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."

Comments

AT&T

[Erie Ed]

Whats this...a major telephone company screw over it's customers...why that's unheard of.

Re:AT&T

[adpsimpson]

Certainly in the UK, a contract which refuses legal recourse (ie "You can't take us to court") is illegal and, therefore, that clause is automatically null and void.

On top of that, courts don't look too kindly on companies attempting to enforce illegal contractual clauses.

Do Americans not have this same protection?

Re:AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Here is my brick.

[Shikaku]

Upon receipt of said brick through your building, you accept, without any consent to agreement:

1. That the brick thrower shall not be held accountable for any damage, whether
accidental or purposeful, or any other damage caused at any point in time, espec
ially before the brick was thrown.

2. That you will only use your bare hands to pick up the damage caused by this brick.

3. That you accept these terms.

Contract

[oahazmatt]

Sorry, but if I'm contracted to certain functions at certain price increments or allotments, I expect those to be honored. If one party decides to change the terms of the contract without discussing (let a lone receiving approval) from the other party, then the first party should be considered to be in breach of contract.

Or does this mean that I can send AT&T a "customer ToS" and say that I now get unlimited everything on my plan, and if they don't approve they can just walk away from the existing contract?