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. Parent is a fucking idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    "unconscionable" basically means that no person of sound mind could have been expected to accept the contract at the time the contract was signed.

    Seem to me like that should apply to all EULAS, click-through terms of service, notice of terms after the fact, etc. No person should be expected to wade through such a contract for such trifling matters as purchasing a telephone, installing some software, etc. First of all, you failed to spell "seems" correctly. What you don't understand is that companies must cover their ass or get sued by ambulance chasing lawyers with litigious clients. It takes a lot of legalese to cover your ass so you don't get sued over "trifling matters."
    Anonymous Coward Sig 2.0:
    --
    Madonna is the only artist with any talent. Madonna is like the C programming language.
  2. Re:Old news by BlueItalian · · Score: 0, Troll

    Actually, 100% of contracts are a waiver of some rights by one or both parties. This is so blatantly bullshit that I feel sad for the person that paid for your studies, if you're a law student.