and service thereof; hearing and determination
The supremacy of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution may end up being used once again to override more favorable state laws where arbitration is concerned. Once the Feds have spoken on interstate commerce issues, the state laws are wiped away if they conflict with the Federal Law.
Ultimately I suspect the corporations will win on this. And the Supreme Court will punt it back to Congress to decide if the Arbitration Act is too unfair to individuals in these take it or leave it contracts with arbitration clauses.
--
Are you happy with your rep in Washington, DC? | |
| | | Ya right Section 5 - failed to grease palm in a timely manner | |
| | | | This is stupid Once you sign a contract you should legally be supposed to have read and understood it. But then I said the same thing through the mortgage "crisis" as well. | |
|  | | | Re: This is stupid If I dont read it then it doesnt exist. Seriously though if thats the case then the contract needs to be to the point and in plain english. None of this beat around the bush till the readers eyes get crossed. | |
| | | | Most of what is contained in a contract is of corporate greed and is to attempt to protect the already stronger entity against a much smaller and weaker player.
Arbitration clauses should be null and void in EVERY contract because they have already been proven to be very one sided and again it is in favor of the much bigger and much more powerful entity. | |
| | | | said by Dagda1175:Once you sign a contract you should legally be supposed to have read and understood it. But then I said the same thing through the mortgage "crisis" as well. Just because you read and understand the contract you are signing doesn't mean it's legally enforceable. Take contract murders for example. | |
| | |  GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: This is stupid Contracts for illegal activities have never been enforceable. | |
|
| | | said by Dagda1175:Once you sign a contract you should legally be supposed to have read and understood it. But then I said the same thing through the mortgage "crisis" as well. That is an incorrect assumption that once you sign the contract that all the terms are legally binding. If you sign a contract, and it says that you have to stand on your head every time you make a call, or pay a $50 fine everytime, is that contract really legally enforceable? Some people on DSLR would say yes, and they would certainly be incorrect because any rational judge would laugh the case out of the courtroom because it is simply not something that is sane.
Apple has proven this in the past -
TOS are nothing more than wash, a scare tactic in order to make the customer assume they have less rights than they actually have. Many people think "oooo contract I have no rights now". I'm assuming you haven't actually read yours; as an exercise hunt down the TOS and read it. I'll bet that it says something along the lines of "these terms/contract can change at any time". Think about that, one party can change the contract at any time without any retribution by you? That's complete BS and you know it. I don't care if you sign it in blood, a contract is a set of terms written in stone - one party can NOT change the terms without BOTH parties accepting the changes. Thus, I'll sign a contract like that, but honestly I don't think it will actually hold water in court. In fact I am on the "no-contract" plan with T-Mobile, ever since AT&T played games with contracts I don't think I will ever sign another one. Thanks AT&T. | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
1 edit | Re: This is stupid said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by Dagda1175:Once you sign a contract you should legally be supposed to have read and understood it. But then I said the same thing through the mortgage "crisis" as well. That is an incorrect assumption that once you sign the contract that all the terms are legally binding. If you sign a contract, and it says that you have to stand on your head every time you make a call, or pay a $50 fine everytime, is that contract really legally enforceable? Some people on DSLR would say yes, and they would certainly be incorrect because any rational judge would laugh the case out of the courtroom because it is simply not something that is sane. Apple has proven this in the past - TOS are nothing more than wash, a scare tactic in order to make the customer assume they have less rights than they actually have. Many people think "oooo contract I have no rights now". I'm assuming you haven't actually read yours; as an exercise hunt down the TOS and read it. I'll bet that it says something along the lines of "these terms/contract can change at any time". Think about that, one party can change the contract at any time without any retribution by you? That's complete BS and you know it. I don't care if you sign it in blood, a contract is a set of terms written in stone - one party can NOT change the terms without BOTH parties accepting the changes. Thus, I'll sign a contract like that, but honestly I don't think it will actually hold water in court. In fact I am on the "no-contract" plan with T-Mobile, ever since AT&T played games with contracts I don't think I will ever sign another one. Thanks AT&T. The above bold has all ways been my biggest issue! It just does not seem right that one side has the ability to change the contract terms.
Bad example but...Darth Vader to Lando: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Then add to that, sometimes there really isn't an alternative and your stuck with one sided contracts. | |
| | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: This is stupid You guys aren't interpreting the language correctly.
The contract terms CAN be changed at any time. But, it won't apply to a party that has already executed the contract. It's contracts 101. I learned that the first month of my first semester of my first year. Laypersons make way too much of that language. | |
| | | | | Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: This is stupid Right....{sarcasm}
Tell that to all the big business that send you a little leaflet informing you of the change to the contract - especially right after you sign up. I have been on the receiving end of the changes and not one has been in my favor. Try and talk to customer service and explain that the changes don't apply to you..."Sir, the computer says..."
Your only recourse if you don't like the changes is to quit. The problem is what if you can't (afford) quit because of the equivalent of early termination fees? It makes no difference what was in the original contract, when the rules change after the fact. Then this exercise has become one of bait and switch.
Sorry, this kind of struck a nerve with me as I have been screwed one too many times.
| |
| | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: This is stupid I'm just talking about the legality of it all. I can't/don't know about your particular personal circumstances.
Usually, when a unilateral change in contract occurs, the first contract is breached/voided and the second contract becomes an offer that you may or may not choose to accept.
I haven't experienced what you have. And, when it comes to questions of legality about this stuff, I know how to fight right back. I always win if the law is on my side. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: This is stupid said by Goober:I'm just talking about the legality of it all. I can't/don't know about your particular personal circumstances. Usually, when a unilateral change in contract occurs, the first contract is breached/voided and the second contract becomes an offer that you may or may not choose to accept. I haven't experienced what you have. And, when it comes to questions of legality about this stuff, I know how to fight right back. I always win if the law is on my side. I think his point is that, you shouldn't have to force their hands in order to make them do something that they are legally compelled to.
Even though, you probably could sue for lost wages + lawyer fees, your time is priceless.
Companies have gotten so big that customers don't matter anymore, it's "how many customers can we get to stick around while making the smaller customers leave". | |
| | | | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: This is stupid It's all boilerplate legal language. The lawyers know how it works and what it means. The problem is that the non-lawyers are the ones enforcing it.
Again, I've never had a problem like this and when issues come up, I can argue myself out of these things. I've never had to take these things to court, although I suppose it wouldn't be a big deal since it's just the cost of the filing fee to me. | |
|
|  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | You must first understand the legal definition of "contract". Look it up, then things will begin to make sense. | |
| | bt
join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| Regardless of what the contract does or doesn't say, it can't override legal requirements or restrictions. If the contract conflicts with the law, the law takes priority.
This happened a few years ago in Canada. The courts upheld the legality of arbitration clauses in one case, followed (quickly) by a new provincial law that made them illegal. | |
| |  SnowymIRC unix.ro UnderNetPremium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:5
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| said by Dagda1175:Once you sign a contract you should legally be supposed to have read and understood it. But then I said the same thing through the mortgage "crisis" as well. May I presume you write contracts for a living? | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | however while they say it can change at any time, if it is a legally binding contract would they not have to make you sign the new wording? otherwise you could pull out the old one, compare and state that you did not sign off on the current rules and restrictions.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
·Cox HSI
| 95% doesn't mean anything If 95% of the consumers were in violation of their contracts. Statistics can be very misleading. That is like saying 95% of people who show up to fight a ticket lose and perhaps that is being 95% of them were actually guilty and trying to get out of the ticket by having the cop not show up or something. | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·