Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Buries ToS Changes In 2500-Page Guide
JagsLive points out a story from the business section of the L.A. Times which begins: "Judging from the phone company's voluminous new online customer manual, if you have a problem with your bill, too bad: AT&T has sent customers an 8,000-word service agreement that, among other things, says people will be given 30-day notice of price increases only when 'commercially reasonable' and that you can't sue the company. Oh, and if you don't like AT&T's terms — providing you can make your way through the company's 2,500-page 'guidebook' — your only recourse is to cancel service."
At the time AT&T bought BellSouth, AT&T was certainly not the old long distance company. That had been bought by SBC a year or two previously. SBC renamed itself to AT&T, and that corporation swallowed BellSouth.
All of which is a shame, because BellSouth was actually a fairly decent company - well, fairly decent as monopolistic local telcos can be.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
even worse, it's an 8000 word service agreement "referencing" an online-only guidebook. And it still has clauses in it that e. g. CA courts have found unenforceable, but if your local courts haven't done so you're still stuck with them.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
Georgia courts (11th circuit) have also decided the same regarding similar terms that concast used.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Wow, not only are you wrong, but you chose to be wrong in, to paraphrase the Daily Show, the douchiest way possible.
Illegal contracts are unenforcable. Period. End of story.
Waivers are only legal if they meet certain conditions. They must be clear, they can only waive neglegence (IE: not intentional harm), they must be unambiguous and clear, they must be between two parties with equal bargaining power, and they can not be applied to essential services.
It's entirely possible to argue that this clause is overly broad, between two parties with unequal bargaining power, and it for an essential service, thus making it null and void.
As far as I'm aware, AT&T can say whatever the hell they want in a notice like that. Whether any of it is legally enforceable is another matter entirely. I mean, contracts require certain niceties like, you know, both sides actually agreeing to them. I imagine this will be treated as a contract of adhesion in the worst possible light if it ever actually comes to court.
Here you go:
Little Guy vs. MegaCorp
And who in this case is the MC? Oh, I see it's AT&T. Well what do you know.
Douchiest indeed.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a Stateside judge just quash something like this a few weeks ago?
Yup, but my answer is going to be pretty much worthless, because I don't have a link available for you. Try searching Slash stories from a couple weeks ago.
Groklaw still has it: McKee vs. AT&T
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Yes and no. You can ALWAYS file suit. period fucking dot.
However immediately following the companies lawyers will file a motion to dismiss based on the binding arb clause. YMMV at that point but a judge CAN order binding arbitration.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Anyone else notice that AT&T sends you a notice of updated iPhone firmware that starts with "AT&T Free Msg: Apple has released ..." BUT when you get the bill - lo and behold you've been charged $0.20? I only notice this because I never use text messaging. I wonder if there is a way to disable this "feature" . . .
I thought it was a good idea