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.

12 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 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?

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  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 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!
    2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.