Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Arbitration Clause Ruled Unconscionable

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the new-contracts-just-ask-to-surrender-all-rights dept.

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.

2 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Out of hand by WwWonka · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  2. Where's the FTC? by schwit1 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Unconscionable terms are in most consumer contracts today, whether it be a product or a service. That's what happens when big business owns the government. AT&T has more influence with my elected representatives because of campaign finance rules, legalized influence pedaling and lobbyists.


    This won't change until campaign contributions are limited to registered voters.