Court Rules Against AT&T's Service Agreement

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is running a story about a recent ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court, which decided that AT&T's service agreement was not capable of waiving a customer's right to file a lawsuit against the company. The full opinion (PDF) is also available. From the conclusion: "AT&T's Consumer Services Agreement is substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable to the extent that it purports to waive the right to class actions, require confidentiality, shorten the Washington Consumer Protection Act statute of limitations, and limit availability of attorney fees. ... Courts will not be easily deceived by attempts to unilaterally strip away consumer protections and remedies by efforts to cloak the waiver of important rights under an arbitration clause."

Comments

Right to Contract

[Detritus]

The modern abuse of arbitration clauses reminds me of the "right to contract" cases. Contracts are often little more than legal cudgels, designed to exploit the difference in power between the two parties to the benefit of stronger party. The arbitration system is a perversion of justice and should be eliminated.

Re:Right to Contract

[nomadic]

Arbitration was designed to be used between businesses; when it's done that way it can actually be a superior alternative to court. It's when it's applied to adhesion contracts with consumers that it get unfair.

score 1 for common sense

[DragonTHC]

You cannot sign away your rights. They're guaranteed.

AT&T's clause is unconstitutional as are every similar company's clauses.

The right to bring legal action cannot be signed away. That's like saying that these companies are above the law.

Next to be tested in court, the clause stating "we reserve the right to change the terms of this contract at any time without notice".

If the terms are flexible, it's not a contract. It's like signing a blank check and something we aren't doing.