Cablevision Latest to Put Mandatory Arbitration in Fine Print AT&T Supreme Court Victory Leads to Fine Print Parade Tipped by livings 
AT&T long tried to use fine print to try and ban their customers from suing them via class action, instead forcing users into binding arbitration where corporations win more often than not. Despite the fact that many lower courts declared such activity violated user rights and was "unconscionable," the Supreme Court earlier this year ruled in AT&T's favor, opening the flood gates for every corporation to include this language in their TOS. Sony added such a provision recently, as did video game powerhouse Electronic Arts. Broadband Reports has confirmed with Cablevision that their new TOS also includes this language. The cookie cutter language used by each company prohibits users from having a jury trial or participating in a class action lawsuit against a company. While class actions certainly are a boon to attorney wallets, they've also benefited consumers in the telecom space quite often by forcing changes to company behavior, such as requiring companies pro-rate ETFs or stopping them from covertly extending long-term contracts with every plan change. Users in our Cablevision forum alerted us to the fact that the company is informing users of the changes with their monthly bills. We've confirmed with Cablevision that the bill notification process started this month, and that the company's policies (found here) will be updated online later this week. On the positive side, users have thirty days to opt out of this arbitration clause with a simple e-mail to NOARBITRATION@CABLEVISION.COM. "The good news is I still have my right to cancel service at any time," opines one forum user. "They didn't take that away." While true, limited competition -- and the fact that every ISP will include this language soon -- makes that a bit of a moot point. Letting these companies know you're paying attention by opting out of these agreements makes better sense if you have few broadband alternatives.
|
 | | me thinks.. Me thinks the latest salary increase for lawyers is getting out of hand.. lol | |
|  |  GooberPremium join:2000-12-17 Naperville, IL kudos:4 | Re: me thinks.. But see, now those horrible bad evil lawyers won't leave out all the poor wee class participants and get all the settlement money. Win win for everyone, right? | |
|  |  |  Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: me thinks.. said by Goober:But see, now those horrible bad evil lawyers won't leave out all the poor wee class participants and get all the settlement money. Win win for everyone, right? Well, afterall... Rebok learned the hard way that you can't take take Cartman's big fat ass and slim it down with sneakers-- even if they come with free liposuction.
Funnies aside.. claims and terminology within telecom such as unlimited, upto, network management, throttling,and QOS gaurantees will have to include defined provisions which are understandable by the consumer PRIOR to plunking down money. If more people actually understood the way AT&T and Verizon [wireless] in particular are managing their networks they might not consider the prices they are charging such a great value.. | |
|
 DaarkenRara AvisesPremium join:2005-01-12 Southwest LA kudos:1 | I wonder if AT&T and EA have a no arbitration clause If so I would so send those emails today. -- Getting it Done. | |
|  Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Wonder how much... the cablecos and the others paid under the table to the SCOTUS to get the ruling in their favor? Tens of thousands? Secret deals? It never ceases to amaze me how blatant the SCOTUS has become in favor of businesses. First they are allowed to spend unlimited amounts for "campaign contibutions" that allow them to own congressmen, then "mandatory arbitration". Do any of the SCOTUS judges care about us ordinary citizens?
The "arbitration" companies find in favor of the cablecos 99% of the time, and well they should since they are paid by the cablecos. | |
|  |  tshirtPremium,MVM join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Wonder how much... said by old_wiz_60:The "arbitration" companies find in favor of the cablecos 99% of the time, and well they should since they are paid by the cablecos. The arbitrations go in favor of the company more of the time than not (not 99%) because A}consumers fail to answer the complaint in the proscribed format OR B} The consumer has no legitimate complaint (i.e. arbatrator has no legal standing in the matter the consumer complains about OR C} The company lawyers read each complaint an settle if there is a reasonable chance the consumer is correct.
all of these mean few viable complaints reach the arbitrarters hands.
I'm not saying forced arbitration is right, nor should the "opt out now or we'll get you later" be allowed to stand.
But made up/pumped up stats/"FACTS" about the great evil corporate inquistion really don't further pro consumer aurguments. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Wonder how much... You are right it is not 99%, but I believe it has been published with the court ruling "unconscionable" that the corporations win about 95% of the time. | |
|
 |  | | Do any of the SCOTUS judges care about us ordinary citizens?
Of course not!
That went out the window in Roe v Wade | |
|  |  |  M A R SPremium join:2001-06-15 Long Island | Re: Wonder how much... said by Middleofknow :Do any of the SCOTUS judges care about us ordinary citizens?
Of course not!
That went out the window in Roe v Wade Make a connection please? | |
|
 |  elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by old_wiz_60:the cablecos and the others paid under the table to the SCOTUS to get the ruling in their favor? Tens of thousands? Secret deals? It never ceases to amaze me how blatant the SCOTUS has become in favor of businesses. First they are allowed to spend unlimited amounts for "campaign contibutions" that allow them to own congressmen, then "mandatory arbitration". Do any of the SCOTUS judges care about us ordinary citizens? Oh please. A 5-4 decision is "blatant", in favor of business?
Karl had to dig deep to defend class actions - pro-rated ETFs and non-extension clauses was all he could produce - for over two decades of such cases. Class actions benefit lawyers and the firms they sue, not the consumers. Good riddance.
As for your desire to suppress Free Speech, sorry, but the Constitution is rather clear on the subject. Just as we can't muzzle the California Nurses' Association, ACORN, the SEIU or George Soros, you can't seek to silence employers, business owners, or people of faith.
My Congressman has held a death-grip on his seat for 36 years. I would like nothing better than to see him have to run on a fixed campaign budget, handicapped by the number of years in office, so challengers would have an "equal" footing. But that would violate his right to free speech, along with the group-think masses that routinely re-elect him. | |
|
 | | This pisses me off, but then again class action suits F'd us I'm torn ... This really pisses me off because corporations are acting as a bully to all of us, but then again I understand that class actions really cost EVERYONE... class action suits F'd us even though most don't immediately see it. For example, the ETF pro-rate "win"? Oh yeah, that was great (not) - because what happened is the corporations gave us a big "finger" by DOUBLING the ETFs and saying "ok, now we will pro rate it down so you pay even MORE at ANY POINT of cancellation". BS.. | |
|  Ulmo join:2005-09-22 San Jose, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Best defense against offensive companies is often secrecy I actually thought removing the courts from the marketplace would be found illegal, but since the Supreme Court has found it to be legal, we must instead look at this seriously.
Since now the marketplace is not a legally accountable place, we must take other forms of defense.
The primary defense is to avoid allowing them access to our money. Hide our money from them. I recommend never using checking accounts, credit cards, etc. with such companies, unless such accounts/cards are of limited impact to our lives if such should be compromised. For instance, never pay a bill with anything but a gift card with limited balance, cash, or cashier's check/money order, and never reveal any account numbers or card numbers of accounts that would damage us if they were compromised to entities. The final piece of the puzzle goes without saying, but just to be sure, I'll say it: for any entity that refuses to do business with us without us revealing vulnerable assets, we must refuse to do business with them.
After all, life without every possible company is possible; I live a life almost completely free of AT&T, although I admit my boss still makes use of them so my life isn't 100% free of them. When Netflix took my money without notice, I stopped using them and the bank that conspired with them. Living without Netflix is entirely possible.
Never give them power over you, and you won't need to worry about arbitration. Give them power over you, and you're screwed. Don't do it. Never give the spammers/scammers/corporations anything that you would miss. | |
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium join:2002-03-03 USA kudos:4 | Opt out only works for EXISTING contracts
quote: On the positive side, users have thirty days to opt out of this arbitration clause with a simple e-mail to NOARBITRATION@CABLEVISION.COM.
Unless I am mistaken this only works for your existing contract, if you actually have one, and are not on a month to month bill. Want that new discount on a bundle deal, then you will get a new contract with no way to opt out. -- »www.rickperry.org/ | |
|  |  |  KearnstdElf WizardPremium join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: The difference between big business and you and I. even worse is if you refused to pay the ETF, it would go to collections and the bought off crooked credit rating companies would slam your credit. -- [65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
 | | OOLUser This will never hold up in court. | |
|  | | This Is Bull So, how much did AT&T pay for that verdict?
On a side note, all you have to do is say your agreement to the contract is subject to change without notice and suddenly you can change your mind at any time.
Hey. If THEY can change the terms, YOU can change your agreement. | |
|  MxxCon join:1999-11-19 Brooklyn, NY | I didn't get credit. I submitted this story a few days ago and yet you didn't publish it. Not fair  -- [Sig removed by Administrator: signature can not exceed 20GB] | |
|
 | |
|
|