Slashdot Mirror
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."
As the FTA mentions, these arbitration clauses are widely-used elsewhere. AT&T will appeal to federal court, and win.
This really is an activists' decision -- modern legal theory is far more supportive of arbitration than the class action process. Many states don't even have class action anymore. They're a racket; only the head, and the attorneys make money.
Because they are far more draconian than At&T's ever was.
Just saying, most Game Company EULAs actually state that you don't even get a service in return for your payments and that your payments are non-refundable and you have no expectations of privacy and your computer is for all intents and purposes the property of the gaming company for as long as their software resides on your computer...
I wish I was making this up but as you can see here (the most popular online game in the world):
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.shtml
I'm not. And as an even more negative note this EULA actually stood up in court of law.
http://virtuallyblind.com/2008/07/14/blizzard-wins-sj-mdy/
Your RAM is actually Blizzards. You have no right to sue. You have no right to a refund. You have no right to class action. You have no right to communicate to anyone about what Blizzard communicates to you. Because, it is all copyright. That is a huge legal determination.
This brings us back to the topic at hand, AT&T. Because in all honesty, "waive the right to class actions, require confidentiality, shorten the Washington Consumer Protection Act statute of limitations, and limit availability of attorney fees." these things have already been ruled as legal in several gaming company cases and RIAA cases (which for brevity I did not touch on).
To tell AT&T (and every other company on the planet)that they are breaking the law because they are not using copyright as the rational for their arguments makes absolutely no legal sense whatsoever.
Because the end result is that all company claims against their consumers will be twisted in to copyright claims and therefore automatically upheld...
Thanks to eating disorders most chicks are reasonably good looking these days.
Quote: "The trial judgefound AT&T's Consumer Services Agreement both substantively and procedurally unconscionable. McKee was notprovided with a copy of any agreement at the time he signed up for AT&T services. Even when a consumer contracts for a service electronically, the consumer has an opportunity to review the contract and is given the choice to "agree"McKee (Michael) v. AT&T Corp., No. 81006-1 before the contract is formed. See, e.g., Koresko v. RealNetworks, Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1163 (E.D. Cal. 2003)(describing electronic "clickwrap" agreements). AT&T apparently mailed the terms and conditions to McKee 10 days to two weeks after he subscribed for service. AT&T retained the right to unilaterally change the contract by posting the change on its web site or by mailing the notice of the change. A consumer wasdeemed to have agreed to the changes by continuing touse AT&T servicewhether the consumer had actual noticeof the change or not.13 At no time was the consumer required to read and sign or affirmatively acknowledge acceptance ofthe terms and conditions. These facts raise anissue of whether McKeehad a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms and a meaningful choice."
So, yet another judge states that "after-the-fact 'agreements'" are very questionable. However, he refused to actually rule on the matter because it was not specifically germane to the case at hand. Sigh. But at least it shows that some courts are willing to go by reason and law rather than corporate ass-kissing.