Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Makes Its Terms of Service Even Worse, To Discourage Lawsuits

Posted by timothy on from the even-more-fine-print-to-read dept.

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.

28 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. Great by imamac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now I can cancel my contract with no fee...

    1. Re:Great by dimeglio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a consumer you might have right above and beyond whatever is in the contract. They cannot put a clause, for example, that goes against any laws. You cannot make you sign away those rights, at least where I live.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    2. Re:Great by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, I prefer the "unfettered capitalism" of the past -- at least, it was efficient and the same rules, however difficult, applied to everyone.

      Unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to wealth concentration, and wealth concentration inevitably distorts the political system into favoring those with wealth. Even if you start out with the same rules applying to everyone, after a few decades, that's assuredly not the case anymore. Consider the big trusts of the 19th century, or the original AT&T, or the Teapot Dome scandal, or the more recent Department of the Interior Scandal, or own present-day financial system as described by Simon Johnson.

      People like you, against all rational self-interest, argue in favor of those who currently hold the reins of power. People like you comprise the lunatic fringe that's historically impeded any attempt at breaking entrenched powers and enriching the life of the common person. In short, fuck you and the libertarian horse you ride in on.

    3. Re:Great by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah yes, the good old "free markets are great because free markets are great" argument!

    4. Re:Great by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In all reality, people need to see the middle ground. people like you (the parent) slam the corporations, and advocate for government, which will try to consolidate power. People like the grandparent say corporations will be good themselves, when in reality, they will consolidate power. You're both morons on your respective counts. The entire way we've even survived as a country is by playing the two interests against each other in our (the people's) favor. How else do you think people keep these massive entities under control?

    5. Re:Great by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you are confusing "Capitalism" with "Free Market." Like Fascism, Communism, Socialism, and may other isms, Capitalism is anything but free, hence the likes of AT&T.

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    6. Re:Great by ErikZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to wealth concentration"

      Which successful system doesn't? Once the winners get to the top of any system, it's in their self interest to stay there. It's best to deal with it after the fact, instead of placing down onerous rules that hamper everyone.

      China, India, and Brazil aren't advancing due to their awesome social policies. That's capitalism baby.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    7. Re:Great by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, by "middle ground", I'm not talking about just getting into the "bad" category. It's more of a separate thing that allows both to exist. It's called "the people". The people make up both government AND corporations, and we have the power to do with them what we please. We did, and should continue to, play them against each other to make our lives better. I'm not advocating for not being hard on them both. Be hard on BOTH of them, rather than the one you choose to fight for. There's no reason for us to allow either to become too powerful. We gave both the government and corporations power with the intent to wield it and benefit ourselves. Everyone in this country either sides with government or corporations, which is completely countering the population's goals. Why not side with the people? Why not side with the only entity that can outright control everything we've created? This doesn't fall into the category of any adjective other than smart. If we didn't, and if we don't in the future, we're going to be fucked over by things we made to help us.

      You don't let the two strongest types of entities that we've ever created work together. That's bad for the people.

      There's nothing abstract about this. In fact, what you're talking about is really the point I was trying to get across to begin with. I hope I made that much, much clearer this time around.

    8. Re:Great by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A clause like that would be so one-sided that attorneys could probably bring a case and claim that the "lawsuit immunity" makes it an unconscionable contract, or makes the document an illegal contract (since it denies a party of their right to avail themselves of legal remedies against breach).

      When the courts see something like that, they are likely to take a punitive stance against the maker for contriving such a one-sided agreement and claiming its a reasonable contract. E.g. Other terms they want to be enforceable are more likely to get stricken too.

      If the whole thing gets found to be an illegal contract it can't be enforced against the consumer. So for example, if the suit was to avoid having to pay a termination fee, such terms might ultimately result in summary judgement against ATT.

      The maker of a contract generally wants severability to be utilized, so if one term is unenforcable, the rest of the agreement stays in full force. But if they're so blatant as to say "YOU CANT EVER SUE us," the courts may be prone to simply ignore it and throw the whole thing out.

    9. Re:Great by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about if the contract says: "You also agree to the terms at http://somedomain.example.com/terms.php?t=3528905325 incorporated herein by reference." ?

      Where, of course, the terms at the URL are constantly being changed. And you only know what they originally said, if you printed them and kept a printout (which 90% of people won't do) ?

      Oh yes, and every 6 months they'll send you a letter by post that says "The terms of service at this URL have been updated. By continuing to use the service, you agree to the changes. Reply to this message or call us to cancel service if you do not agree to the new terms."

      But they won't tell you what the changes are, or even keep record of what/when they changed things. So you have to manually print and re-read the entire thing every 6 months if you want to keep up on the updates.

    10. Re:Great by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The people make up both government AND corporations, and we have the power to do with them what we please. We did, and should continue to, play them against each other to make our lives better.

      This is Milo Minderbinder's "we all own shares in the syndicate" philosophy from Catch-22, a parable about Capitalism. The American and German governments were at war with each other, but both contracted with and for the "syndicate". So if you were asked to bomb your own country's assets, it was because the syndicate contracted for it. And since everyone owned shares in the syndicate, it was to his own benefit to bomb his country's own stuff.

      In the book, as in real life, while everyone does own some share of the "syndicate", the vast majority of the shares are in the hands of the few. Like the guys in the planes contracted to be shot down by their own "side", it's not the large shareholders that will be asked to make the sacrifice for the good of everyone.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    11. Re:Great by T+Murphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AT&T might just be trying to make people give up, or at worst follow the rules. It doesn't matter whether the contract is enforceable if few enough (no one?) test it.

      --
      My webcomic
    12. Re:Great by bdsesq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They want you to think you have no rights and cant do anything.
      Just like the signs in parking garages "Owner is not responsible for......"
      In fact they are responsible. They just want you to think you can't sue them.

    13. Re:Great by slack_justyb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      House Resolution 1020 is a bill that will address this kind of forceful arbitration. However, the bill is currently in committee and if people do not get the members of this committee to move this resolution to a floor vote, then this is all pretty moot. Please take a look at the members of the House Committee on the Judiciary. If one of the members is your Representative, write them. Otherwise this thing will most surely die in committee since this is not the most pressing matter on the public's mind.

      If your Representative is not listed as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary but you live in the same state as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. Write your Representative to urge the member to move the bill to the floor, so that your Representative can get a chance to help you out. Usually, members of the same state know each other pretty well and talk to each other about broad topics that affect the state as a whole.

      If you live in a state that has no members on the committee. Check to see if your Representative or a Representative from your state co-sponsored the bill. If so, make your case using that point; if not, write your Representative asking why they did not co-sponsor the bill and make your point about how not having legal recourse affects you and your community in general.

      Always remember one big point when you write your Representative...Always make sure you make it entirely clear what it is you expect your Representative to do, and make sure it is within their power to do so. If you just tell them about HR 1020 and that they should support it, then all you are going to get back as a reply is, 'their sorry but it must make it out of committee before they can do anything about it, but if it does make it to the floor they'll be sure to consider it carefully. Yours truly, Rep. Blah Blah Blah (X-Your state).'

  2. Only in a thoroughly corrupt society by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      It's called "Corporate Government".

      Mussolini defined it as "corporatism."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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",

      You can (or can't) sue a company based on your State's laws.
      Just because AT&T puts it in the contract doesn't make it enforceable.
      If your State allows a ToS to ban class actions, change your laws.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society by QuoteMstr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My point is that there is something terribly wrong when laws allow companies to decline liability via a standard form contract. The practice obviously favors large corporate interests over ordinary people. When companies large enough to have legal departments start to be dominant force shaping policy, we know we're the sick man of the world.

    4. Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      consumer

      I hate this word. The word just reeks of passivism, acceptance, and defeat. With apologies to George Orwell, all a consumer does is choose which color of corporate boot is stamping on his face forever.

      I prefer the word "citizen".

    5. Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society by swv3752 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh great. You can quit, and maybe get a job somewhere else with the same type of contracts. Having the choice between eating a shit sandwich and a shit wrap, still means you are eating shit and flour.

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
  3. Really? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What further evidence do we need that "sanctity of contract" should not be the most important principle in a legal system?

  4. Re: phirst post! by Shin-LaC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Wow, this is serious by dada21 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  6. is this legal? certainly not ETHICAL by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access by MadnessASAP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, It's like going to prison and having the choice of being raped ever night by either Bubba OR Mo, you have 2 great choices for your raping preference, you should feel blessed to live in a country that will allow you the freedom to choose who will violate your asshole.

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  8. Re: phirst post! by jeepien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Class action lawsuits could be improved, sure, but even in their present form, they discourage companies from performing certain actions, and that itself as value.