Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Arbitration Clause Ruled Unconscionable
Tech.Luver writes to tell us the Consumerist is reporting that a small clause in AT&T contracts has been ruled "unconscionable" by the 9th circuit court of appeals. The clause in question stated that if you use AT&T service you surrender your right to class action lawsuits and instead have to participate in mandatory binding arbitration.
Isn't this in most or all credit card agreements?
I am glad this got struck down. We are seeing more and more of corporate America using these so called "to smart for the normal guy" contracts that really are never read,signed, or agreed to in a "normal" manner. Hell, recently I got a postcard from Sprint saying that my monthly web service was going to rise a few dollars a month and that by paying my next bill I agree to their service and conditions and the raise. What the f&*k? Of course I am going to have to pay my bill or else they would shut my service off, give me a bad credit mark, and then go to collections on me. A no-win situation.
I keep asking myself, what the f$*k is going on in America lately?
This won't change until campaign contributions are limited to registered voters.
Well, where software is concerned, EULAs are moot. You see the EULA after you make the purchase and open the package. Open the package, the store will refuse to accept it. Your right of first sale (it's a commodity good, NOT a work for hire) allows you to use it for its intended purpose without restriction. You are still of course bound by patents and copyrights, but not to use the package for its advertised purpose, or even to resell it to someone else when you're finished with it.
With AT&T, you're buying a service; it amounts to a work for hire, in essence. As such, they can require you to agree to certain terms, but not ones which would restrict you from certain rights, e.g., if they work with the government to subert your constitutional rights (e.g., engaged in wiretapping without a warrant), engage in fraud and charge you for services you do not receive, or falsely advertise their services (advertising them as unlimited), and so forth, it is unreasonable for a court to accept that waiver of such rights is valid or even possible.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It's really no surprise. The 9th circuit's one of the most liberal courts in the country and so people looking for them to assert the right to liberal activities usually try and sue through them, and class action lawsuits are about as liberal as you can get.
Regardless of the 9th CC's viewpoint; a class action lawsuit is neither liberal or conservative; rather it adds a level of certainty to the legal landscape. Rather than face potentially hundreds of expensive lawsuits all around the country; class actions allow corporations to resolve liability issues once and in a final manner; while allowing individuals to sue when it would be too expensive to try to sue individually. I would expect the business community to prefer class actions suits to the alternative of defending themselves everywhere over small amounts; even though the likelihood of such cases is much smaller since the payouts probably
wouldn't cover the lawyers fees. Still the certainty of class actions is better than uncertainty of individual actions since you at least have some control over teh cost of defense and ultimate liability.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Literally the only people this ruling benefits are class action vulture attorneys, who sue, cost a company millions of dollars, and get those actually effected small coupons to buy more of the defective product."
Considering this is AT&T we're talking about, I'm sure this is also a win for civil liberties groups looking to actually take AT&T to court for their warrantless wiretaps.
The ambulance chasers are only one symptom of the omnipresent rot in the legal profession. That your industry has escaped much needed regulation and oversight is a testament to just how much undue power and influence lawyers have on our society, laws and governments.
In a country where anyone can, without qualification, defend themselves in court, the entire concept of a bar associations is a joke to begin with. They exist for one purpose; to line the pockets of their members. How many US bar associations really protested against Guantanamo? How many stand against illegal wiretapping? Shouldn't the legal profession be at the forefront in defending the attack on legal rights. Instead they're more likely to be found in positions of power, leading that same attack.
Your profession is pretty much rotten to the core. Personally, I would just get rid of bar associations and the like and subject the whole lot of you to the harsh winds of the free market and watch your tear yourselves apart. But that's never going to happen is it? You're the ones that end up drafting all the laws after all.
May the Maths Be with you!