Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Makes Its Terms of Service Even Worse, To Discourage Lawsuits
techmuse writes "AT&T has changed its terms of service (including for existing contracts) to prevent class action suits. Note that you are already required to submit your case to arbitration, a forum in which consumers are often at a substantial disadvantage. Now you must go up against AT&T alone." This post on David Farber's mailing list provides a bit of context as well.
Now I can cancel my contract with no fee...
Only in a thoroughly corrupt society can big corporations get away with saying "you can't sue me because I don't agree to be sued", while other big corporations win judgments against common people for thousands of times the actual damages. I thought only sovereign nations were supposed to be able to just decline a lawsuit.
What further evidence do we need that "sanctity of contract" should not be the most important principle in a legal system?
Contracts are weaker than the law. If your contract has terms that are forbidden by law, those terms are void (and possibly the entire contract, and you might be liable for punitive damages).
Of course, I have no idea if US law has such provisions against attempts to forbid class actions.
I find this repulsive because AT&T services are something that should be considered a life necessity. Since AT&T is the only business that provides these services, consumers have no choice where to get this required need to sustain their lives.
What we really need is another option than AT&T, so that when we are given the contract to sign, we can just say "no" and go to a competitor with a less stringent contract.
That will be the day, friends, when the first competitor to AT&T arrives and gives us an option.
Oh, wait...
(including for existing contracts) from the summary
I love how they change the contract after you have agreed to it.
From what I understand they don't have the right to limit all complaints to arbitration, but the contract is there to make people THINK they have given up the the right to sue.
This clause is likely no different.
I already canceled my AT&T service over their use of warrantless surveillance, their censoring of Pearl Jam, their blocking of web sites, and their influencing of American Idol voting outcomes. There are alternatives out there, and AT&T will only be able to continue doing stuff like this as long as people keep doing business with them.
Sure you can. Just write that into a binding contract that both parties agree to.
Um, that's kinda the point nonewmsgs was making. Can you make such a contract that is actually binding? Just because a contract has been understood and agreed to by all parties does not make it binding.
There are a lot of specific examples of where you can't just dump in certain exemptions into your TOS and wash your hands of liability. I'm surprised this isn't one of them.
I don't see why it's legal in a generic sense to be able to surrender your rights to legal action as a TOS.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
When AT&T is your only choice for DSL, however...
...then you switch to cable.
How exactly is that outrageous? The MTA might change their terms, and they will make an effort to let people know about it in various ways, although probably not by sending out mail to every MTA Fast Lane participant?
Oh! The horrors!
Most corporate terms of services have similar clauses, although the lack requirement for written notification isn't always included, there are many situations where it is. In fact, the only examples where I recall receiving terms changes via mail these days are from financial institutions, which makes me think it's most likely a legal requirement. Everyone else pretty much just tells you to keep your eye on some web page somewhere.
Or when corporations run the government.
Likely this is more to discourage people who don't know any better from filing a class action suit, but it won't prevent them.
In fact, since this change affects every AT&T customer, this just may be a perfect cause FOR a class action suit.
Didn't Comcast already get it's ass handed to them in court over similar terms?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Class action lawsuits are almost always a complete abuse of the legal system. They deliver huge multi-million dollar profits to lawyers. The "class" of plaintiffs usually gets a coupon or something worth less than $5. And the rest of us innocent people who just want phone service (or whatever) are forced to pay an extra de facto "tax" to cover the costs of the huge payout to the lawyers -- lawyers who are essentially free riders, who produced exactly nothing of practical value in return for the money they've taken.
In theory, class-action lawsuits protect consumers. But the current system harms consumers much, much more than it helps us.
putting terms into contracts that prevent/prohibit constitutional usage of rights by citizens ...
i never heard this thing in any other country, except african countries that are run by dictatorships. BUT, somehow, corporations do this in america, and not only they do not get their ass fined by constitutional courts, but also get away with it and even win cases.
please, noone give the 'great american system' bullshit to anyone, anymore. that kind of crap is unheard of. you dont have a fucking system, only something that enables big ass money holders to crample individuals and citizens.
Read radical news here
"If you do not like the contract, do not do business with AT&T. You've got a choice."
That depends. I know plenty of folks who are effectively locked into AT&T for "high speed" internet because:
So "choice" suddenly becomes a whole hell of a lot less easy...unless by choice you mean selling the family stead and moving into the city/burbs just to feed the coffers of the telcos to get HSI.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
I thought that the U.S. Supreme Court had already decided that AT&T couldn't force people to use arbitration [sfgate.com]?
Isn't AT&T just putting these things into their terms of service to prevent people who don't already know their rights from exercising those rights?
Creating terms of service which contain legally-unenforceable clauses should be illegal. Attempting to confuse people out of their rights is unconscionable, and AT&T should be forced to immediately create and distribute TOS not specifically mandating arbitration.
But because of their previous abuse of TOS, it would be good if their new TOS were mandated to include articles outlining that users do have the legal right to sue them and do have the legal right to participate in class-action lawsuits. This would discourage such abuses in the future, both abuses by AT&T and by other companies which may want to use similar misleading tactics.
Because in many instances the "public" option is superior and/or significantly less expensive than the private option.
In instances where consumers are being raped blind in the name of corporate profits, a government-run non-profit option is by far superior; it often supplies equivalent services (sometimes better) at a fraction of the cost.
Now this is not true in every area. Just most.
And this is exactly why corporate America, the GOP, and their buddies at Fox News so vehemently oppose any and all government run programs. Not because they are ineffecient and inferior, but just the opposite, and it ends the gravy train of unfettered corporate industries that line their pockets with billions dollars every year, at our expense.
Material here doesn't relate to an item ("physical matter") but to "something that matters," i.e.something of consequence. In other words, if the adverse terms have no actual impact (let's say they increase the fee for text messages from five cents to ten cents but you're already on the unlimited text message plan for the life of the contract -- that's adverse, but it has no material impact upon you) you might not be able to get out of the contract. But if they demonstrably matter, even if it's something that shouldn't affect you unless you are a nutjob (unlimited text messages goes from "unlimited" to "may be limited at carrier's discretion to 9999 per month") then you should be able to opt out.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.