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.

Comments

Great

[imamac]

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

Re:Great

[Drantin]

If they change the contract after the fact, it may no longer be binding...

Re:Great

[Tawnos]

The term to be familiar with is "materially adverse change in the contract."

Re:Great

[dimeglio]

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.

Re:Great

[Sponge Bath]

Most cable/wireless/anylargecorporation "user agreements" state that the provider can change the terms at whim. In this case the whim is an addition ocular penetration clause that allows them to skull fuck you and charge for the privilege. Such is the blessing of unfettered capitalism.

Re:Great

[nosferatu1001]

Except that, in the UK at least, the Unfair Contract Terms Act requires that you give an option to end the contract if the terms are changed and you do not agree to them. Unilateral changes to contracts voids the contract, as you have lost the meeting of minds.

Re:Great

[deathy_epl ccs]

Yeah, but the clauses that say they can change the terms on their whim have repeatedly failed to stand up in court because they are against the law. Those are there for people who don't know better and won't get a lawyer involved if they think they are screwed already.

Re:Great

[Toonol]

However, they can't. That's an example of a company arbitrarily asserting they have a right that they don't, legally, have. If they change the terms, you have valid cause to cancel the contract with no penalty. It doesn't matter what the contract says, you can't give up a right that legally they can't demand you give up. Call them; they'll let you do it, after a bout of transfers intended to make you give up.

Re:Great

[QuoteMstr]

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.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true- but under U.S. common law, a modification to a contract for services requires consideration (i.e., a new benefit to the non-modifying party or a new detriment to the modifying party). Some requirements of contract law may not be waived by the terms of the contract. What the original poster is talking about is a "materially adverse change" to a contract. While PHONECOMPANY may reserve its right to modify the contract, it cannot force you to accept the new contract terms. Where the changes to the terms are "materially adverse" (price/substantive rights are material) you typically have a right to withdraw from the contract with none of the penalties ("liquidated damages") that were part of the original contract. Those liquidated damages (cancelation fees) represent the value that they lose when you violate the terms of the contract, and must be reasonable.

Note that in some states, Mediation (non-binding) may be required by law. Arbitration may not be waivable. In almost all states, you cannot be forced to waive substantive legal rights (such as the right to sue for breach of contract in a court of law). Additionally, you may be protected by consumer rights acts (deceptive trade practice acts) which are a whole other story. Under deceptive trade practice acts, you are typically able to sue for damages when false statements were made which induced you to enter into the contract. So if the PHONECOMPANY salesman says "we will never change these terms," then the terms change, you may be entitled to relief (this is just a simple example at hand).

Capitalism is not unfettered, you have substantive rights under common contract law. But "poor service" is generally not a material breach of a contract, which means you are not entitled to relief or to back out of the contract. Not giving you a new, cheap phone when you lose your phone, is typically not a breach of contract at all etc.

Re:Great

[Goaway]

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

Re:Great

[blackraven14250]

It works when people aren't fuckin dumbasses. Who actually knows about AT&T's ToS? I'd guarantee it's less than 1% of customers.

Re:Great

[blackraven14250]

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?

Re:Great

[Hes Nikke]

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.

Re:Great

[severoon]

What I can't understand is: why did they stop there? They could have gone on to say, you can never ever sue us, individual or otherwise, and you have no right to arbitration either. Their contract may as well be seven words followed by a dotted line:

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

x______________

Re:Great

[QuoteMstr]

In all reality, people need to see the middle ground.

Middle ground? The middle group between 'okay' and 'horrible' isn't 'good'. You have a point in the abstract. But right now, entrenched interests have far too much power to worry about whether we're being too hard on them.

Re:Great

[xrobertcmx]

One possible problem with this is that the arbitration clause has already failed in at least one state.

Re:Great

[davester666]

I recall another major telephone and/or cable company that added this 'you must use arbitration' clause to their contracts, and then they were sued and the judge ruled it infringed the individuals rights. Here's one ruling I found using google:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/12/arbitration_challenges.html

And an interesting article on more recent 'arbitration' law:
http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Consumer-Contracts-Mandatory-Arbitration-Clauses.html

I guess AT&T is hoping to get 'grandfathered' in...

Re:Great

[me at werk]

Not really, there's no mention of AT&T anywhere in the businessweek article, nor the word wireless nor mobile. There's no information about when the contract changed. There's a reason this has the noarticle tag.

Re:Great

[quanticle]

Does that Act still apply even if the contract contains a clause allowing one party to change the contract at will? In other words, what if the contract contains language allowing for its own mutability.

Re:Great

[ErikZ]

"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.

Re:Great

[blackraven14250]

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.

Re:Great

[liquidsin]

same as if there was a clause allowing them to rape your mom. illegal clauses in contracts are unenforceable.

Re:Great

[Bigjeff5]

I love how all of your examples of "unfettered capitalism gone wrong" involve the US Government circumventing the market, it is pretty much the opposite of "unfettered capitalism". All of these issues were caused by Government involvment and regulation - the WORST example being Bell Systems, which received a government guaranteed monopoly on telephone infrastructure. The company was eventually split, bringing about the likes of AT&T and others (ComCast and Verizon came from this as well, though I believe they had different names at the time). The taxpayer funded infrastructure was almost certainly necessary, but the government sanctioned monopoly was the worst way to go about it. We still deal with the results of that interferance in market forces today.

So, the only examples you have of capitalism failing are all at the hands of government interferance, and you want to use that as proof the government needs to be more involved? What are you, stupid? That's the same logic that bails out a tanking company and then gets upset about shareholders rewarding CEOs million dollar bonuses for saving their bottom line.

The common person's life is most enriched when they have the most opportunity to succeed. Communism has shown that when the government controls and owns everything, the common person has the least opportunity to succeed. Look at Soviet Russia before it collapsed or communist China before they began introducing more capitalism to their system, Russia had 0% unemployment but 1/3 of the country could not afford a loaf of bread per day. Even if they could afford it, the supply always ran out. China caught things before it got that bad, and now they are becoming the dominant economic power in the world, yet you could hardly call it a free country. Anarchy is just about as bad, the only thing that may make it better than communism is the fact that at least you have a chance (if a slim one) to rise out of nothing to succeed.

What the government SHOULD be doing is attempting to make the market as free as possible for the individual. This requires some regulation and control, but the goal should not be to make it fair to everybody (that's impossible, in any system), but to create the most individual freedom without inhibiting another individual's freedom. The -only- economic system that can do that is a capitalist system. Socialism looks good on paper, but the further you try to push it the worse it gets. Capitalism is much easier to predict and control, though you can see the results of poor government regulation in the recent crisis as well. Dig into the root causes of the market crash, and you'll see quite a lot of government involvement in unbalancing the market. All in the interest of "enriching the life of the common person". I bet all those people who were recently forclosed on feel real enriched thanks to the government programs that allowed them to buy houses they could not afford.

In otherwords, quit reading the bullshit of a bum who'd rather complain about his station in life than work to improve it (aka, Carl Marx) and open your eyes to what really happened, and what continues to happen to further fuck over the "common person". Under the current leadership (Bush and Congress included), we have the super-rich who are too big to fail, and the lower class who are too small to succeed.

Go ahead, try and get some bailout money for yourself, you'll see what I mean. Too small to matter, that's what the "common person" is to Obama, Congress, and hell the rest of the US Government.

Re:Great

[Mozk]

I think you are confusing him with somebody who gives a shit.

Everybody on here spews bullshit about socialism, capitalism, free markets, etc. Arguing actual facts on here is irrelevant when we must debate the definitions of terms that have multiple meanings in various contexts.

Re:Great

[Rand310]

It is actually a critical and fundamental pillar of capitalism that the participants be well informed (read Friedman and others). Academically, if the consumer is so bogged down in misinformation or overinformation that they are not well informed than the assumptions that allow capitalism to work so well break down - and the results can no longer be considered the product of a capitalistic market.

Re:Great

[Bigjeff5]

Also bear in mind that consideration does not have to be large, it just has to exist. The common example is the single peppercorn - it is enough to qualify as consideration. Size does not matter, it simply must be aggreed upon by both parties, and it cannot be nothing - you can't have a contract where you agree to pay $20 per month without receiving anything in return, you must receive something, even if it is only a peppercorn.

Poor service is not enough to be breach of contract if they are fulfilling the elements of the contract, only at a lower quality than expected. Unless of course, you've dictated the quality as an element of the consideration.

So if the PHONECOMPANY salesman says "we will never change these terms," then the terms change, you may be entitled to relief (this is just a simple example at hand).

The salesman does not need to say the terms will never change, a contract is not valid in the US if the terms have been changed but not agreed to by both parties. That is a federal statute, state law cannot override it, and if they try to force you into arbitration you can flip them the bird and sue for breach of contract. You might even have a shot at suing the state if they push it too much (and of course, you are actually protected by the federal statute). State laws are trumped by federal laws in every case, so state mandated arbitration does not apply when a federal statute is being broken.

Attempting to change your contract without your consent definitely falls under federal contract law. You cannot sign away your rights, and state laws cannot restrict or eliminate rights granted under federal law.

Re:Great

[slashdotwannabe]

I've got mod points. However, I don't see a -1 Naive Idiot mod.

Re:Great

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Great

[Valdrax]

Yeah, but the clauses that say they can change the terms on their whim have repeatedly failed to stand up in court because they are against the law.

Citation, please? It's my understanding that if you do not repudiate the new contract and continue to perform (i.e. pay your bills), the new contract is binding. (IANAL, and contracts was one of my weaker classes anyway.)

Re:Great

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Great

[samwichse]

I use my third wish for infinite wishes!

Fricking childish is what this is and these clauses need be smacked down as illegal or at least unenforceable in court.

Re:Great

[zaivala]

Oh yeah. Like AT&T hasn't already thought of that, and prevented it. Let me know if you're right though, I'd love to find another service.

Re:Great

[Rob the Bold]

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.

Re:Great

[cbraescu1]

Frankly I agree with most of what you said above, with only one correction:

Russia had 0% unemployment but 1/3 of the country could not afford a loaf of bread per day. Even if they could afford it, the supply always ran out. China caught things before it got that bad,

The Chinese went *much* worse than the Russians (including the Stalin-induced famine in Ukraine in the '30s, mostly due to the bizarre era of the so-called "Great Leap Forward", the second five-year plan that started in 1958.

Re:Great

[dave87656]

AFIK, they cannot unilaterally change the terms of an existing contract unless that is agreed to in the original contract. If it is, then a customer can opt out.

Re:Great

[dave87656]

No system is perfect. And free markets only work if they are free and there is sufficient competition. In "capitalism" it is the job of the government to ensure competition, but, that idea got pretty hammered in a recent administration, which felt it was the job of government to make sure campagne contributors can maintain their monopolies.

Re:Great

[T Murphy]

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.

Re:Great

[Zebra_X]

inevitably distorts the political system into favoring those with wealth

I would argue that the ruling in 1819 by the supreme court labeling the Corporation as "an "artificial person," possessing both individuality and immortality.[13]" (Wikipedia) has done the most harm or rather has created the environment that you refer to as "unfettered capitalism". large corporations have almost unlimited capital available to them and possessing the full rights of an individual it makes the corporation a "person" that is economically invincible in some cases when placed against another individual in a dispute. this is especially true of corporations who exist to serve end consumers such as AT&T.

unfettered capitalism (there exists no such thing) does not inevitably lead to wealth concentration and wealth concentration does not inevitably distort the political system into favoring those with wealth. you may only have to look so far as the obama administration to disprove your second assertion.

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.

People like your great grandfather, grandfather, grandmother, aunts, uncles, mother and father have selected and elected the people that have created and overseen the implementation of the policies that you object to so vehamently today. Remeber that before slinging around your tempestuous insults.

Re:Great

[iamacat]

If it were unfettered capitalism, AT&T contract would be only good as a substitute for toilet paper. It would be as simple as I take a chance on your product and you take a chance on my payment and whatever else I agreed to do. Obviously companies would be free to blacklist consumers and vice versa, and other companies/consumers would be free to ignore these blacklists to try to get a better deal.

I am not saying unfettered capitalism is good. But if AT&T wants a nanny state to protect it from evil customers, they better accept that the regulation goes both ways. No more carrier-locked phones, rural coverage holes or tax shelters.

Re:Great

[metacell]

I agree with everything except the last clause - "the results can no longer be considered the product of a capitalistic market". It's an example of the "no true scotsman" argument.

If a capitalistic market fails because people are badly informed or misinformed, it's still a capitalistic market, and we have to accept that capitalistic markets don't work well under all circumstances.

Re:Great

[metacell]

It's my understanding that if you do not repudiate the new contract and continue to perform (i.e. pay your bills), the new contract is binding. (IANAL, and contracts was one of my weaker classes anyway.)

Yes, of course. I'm assuming the previous poster meant that you have the option of terminating the contract without any fees if the other party decides to change the terms.

Re:Great

[dunkelfalke]

Look at Soviet Russia before it collapsed or communist China before they began introducing more capitalism to their system, Russia had 0% unemployment but 1/3 of the country could not afford a loaf of bread per day.

Stop spilling bullshit. In the USSR basic foodstuff was unaffordable or unavailable only right after WW1, right after WW2 and around the time of the GKChP putch. At all other time basic food was not only available, it was also very affordable. A kilogram of bread was about 20 kopecks in 1988 and that bread was often still warm and much tastier than everything you get in the USA - short of self baked one. Meat was more difficult to get and there was an extreme shortage of luxury goods but not as you described.

but to create the most individual freedom without inhibiting another individual's freedom. The -only- economic system that can do that is a capitalist system.

Another outright lie. Let's stay with your former example. Russia in the nineties is a perfect example of laissez-faire capitalism. If you had money, really everything was possible and the government was irrelevant. So you think people were more free back then? Nope. The only free people were bandits and businessmen so reach they could afford their own small armies. Everyone else was fucked by the former two parties.

Actually, the only economic system that theoretically doesn't inhibit anyone's freedom is simple barter. It also works when all other systems fail. But it is the most inefficient system.

BTW you should read some works of Karl Marx yourself before you bash them. Das Kapital is pretty much basic economy and was spot on in the beginning of the 20th century and is still pretty much valid. Many of his theories are still taught in the MBA classes, although noone wants to admit that they were written by Marx.

Re:Great

[Eskarel]

The problem is that "winner" has multiple definitions, and not all of them are nice.

Unfettered by any law, the "winner" is usually chosen by the law of the jungle. They're usually the guys with the largest body count, and, generally speaking, they're not nice people. It's not really all that good for society to have them be the "winner", and it's sure as hell not good for the people who are the "loser", which in all reality is the vast majority of us.

This leaves us wanting to change the winner. Now you've really only got two ways to change the winner. Either you remove the current winner from the game and let the game pick another winner, who will basically be the same as the previous winner, OR you change the rules.

Those of us who favor more regulation basically want to change the rules so we can change the winner. Sometimes when people want to do that it's because they want the winner to be themselves, but sometimes it's because they want a situation wherein the winner doesn't make the losers life so terrible.

That's what civilization is really about, trying to control who wins so that the people who lose don't lose as badly. Despite what everyone tends to believe, the average person has far more power today than they have ever had in the entire history of our species. It's not uniform throughout the world, but it's certainly better overall pretty much everywhere.

The reason people think that this is not the case is that, because the average person covers a lot more kinds of people than it used to, they personally have less power. If you are an educated, white, western male, you have less power than you did 50 years ago, because we're sharing that power with a lot more people than you used to have to share it with. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Re:Great

[bdsesq]

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.

Re:Great

[Spewns]

That these terms either have little to no meaning or mean the opposite of what they're supposed to mean (especially in the US) is a great triumph of propaganda. One way to squelch ideas that might "rock the boat" is to sabotage the ways of talking about them.

Re:Great

[mpe]

Forgive me for being ignorant, but what do you mean? You get to cancel your contract with no fee if you disagree with the new terms?

Contracts are subject to the "law of the land". An applicable law may well mean that minimum terms of contract are null and void if other terms are changed. (Possibly even if terms which are themselves null and void being added is the only change.) In somewhere like the US finding out which laws are applicable can be tricky since there can be many sources of laws and a relevent statute, ordinance or court case need have nothing to do with telecommunications.

Re:Great

[mpe]

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.

They can, however clauses are null and void. It isn't unknown for companies, especially large companies, to put clauses they know full well are unenforcable in contracts to call people's bluff.

Re:Great

[Opportunist]

I guess AT&T just wants people to comply due to the "they're so big, I'm so small, I better not sue" train of thought.

Re:Great

[mpe]

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.

Even in the absence of a law voiding such clauses in contracts if you were to sue on the basis of a beach of contract the defendent would have a tough time using that claim in court. If the judge had a good sense of humor he/she might treat the case as uncontested.

Re:Great

[Opportunist]

The consumer protection law in my country says that any change in a contract by your business partner after the contract has been signed allows you to void the contract.

And law breaks contract. No matter what the latter says.

Re:Great

[Opportunist]

Again, depends on your country. In mine, consumer protection says that if your provider changes some part of the contract after it is signed, you have the right to simply walk away from it as if the contract never existed (essentially voiding it without consequence). Such is the law, and it's a right you cannot waive. Thus, a contract containing a clause stating you waive that right is void by itself, or at the very least such a clause is void.

Re:Great

[xaxa]

I got a letter from my bank last week. It said something like "the terms of use for our credit cards is changing. Enclosed is a leaflet detailing the changes". In the leaflet, they'd put all the sections that had changed in bold type, and put the previous terms in smaller text.

Of course, I don't live in the USA.

Re:Great

[plover]

It works when people aren't fuckin dumbasses.

In other words it doesn't work at all, ever.

Re:Great

[aardwolf64]

It's like the dump trucks that say "Stay back 100ft. Not responsible for debris."

Yeah right... I should put a bumper sticker on my car that says: "Stay back 100ft. Not responsible for accidents."

I wonder how well that would hold up in court...

Re:Great

[mysidia]

Yes.. perhaps the culture or rules in your country are different. In the USA, they might just send you a new leaflet with the entire terms. Without specifically identifying exactly what has changed.

Re:Great

[Thing 1]

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.

Heh. I'm tempted to sue them, and include in the suit my unilateral changes to the contract, those being "AT&T, if sued, cannot defend itself in court, and furthermore, owes me one beeeelion dollars."</pinky>

Re:Great

[conspirator57]

if you get rear-ended it is highly unlikely that the accident is your fault from a legal perspective, even if you did cause it. so your analogy doesn't quite work. :(

Re:Great

[Pollardito]

It works when there are alternatives, but when there are three players who probably all have this same crap in their ToS there is no option of voting with your feet

Re:Great

[digitalunity]

Consumers will bitch and moan at AT&T customer service and they will respond by lying to the consumer saying they can't sue and must go through arbitration.

If most consumers actually called a lawyer, AT&T would be up shit creek in a lot of states.

Re:Great

[Goaway]

So basically you need government regulation to have a free market?

Re:Great

[ekimminau]

" a contract is not valid in the US if the terms have been changed but not agreed to by both parties. That is a federal statute, state law cannot override it." Could anyone in the know please post the specific federal statute? A reference to it by article, section, etc? URL pointer would also be very helpful. Thank you!

Re:Great

[dave87656]

So basically you need government regulation to have a free market?

Yes, but only to the extent of preventing monopolies. If the government hadn't broken up ATT we'd still be paying $1/minute for long distance. In Germany the same thing happened after the government broke up the telephone monopoly. Prices went from ~4DM (~2$) a minute down to 10 cents a minute and are now flat unlimited rate for 10 Euros a month.

The free market doesn't work without competition.

Re:Great

[Experiment 626]

that idea got pretty hammered in a recent administration, which felt it was the job of government to make sure campagne contributors can maintain their monopolies.

A recent administration... Obama and the auto industry? Bush and oil? Clinton signing the DMCA and Mickey Mouse copyright extension act? Could you narrow it down a bit?

Re:Great

[jahudabudy]

Unless they decide to renovate the home, in which case, the Fire, the Zoning, and the Building Inspectors have to approve and the Tax Assessor becomes very interested too...

Nope, you can renovate your home any way you so choose and don't have to get it inspected at all; of course, when you try to sell your house, the buyer might have some objections. And if you hire a contractor to do the work for you, any one worth a damn will insist on doing the work to code.

Oh, and Zoning permits isn't the gov't interfering in your personal business. It is a codified way of the preventing YOU from infringing ME by keeping a herd of elephants in the yard right beside mine. Maybe you dislike the idea of the gov't preventing you from doing so, but in the long run, we're all better off doing it through permits than settling it by me shooting your elephants late at night.

Re:Great

[ukyoCE]

I've gotten those in the USA too. I suspect banks may have more specific laws that require them to do so.

(because obviously no corporation would do this out of the kindness of their hearts, sadly)

Re:Great

[dave87656]

A recent administration... Obama and the auto industry? Bush and oil? Clinton signing the DMCA and Mickey Mouse copyright extension act? Could you narrow it down a bit?

All excellent examples. I should have written "recent administrations". It seems all of those were pretty susceptible to lobbying or campaign influence.

I'm not sure the auto industry is as applicable in monopoly terms since the auto industry is already pretty competitive so I don't see it as government's job to "rescue" them. Maybe it makes short-term sense, but not what I consider part of government's job of ensuring competition.

Re:Great

[tompaulco]

but when there are three players who probably all have this same crap in their ToS there is no option of voting with your feet
There sure is. Who says you need a cell phone? Sure, in some cases, your company requires you to have one, but 80% or more people that have one do not need one. Sure it's convenient at times, but is it worth having to pay the ridiculous amounts of money that the companies want each month, the poor customer service, and the outrageous limits in the contract? I think not.

Re:Great

[slack_justyb]

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).'

Re:Great

[harl]

"Unconscionable" does not mean one sided in the USA, where ATT is located.

"Unconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party." --Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445 (C.A. D.C. 1965)

Since signing the contract with AT&T is utterly voluntary you have limitless choice and it is impossible for it to be unconscionable. Now if ATT is the only choice for service you might have a case for unconscionable. But that's not the situation here.

You can't give up your right to sue. As mentioned earlier mandatory binding arbitration clauses have already been struck down by the courts.

However what it does do is raise the barrier of entry for actions against them since they just hide behind the contract and force you to start legal proceedings. Most people won't bother or won't realize it's even an option.

Re:Great

[sgt scrub]

A large company without a "FU, we can make changes any time we want" clause in a contract? Maybe if you signed it in 1950.

Re:Great

[jftitan]

HAHAHAHA. So for all those years when I sold AT&T phones and when it came time to have the customer sign the contract terms, I always said... "Basically your signing your soul away to AT&T for two years." Would you like to go over the details of your contract?. Everyone would have a small laugh at my comment, but how true it was...

    Now AT&T has made it a fact.

Re:Great

[Underfoot]

Depending on where you live, ATT may in fact be the only choice you have for service.

I have tried several times not to be an ATT customer - only to find the company I chose to replace ATT bought by ATT, currently they are the only land-line phone provider where I live. If you need a land line for any reason (I know this is getting rare, but there are certain things that do require a wired phone line), ATT might be your only option.

Re:Great

[dkleinsc]

that idea got pretty hammered in a recent administration

Which recent administration are you referring to, given that every administration since 1981 has been guilty on this score? Granted, Clinton's was slightly better than the 3 Republican administrations, but that was more than counterbalanced by its advocacy of free trade agreements which wrecked a bunch of competitive markets both in the US and Latin America. Obama's major industry link is obviously to the financial industry.

Re:Great

[HTH NE1]

It may depend if the text is readable 100 feet away + distance from bumper to driver of other vehicle.

Re:Great

[mi]

Meat was more difficult to get and there was an extreme shortage of luxury goods

Meat was nearly impossible to find — unless one lived in a capital (preferably Moscow, but regional capitals were Ok too). This is not a lie, this is the truth. "Luxury goods"? What's that? A music boombox? A TV? A decent-looking dress or a pair of slacks? Medicine, that works? None of that is "luxury" by any stretch of imagination, but getting any of it was very difficult, involved multiple trips to various stores, having to personally know the salesperson, etc.

Russia in the nineties is a perfect example of laissez-faire capitalism.

Not at all. The foundation and corner-stone of Capitalism — laissez-faire or not quite — is a functional legal system, that defends all participants from coercion and enforces contracts. None of that true in the 90ies Russia — still is not true today. Businessmen were forced to hire "roofs" (protection racketeers) and those closest to the government officials were able to take over the public assets. That's not capitalism at all, much less "laissez-faire". Do you have any other false "examples"?

Marx' observations weren't entirely bogus, and those may be studied in Business Schools, indeed. His conclusions tended to be bogus if not outright immoral, though...

Re:Great

[PitaBred]

What annoys me more are the signs on the backs of dump trucks that say that they're not responsible for broken windshields. Especially considering that there are multiple laws requiring that cargo be properly secured.

Re:Great

[Jaeph]

I'm not sure how you got modded "insightful". There's nothing in libertarianism that says corporations should be allowed to operate unhindered.

I have no problem with wealthy individuals exercising greater influence *legally*, e.g. they can run ads to voice an opinion (something I can' really compete with). That doesn't bother me.

However, that has nothing to do with the corporatism. Corporations are not real - they are legal fictions, nothing more. As a libertarian, I have no ethical or other issues with restricting "corporate rights". Personally, I think corporations should be completely forbidden from operating in politics. Absolutely no voice, no opinion, no say.

So please stop kicking my libertarian horse - it's not a fascist horse. :-)

-Jeff

Re:Great

[ingenuus]

As with the "no true scotsman" argument, you both have to agree upon on a single definition for capitalism.

Keep in mind that capitalism is not anarchy. e.g. it certainly requires that fraud be prosecuted. At some point, intentional confusion and misinformation become fraud. Likewise, capitalism is aided by an informed market.

Re:Great

[opus7600]

Depending on the laws in your state, if your car were damaged by debris from such a vehicle, but you were following the vehicle very closely, your compensation would be reduced by contributory or comparative negligence. Basically, even though the sign itself doesn't have any legal power, the advice it gives you is sound.

Re:Great

[blackraven14250]

The vast majority of shares are in the hands of the few, sure. You forget, however, that shares aren't the thing a company survives on. They survive on selling goods and services. We have much more of a share, as a whole, than the few with literal power over their entity can even possibly have. We can opt to not buy products from X or Y company because of their abuse of us. We can opt out of our government and join or start another. We are the power that keeps the wheels turning. Without us, who is a company going to sell to? Who is a government going to govern? The point I've been going for it that nobody can ever take our power away, as we, ourselves, are the power. As a population, we can choose who and what get it, and who loses it. What do Bill Gates, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Mellon, Crassus, and anyone else who has amassed a massive amount of power or wealth have in common? They have backing. Granted, some of them basically or literally enslaved people. Do you think for one minute, though, that any of them could stand up to everyone they fucked over at once? They would be ripped to shreds (especially Crassus :-P) if more than half the people they were abusing decided to do something and worked together. We could exercise the same level of power against any corporation or government that decided to fuck with us.

You know what, while I'm on this topic, here's a little rant. You know all these tiny pieces of fiction that people write about government and corporations fucking us? They neglect to take into account the fact that one entity literally can't enslave everyone on the face of the Earth. It can't happen because of the differences between people. Our diversity is actually by far our best asset. Due to our ability to separate ourselves into groups, we are supreme over a "single organism"-type of structure like a government or corporation. We come together to form a group when it benefits us, but there also needs to be separation. It's an "equal and opposite reaction" for us to split after a group doesn't benefit us anymore. You think the first people had an ability to stick together 100% of the time? If we did, there would've been no "Neandertals-vs-CroMagnons" period (Yes, i realize they're not our species. I don't give a fuck, it's a good analogy and they were damn close). Likewise, there would've been an Egyptian empire that lasted forever. There would've never been a rebellion against Roman rule. Judaism would've never split into Christianity. Pakistan and India would be one unified nation. Nobody here can control the entire Afghan population, just like nobody in Afghanistan can completely control us. They can send ripples of influence, but they can't flood us. This is very much like the way no one corporation can completely dominate a market and stay that way forever. It's why government doesn't work when it's tried across the globe. It's why cliques form in high schools across the nation then have a fallout when Jenny says something about Sue, and two new cliques form. Do you get this picture yet? I sure hope so, because I'm done.

Re:Great

[TemporalBeing]

What annoys me more are the signs on the backs of dump trucks that say that they're not responsible for broken windshields. Especially considering that there are multiple laws requiring that cargo be properly secured.

If they break yours, get their license plate number and the company name. Give it to your insurance company when you file your claim, then sit back and watch while the insurance company goes after them. Same for truck tires.

I hit a truck tire in the road at night once - couldn't see it until too late; but no truck around that it belonged to. After I convinced them there was nothing I could have done, they found me to be 'not at fault' - so it didn't get 'counted against me'; they would have done that right away if I had the truck's information for the truck it came from.

Certainly that'd be the case for the dump trucks too.

Re:Great

[dunkelfalke]

A music boombox is very much a luxury good. TV couldn't be since even my grandparents had 2 TV sets. Medicine that works couldn't be either because if that were true you then you are right now talking with someone who has died in the late eighties.

Not at all. The foundation and corner-stone of Capitalism -- laissez-faire or not quite -- is a functional legal system, that defends all participants from coercion and enforces contracts.

That is actually Marx' definition. Earlier definitions - much preferred by free market fans - go without it.

Businessmen were forced to hire "roofs" (protection racketeers) and those closest to the government officials were able to take over the public assets. That's not capitalism at all, much less "laissez-faire".

That is very much anything goes capitalism. Everything is at the market and has its price, from bandits to the government. Anyway, noone forced the businessmen to hire bandits, they could as well hire enough heavily armed security guards but bandits were usually cheaper. Also a thing of a free market.

Re:Great

[sumdumass]

A local horse stable that had rental trail riding used to place clauses like that into the disclaimers you had to sign.

It would say that neither you or anyone on your behalf could sue them and if it happened, that you agreed to be liable for all damages, judgments, and legal fees associated with it.

Anyways, it was challenged in court and found that it left the consumer without legal redress and was unenforceable. They cited many other cases covering it but the stable still escaped liability because of equine laws on the books that release the owners of the horse or event or grounds from liability to unintentional and non-malicious actions of the animals. It was interesting because the stable actually lost on the contract but was shielded by other laws signifying they didn't even need the language in the first place.

I'm sure ATT knew if they added something more restrictive, the entire contract clause could become voided easily.

Re:Great

[StikyPad]

I believe that would actually be *bluffing*, not calling a bluff.

Re:Great

[tmosley]

You mean the 19th century that created the middle class? The one that is now being destroyed by corporate socialism?

Perhaps you ought to re-examine your arguments before you blame the current condition of the United States on "unfettered capitalism". The fact is that it is big government that creates all major market distortions, and breeds bad (ie price gouging) monopolies. You've seen it happen in municipal cable monopolies, just take that case and extend it.

I mean, I can't believe you were modded anything but troll with that ridiculous, self indicting argument. You want more big government control, because capitalism leads to big government control that leads to corruption? The ONLY solution to government corruption is to take away its power. Giving it more power just creates more corruption. It's a simple concept.

Re:Great

[powerlord]

Those things that require a wired phone line? Are they required or discretionary?

If you have to have a wired phone line for your satellite TV that would still be choice.

Having electricity in your home is also a choice, however, while having a "wired" phone might be an equal choice, there are parts of america where it is still very much the norm.

Without it you run the risk of not having a phone available in case of emergency, or not being reachable if your area has less than stellar cellular coverage.

Leaving aside that internet connectivity is often tied to phone lines (through DSL), in those places without Cable providers, and there are still large portions of the U.S. where you might be lucky to have one high speed internet provider let alone a choice. Lacking either one, a wired phone might be your only choice for internet connection (over dial-up).

Yeah, there are always other choices, however the cost difference might make those choices unrealistic (especially in a very down economy).

Re:Great

[tmosley]

Umm, in a free market, you aren't killing people, you are producing things that people want. It's not the law of the jungle, but the law of the market. Those who produce the most in the most efficient manner will profit. Regulations impose a burden on everyone, but they disproportionately favor those who are already on top, as they are the ones who can most afford it. Why do you think it's been 70 years since the last major automobile manufacturer was founded in the US? Why aren't there any new major charities?

If you really want to understand the way economies work, it's best to start simple and move upwards. As such, here is a nice comic book that illustrates the fundamentals of economics in a clear and easy to understand manner.

Re:Great

[tmosley]

Kim Jong-Il, is that you?

Marxism failed due to both the massive corruption inherent in any large, powerful government and due to the institution of perverse incentives that encouraged workers to be lazy and uncreative. The United States is failing as well, since it adopted Marxist policies (such as a progressive tax combined with inflation), and has fallen under the influence of a large, powerful government.

If you really want to understand how economies work and grow, and why they fail, take a look at this.

Re:Great

[sumdumass]

It's not the job of government to ensure competition. It's the job of government to prevent abuse due to the lack of competition.

If fact, the government even helps prevent competition by the use of Patents and copyrights.

It is not the job of the government (at least in the US) to interfere in industry or liberty unless acting within those are detrimental to others. Our entire society operates under the assumption of you can unless something forbids it. We don't need to ask permission to do something and the government reacts to abuses and hazards which creates regulations and laws.

Re:Great

[dave87656]

Whether or not government should ensure competition is a subjective question, though many free-market pundits suggest that. It is my opinion, too, but one could just as well argue that absolutely free markets would eventually right themselves, provided there are no barriers to entry for others.

Even my earlier point, that the government did the right thing splitting up ATT, would probably be moot now that Cell phones provide and cable provide competition to land lines. We would have had to wait 35 or so years, though.

Most patents are achieving the modern equivalent of facism, effectively letting government grant sole control in a given area to a limited number of private companies.

Re:Great

[Pollardito]

Even if we take your position for granted that 90% of people don't need a cell phone, that still doesn't make the cell phone business a free market. That just makes it a luxury item whose supply is being constrained, and 10% of the people are left needing one and are free to queue up for whichever flavor of "the same old crap" sounds tastiest today

Re:Great

[Zancarius]

It's interesting you were modded a troll. Had you said the same thing a year or two ago, you would've been rated +5, Insightful.

Re:Great

[Zancarius]

Again, depends on your country. In mine, consumer protection says that if your provider changes some part of the contract after it is signed, you have the right to simply walk away from it as if the contract never existed (essentially voiding it without consequence).

Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but here in the US, consumer protection laws will forever be a joke as long as our law makers are themselves lawyers. By keeping the law vague and the consumer perpetually naive, they ensure their peers will never be without work.

Re:Great

[sumdumass]

I don't disagree with the breakup of ATT. However, that was not because of providing competition. In the markets they served, they still had explicit control and was the single provider for many years. What the government did there was prevent an abuse and a consequence of that was more competition if not just at first on the long distance side.

As for capitalism providing competition, the theories on that are sort of irrelevant when you consider the structure and role of the government. It may not be a perfect system but as I mentioned our government doesn't have the authority to do much more then stop abuses. We are a reactive society in this situation.

Re:Great

[mi]

A music boombox is very much a luxury good. TV couldn't be since even my grandparents had 2 TV sets.

TV-sets, being more complicated, are more of a "luxury", than a boombox. So, right there you contradict yourself. It seems, your definition of "luxury" boils down to: "what you did not have access to as a child". Sorry, that's non-sense. There is nothing "luxury" about clothes that fit, furniture that does not creak.

Heck, there is nothing luxurious about a car even, and yet a Soviet delegation to the US in the 1960ies did not believe, that a parking lot next to a local university somewhere was intended for the student's cars — whom are they kidding, students can't afford cars!

That is very much anything goes capitalism. Everything is at the market and has its price, from bandits to the government.

False. That may be your definition of laissez-faire, but it is wrong. Any and all proponents of free markets not only leave law enforcement to the Government (including enforcement of intellectual property rights), but insist, it should do a better job (and not get distracted by providing, say, welfare, roads, or public schools).

Also a thing of a free market.

Yes, yes. Wouldn't it be terrific, if all your opponents were the straw-men erected by your Illiberal professors and yourself? So easy to knock-off, aren't they?

Re:Great

[dunkelfalke]

TV-sets, being more complicated, are more of a "luxury", than a boombox. So, right there you contradict yourself. It seems, your definition of "luxury" boils down to: "what you did not have access to as a child". Sorry, that's non-sense. There is nothing "luxury" about clothes that fit, furniture that does not creak.

So you define luxury goods by being complicated? A TV is a necessity good since, oh, I don't know, the nineteen seventies.

By the way, as a child I not only had a cassette recorder and a record player (had nothing do do with access, they were both my own) but also an Atari 2600 and a Spectrum 64 so you are wrong again about my definition.

Heck, there is nothing luxurious about a car even

A car is a luxury good in every place where a working mass transit exists. Read up in a lexicon someday about necessity and luxury goods. Then you will understand.

False. That may be your definition of laissez-faire, but it is wrong. Any and all proponents of free markets not only leave law enforcement to the Government (including enforcement of intellectual property rights), but insist, it should do a better job (and not get distracted by providing, say, welfare, roads, or public schools).

Anything goes is anything goes and not some wishy washy definition of it. You want to have a cake and eat it, too (Na huy sest' i rybku syest'). The reality doesn't work like that.

Yes, yes. Wouldn't it be terrific, if all your opponents were the straw-men erected by your Illiberal professors and yourself? So easy to knock-off, aren't they?

My professors? What professors? Dude, who is playing with strawmen now?

Re:Great

[mysidia]

The contract would be unconscionable because it deprives people of one of their most fundamental rights in american society: the right to pursue justice by using the court system that government has provided to them.
You may find adequate definition here

An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept. Courts find that unconscionable contracts usually result from the exploitation of consumers who are often poorly educated, impoverished, and unable to find the best price available in the competitive marketplace.

Contractual provisions that indicate gross one-sidedness in favor of the seller include provisions that limit damages against the seller, limit the rights of the purchaser to seek court relief against the seller, or disclaim a Warranty. ...

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances include, for example, the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties. The doctrine is applied only where it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce such contracts.

Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of Fraud and deceit, where the deliberate Misrepresentation of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. ...

A court of law applies its conscience, or moral sense, to the facts before it and makes a subjective judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court's "shock the conscience test" in rochin v. california, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (1952), demonstrates this approach. The Court ruled that pumping the stomach of a criminal suspect in search of drugs offends "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples."

Re:Great

[AK Marc]

Since signing the contract with AT&T is utterly voluntary you have limitless choice and it is impossible for it to be unconscionable.

The government explicitly limits the number of entrants. I don't have limitless choices of carriers because the federal government made that illegal. Also, I have no choice in the contract. Every try to haggle? The person they put on the register doesn't have the power to adjust the contract. The most I've seen done is to change a few fees, often after signing one with the wrong fees. So to claim that there is "limitless choice" is 100% incorrect. I have zero (or close to that) choice in wording of the contract. There are only three carriers here, and when cellular service started, it was envisioned that there would be 2 and only two in every area and that would be enough competition to appear capitalistic enough for everyone. Though they found that to be an incorrect assumption and for the good of the people (or their budget) opened up more spectrum, but we still have very few choices and no ability to haggle.

Re:Great

[plnix0]

Everyone in this country either sides with government or corporations, which is completely countering the population's goals.

Actually, the vast majority of people side with the government, including most of those who also side with corporations and also including most people who claim to oppose the government. The very few people who don't side with the government also don't side with corporations as they exist today, because for the most part those corporations are entangled with government in one way or another.

Why not side with the only entity that can outright control everything we've created?

You're right, I side with God. In reality, noone else can "outright control everything we've created". There is no "the people". The fact that you're here arguing your point today proves that "the people" are not some unified group with shared interests, but rather they include people with extremely diverse interests which are not mutually compatible.

Now getting people to oppose the government... that's a worthy cause, and if everyone were rational, that would be a shared interest. But people like you who just want to "use the government" and let it "work for us" are just trying to exercise power over others.

Re:Great

[mysidia]

Just be sure to send them the customary fliers "By continuing to accept my payments you agree to the agreement as ammended." And include the terms of contract with your changes.

Make sure the ammended contract penalizes THEM if they should want to cancel after accepting your latest payment.

Re:Great

[plnix0]

We can opt to not buy products from X or Y company because of their abuse of us.

And they make slightly less money.

We can opt out of our government and join or start another.

And then they shoot us.

See the difference?

By the way, when you said we could stop buying products from a company "because of their abuse of us", what did you mean? By "abuse", did you mean something like "refusing to sell us their products at the prices we think they're worth" or "refusing to sell us products or services on the terms we would prefer"? Or, on the other hand, did you mean something like "lobbying the government to get higher regulations placed on their competitors" or "bribing legislators to make their services mandatory"?

The two are very different. They are polar opposites. On the one hand, an owner of a good chooses to keep that good rather than let it go on terms unacceptable to him. You may think your $100 is worth more than the company's product, or the businessman may think his product isn't worth letting go for a mere $75.99. Since it's his property in the first place, such a decision is eminently justified.

It is far different to use government power to get what we want. Is there any action of government which does not depend on, or equate to, holding a gun to the head of an innocent person? A company, non-profit organization, or person which uses government force to enlarge its business or accomplish its goals has stepped out of the realm of controlling the disposition of its own property and into the realm of thuggery.

Re:Great

[PitaBred]

Oh, I know. I just hate how they try to abdicate responsibility.

Re:Great

[Eskarel]

The free market doesn't exist the way you think it does, it can't because the free market is ALWAYS subject to external non free forces. One guy with a gun can set the price of any object to zero. A seller can lie to you about what they're selling, contaminate what you're buying, or any number of other things.

Regulation is just the rule of law applied in a specific circumstance, and if you think that because all of a sudden I'm selling you something or buying something from you that I'm no longer a human with all the general faults that humans have which require all the other laws we have, then you're an idiot.

We need laws to stop people from killing people, and we need laws to stop businesses from killing people. We need laws to stop people from stealing from people, we need laws to stop businesses stealing from people. Businesses are made up of people, and they're just as likely to be dishonest scum sucking weasels as any crack addict you might find in a dark alley. Perhaps even more likely since that crack addict has to kill you with his bare hands, whereas the CEO only has to sign a piece of paper.

Regulation is necessary, it always has been and it always will be. The question up for debate has always really been, which regulations are appropriate and which regulations are inappropriate. There are certainly bad regulations, but there are also good ones.

You also have to remember that when certain actions are taken, like pouring toxic waste into a river, certain costs are incurred. The company doesn't incur those costs, the people living by that river do. As a representative of the people living by that river, the government is quite right in stopping the company from pouring that waste in.

That's a rather simplistic example of course, but the principle is the same. The free market does not make flawed people less flawed. The free market relies fundamentally on the rule of law for it to function(most specifically the legal protection of property). The idea that an individual is subject to the law, but that a group of individuals should not be is a logical fallacy. Therefor law needs to apply to corporations, and that's what regulation is.

Re:Great

[Shakrai]

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Re:Great

[harl]

From your link:
"In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power."

Since you can choose not to sign it there is no superior bargaining power. This is a key test.

The contract is not unconscionable.

Re:Great

[mysidia]

There is superior bargaining power, because they are a near-monopoly providing a critical service.

You have a choice between maybe 3 different providers who all have similar terms.

Re:Great

[harl]

Limitless choice does not mean the number of carriers.

Limitless choice means you and you alone choice if you sign the contract.

Re:Great

[harl]

Phone being critical is debatable. It has no disconnect protection such as electricity and gas has in cold areas.

If you are free to walk away then you have the best possible bargaining position. This is the case with phone.

Re:Great

[tmosley]

Laws don't stop any of those things you mentioned, they only punish those who commit those crimes. No-one can prevent crimes from occurring, no matter how much freedom you give up in pursuit of that goal. Big corporations can violate regulations, and just get slapped with a non-damaging fine, where a small company who commits the same violation, and is hit with the same fine will go bankrupt. Regulations only allow big companies to be non-competitive and still survive.

The only rules which need to be enforced are those against murder, assault (and threats thereof), fraud, and property law. All regulations stem from a futile effort by regulators to prevent people from committing the crimes listed above.

Unfortunately, you, and in fact the vast majority of people, have no idea how or what the free market is, and exactly why government intervention is so harmful. Maybe if you read this you'll understand. It's a simple, but fairly thorough explanation of economics, in comic book form.

Re:Great

[AK Marc]

Then I don't understand what "limitless" means. The definition of the word, without limits, doesn't seem to mean what you assert. Uncoerced is what it sounds like you mean. But there are limits on my choices, so limitless doesn't seem accurate.

Re:Great

[harl]

You are free to accept or decline the contract as you see fit. You alone decide. Thus there are no external limits on it. Thus the choice is limitless.

Entering into a stupid contract is not unconscionable. It's just stupid.

Re:Great

[mysidia]

Actually Fail.

The company actually has superior bargaining power. The customer has virtually none: they generally have to either take or leave the terms offered to them, they have very little or no power to negotiate actual terms of the contract.

The terms are in fact of a standard form, they have not been subject to any negotiation whatsoever between the company and the consumer, or approved by (or negotiated with) any organization representing the consumers' interests.

The terms have instead been dictated by the various companies providing the services, and those are the only terms available "take it or leave it".

That's a classic instance of superior bargaining power.

What you are thinking of is a coerced contract. A contract can be unconscionable without being coerced.

Someone can have superior bargaining power without you being forced to sign.

Re:Great

[Eskarel]

When you talk of slap on the wrist fines for big companies. That's not a failure of regulation, that's a failure of regulators. Punishment for crimes should be appropriate.

As for those four things you feel should be enforced, if you change assault and murder to something along the lines of unjustified harm and threats of harm, they cover the intent behind pretty much every law on the face of the planet anyway. Including nearly every corporate regulation on the face of the planet. SOX, however stupid and overblown law it is, is designed to allow the government to prosecute fraud, which is on your list. Insider trading is a combination of fraud and property rights(two or more members of a financial partnership using information about the shared asset unknown to other members to achieve financial gain at the expense of their partners).

I'm not saying that every regulation is good. I'm not saying that everything in the world needs to be regulated. I'm saying that the free market, if it exists(and I don't really believe it does or can) depends fundamentally on the rule of law for it's survival. You can't have a free market without the rule of law. Since the free market depends on the population being subject to the rule of law, and the members of the free market are members of that same population(even if they pretend to be corporations instead) the members of the free market fundamentally must be subject to the rule of law. That means that any laws which should apply to the people should apply equally to corporations. If people cannot commit fraud because it would destroy the free market, then corporations cannot either. If people cannot use threats of harm to coerce people into unfair service, neither should corporations be able to do so. A corporation isn't absolved of all legal and ethical responsibility because it's a corporation, and the free market cannot exist if it was.

Again, that's not to say that there aren't laws both for regular people and corporations which are unfair, cause more harm than good, or which punish the less well off disproportionately(be they small businesses or poor people). That however is an argument against specific pieces of legislation and perhaps against the legislators who drafted or voted for them. It's not a condemnation of all legislation on a fundamental level.

Unless you can change human nature, freedom, of all kinds, relies on the rule of law. The only reason the cops can't grab you off the street, convict you of any crime they feel like without a trial and throw you in jail for life(or just beat you for the fun of it) is that the rule of law protects you, like it protects all of us.

The somewhat unfortunate truth of life is that in addition to laws we like which protect us from others, sometimes there have to be laws we don't like which protect others from us. Sometimes to protect the freedom of others, our own freedom must be curtailed just as the freedom of others must be curtailed to protect our own.

Not all law is good, not all law is right, but some law is necessary, and it's a lot more complicated than thou shalt not steal.

Re:Great

[AK Marc]

Thus there are no external limits on it. Thus the choice is limitless.

There are limits on the contract. They make it, and they get to modify it, and you do not get to make or modify it before or after signing. That's a limit on the terms that you are under that they are no. Having a binary choice, do it or don't, isn't "limitless" under any definition of the word I've ever seen.

Re:Great

[Zebra_X]

You're an AC but I'll respond...

Simply stated, corporations exist by permission of the Government through means of a Government granted charter.

This feature of corporations was ended by the ruling in 1819, I believe. I would bet that merchants and business men of the time wanted a more firm assurance of stability. That is, their charters for their businesses would not be revoked at a whim by an over zealous politician. The ruling ensured that this would never take place. The nefarious aspect of this ruling is promoting the corporation to a status of "individual" with essentially unlimited wealth and resources to protect itself from legal attack. It also cannot be "killed" in the classical sense due to the aformentioned changes in the law.

The debate around unfettered capitalism is at best a text book argument. The reality is that markets undergo some sort of regulation from their inception. unfettered capitalism is unstable thus requires regulation. Given the events of the last 9 months it appears we have learned some things - it will be interesting to see if the "recovery" is stable.

My mention of Obama is simply this - under Obama's proposed laws the top 5 percent of tax payers will exceed the the other 95% contributions to the system. Meaning that over 50% of the tax burden is borne by the top 5% of earners in the country. This is a new record and tends to disprove the notion that wealth concentrates wealth. Obama is taking that wealth and forcible redistributing it across the country instead of allowing the people with the wealth how to decide to spend it.

Unless you have testimony from all of QuoteMstr's family you mentioned about their past voting record, this entire section of your reply is meaningless.

It's not meaningless at all. The point is this - our government was and is constructed by the people who walk down the street, our family members, ancestors and friends. Every american citizen past and present has contributed in one way or another to our current state of affairs. In the unlikely event that the fellow has a long family history of activism I will certain make an exception. The more probable outcome is that his family has their fair share of uninterested or unaligned individuals. It is not fair to call other people (offensive) names simply due to their political beliefs when there is quit possibly someone in their family that shares a similar view.

Re:Great

[harl]

Completely wrong.

Since you are free to walk away you have all the power. You alone control if the contract is signed.

Re:Great

[harl]

As with your earlier objection you're confusing a limitless choice and limitless choices.

limitless choice - You and you alone choose if you sign it. There are no limits.

limitless choices - You can choose anything you want.

The choice I'm talking about has nothing to do with the terms of the contract.

Re:Great

[mysidia]

Why don't you stop with whacky theories about what the concept of unequal bargaining position means, and go look up some cases?

Such as Gatton v. T-Mobile

Where the court found an arbitration clause in the EULA procedurally unconscionable, under the circumstances under which it was a contract of adhesion

an agreement imposed and drafted by the party with superior bargaining strength, which gave the consumer only the opportunity to accept or reject the contract, not to freely negotiate it.

Re:Great

[harl]

Some quotes from a court rather than from a technology magazine.

"The existence of consumer choice decreases the extent of procedural unconscionability" p353

"The existence of consumer choice is relevant" p354

The contract was not found unconscionable.

All that case shows is that you cannot give up your right to sue. This is an old precedent.

Re:Great

[AK Marc]

The choice I'm talking about has nothing to do with the terms of the contract.

And apparently nothing to do with the English language, either. A very restricted choice that you can choose to not take (and may result in some harm if you do not take it) is not limitless. I have already suggested other words that have a more accurate description of the act you are describing, but you choose to ignore them and focus on a term that is misleading at best. And I can't understand why. Is there some legal connotation I'm not aware of, or is it your personal favorite for talking about such things and so you will stick to it even though it seems to be innacurate and misleading?

Re:Great

[harl]

There are no limits on your choice so it is a limitless choice.

This is distinctly different from having limitless choices which is what you insist I'm saying.

It's a valid use of the language. I can't understand why you have a problem with it.

Re:Great

[mysidia]

"decreases" does not mean eliminates.

"relevant" does not mean the consumer has equal or better bargaining power.

Re:Great

[Zancarius]

It truly is. Anything was fair game under the previous administration; in fact, even things that weren't true but "sounded good" were modded insightful. Crack a joke about the current administration, and the left-leaning mods have a field day. It shouldn't surprise me. After all, this is Slashdot; no one reads the moderation guidelines and it's so much easier to use them as ammo against viewpoints that aren't well liked...

While it's fruitless for me to point this out, I can't resist...

A note to current moderators: If you read something about Obama someone has posted and it inflames you, before you mod them down, ask yourself this question. "Would I mod this funny/insightful/interesting if it were about Bush?" Fairness either exists or it is a convenient facade. Remember that.

Re:Great

[AK Marc]

It's a valid use of the language. I can't understand why you have a problem with it.

Because there are limits. I have the choice to sign the contract and get mobile service, or not sign it and be unable to get cell service. That's not limitless. I'm severely limited in my choices in many ways.

Re:Great

[harl]

Again with the choices. I never said that. I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about one specific choice. Not what choices you have in general.

I repeat. I'm talking about a limitless choice. You are talking about limitless choices. Two distinctly different things.

Re:Great

[AK Marc]

I repeat. I'm talking about a limitless choice.

Then the word "limitless" adds nothing to the meaning of choice. It sounds like an emotional tag to convey a feeling, but all choices would be limitless. If you are being tortured and they are demanding information, you have the limitless choice of telling them what you know or not. After all, you can do it or not, and that's your choice and no amount of torture will affect the fact you have a choice, right?

Re:Great

[nosferatu1001]

Yes - in any contract of adhesion, or any where there is no standard meeting of minds )i.e. one side wrote standard Ts and Cs and you have no power to negotiate) they CANNOT put terms in that are beyond what would be considered fair.

A contract is a meeting of minds, and cannot be altered after the fact by one side. If you want this power, you MUST give the other side the option to terminate the contract at zero cost.

Re:Great

[harl]

Straw man.

*plonk*

Re:Great

[AK Marc]

The argument was that if you could choose to say no, regardless of all other circumstances (such as unfair choices, limited choices of alternatives, etc.) that it was a limitless choice. Based on all dictionary definitions, either every choice is limitless or none are. And you don't know the difference between reductio ad absurdum and a straw man, so you should refrain from such rhetorical labels.

Sounds like a great opportunity

[palegray.net]

... for a class-action lawsuit over their attempt at preventing class-action lawsuits.

Re:Sounds like a great opportunity

[greatica]

I'll patent this idea first and then all your class action lawsuit moneys are belong to me!

Re:Sounds like a great opportunity

[SBFCOblivion]

I agree. Years ago PayPal had this in their terms of service. In addition they had a stipulation that you could only sue them in their home state, which I now I forget.

At the time people were having bogus charges taken out of their accounts, we'll say $100, and because you couldn't form a class action it wasn't worth the money to sue them independently.

Some people did get together and sue them over not being able to form a class action and it was ruled that their TOS weren't fair or some such.

I could go dig through my old Cyberlaw book if anyone is interested but I can't remember the specifics off the top of my head.

Re:Sounds like a great opportunity

[Kelbear]

I'd be interested in hearing more about this. It sounds like the only way for consumers to prevent a "no class-action lawsuit" clause from getting handed down on them from above.

I'm wondering what arguments they could have used to convince the court? I'm sure that Paypal would simply counter that they should just stop using Paypal if they don't like it, and that they can just use money-orders or some other alternative.

Re:Sounds like a great opportunity

[SBFCOblivion]

An excerpt from the TOS:

Any such controversy or claim shall be arbitrated on an individual basis, and shall not be consolidated in any arbitration with any claim or controversy of any other party.

"In Comb v. PayPal, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2002), two subscribers and one nonsubscriber to PayPal's electronic disbursement service sued PayPal..."

The arbitration clause prohibited any consolidation of consumer claims. The court found this unconscionable because in practice most claims would involve consumers seeking a small amount of money and the costs of recovering those funds would be so high it would create the "potential for millions of customers to be overcharged small amounts without an effective method of redress."...

Re:Sounds like a great opportunity

[Kelbear]

Nice, sounds like there's hope for the consumer after all.

Thanks for the reference! I appreciate it.

Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[QuoteMstr]

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.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[palegray.net]

This will not hold water in the courts. Don't panic.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[ScrewMaster]

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."

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[introspekt.i]

And things turned out well for Mussolini. Just sayin'. Too soon?

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[ScrewMaster]

This will not hold water in the courts. Don't panic.

Probably not. The problem is that it raises the bar, and makes it that much harder to actually get to court. I presume that's the whole idea.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[QuoteMstr]

It shouldn't matter to you if it's a big corporation or a common people either when winning or losing.

Not being a corporation, the distinction matters to me quite a bit. Are you a corporation?

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[QuoteMstr]

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.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Brian Gordon]

Racial discrimiation is wrong? Yeah cause things turned out well for Martin Luther King Jr.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Brian Gordon]

When companies large enough to have legal departments start to be dominant force shaping policy

As opposed to the common man? How do you expect him to afford sitting around all day studying law and filing motions?

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[palegray.net]

Stuff like this won't make it any harder to bring suit. In many jurisdictions, the law has specific prohibitions against the validity of this kind of blanket clause in contracts.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not. The problem is that it raises the bar, and makes it that much harder to actually get to court. I presume that's the whole idea.

When AT&T said more bars, that's not quite what I had in mind.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Orion Blastar]

Welcome to the age of the EULA and TOS agreements that limit our freedoms and rights as a consumer.

Ordinarily if they violated the US Constitution they would have been thrown out by our founding fathers. But the USA is no longer a Democracy or Republic but a Corportism where Corporations rule and use lobbyists and lawyers to get away with whatever they want so they can earn more profits.

There exists even Employment Contract Agreements that are basically slavery, and companies can easily get away with them and treat employees as slaves. If the employee refuses to be treated as a slave, there are "No Fault" employment laws that says they can be fired for no reason, and then they are blackballed by other corporations so nobody will want to hire that "troublemaker" and then they become homeless or died from lack of food and health care.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[QuoteMstr]

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".

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[blackraven14250]

Maybe this all happened because people got stupid and decided to stop playing the companies against the government for our gain?

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[moxley]

That is a good point you make. We have institutionalized corruption in America - and it has evolved with a diabolical incrementalism, and its not like it has just happened at random, via some fucked up legal natural selection.

Things never seem to get better for the average person, and if they do, it's one step forward and two steps back. ...I wish there was a way to do an end run around all of this bullshit and get some sort of protection for the common people....Like, a contract with government that defines our rights and protects them, makes clear that they are inherent and not granted by man, and in order to work properly it would have to make clear that it alone is the highest law of the land.......ehhh

  The exclusivity deals are a part of this - AT&T is what it is right now because of the Iphone, without that they wouldn't have the market share they do...I have to say that I think it's time for mass resistance to this kind of shit. All of this kind of stuff is why I think, instead of feeling bad, a lot of people actually feel great when they download corporate copyrighted material, or reverse engineer their handsets or do whatever it is they want to do with their technology...it's the only way a lot of people feel like they can fuck these assholes back for once.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[jcr]

There exists even Employment Contract Agreements that are basically slavery, and companies can easily get away with them and treat employees as slaves.

What a load of crap. You can quit any job, any time. Slaves couldn't.

-jcr

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[shadowofwind]

This will not hold water in the courts. Don't panic.

Probably not. The problem is that it raises the bar, and makes it that much harder to actually get to court. I presume that's the whole idea.

Right. A few years ago when my wife sued PayPal to recover $1200 they stole from her, the judge threw it out both on grounds of wrong jurisdiction and that the PayPal contract says they can't be sued. The fact that PayPal just flat took the money and repeatedly lied about even having it, did not outweigh the fine print in the PayPal user agreement in the mind of that particular judge. (This was back before eBay bought PayPal, and their internal policies may have been more corrupt then.) Fortunately, PayPal did promptly give the money back (with no explanation) when a state Attorney General inquired about the case. So the system isn't completely broken, and the outcome was right. And at least the lawsuit forced PayPal to pay a lawyer for a few hours to show up in court. But the point is the bogus clause in the user agreement did stop the lawsuit in this case. (The jurisdiction question was a separate issue - there was some contradictory guidance about what state to sue in since the theft occurred online.)

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Repossessed]

That depends on the state. I know New York allows this.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[brunes69]

You can declare anything you want in a standard form contact.

I can ask you to sign a contract stating that you agree to vote for Nader for the rest of your life or else I get to beat you over the head with a rubber chicken for 8 hours - it does not mean that contract is enforceable.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[palegray.net]

/me makes a note not to sue them NY. That leaves a whole bunch of jurisdictions to lay down the smack in.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Bigjeff5]

You should have gone to the AG first, and sued after. $1200 is well above the $500 required to be considered a felony, and that doesn't go to piddly small claims court, that goes to federal court. No doubt when your AG found out and started poking around PayPal's lawyers began shitting bricks, hence the reimbursement.

Now, that judge was obviously a dumbass, and if you had opportunity to vote on her re-appointment (I don't think you normally do for local courts) I hope you voted no.

For breach of contract (NOT THEFT!) the jurisdiction is often pre-determined when it involves inter-state commerce, and that IS enforceable.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[swv3752]

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.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[jedidiah]

There's no "prejudice". A corporation is an artificial entity with no moral awareness.

The idea that an entity specifically designed to shield it's members from legal responsibility
as equal to a fully morally aware individual is obviously absurd.

A mob in respectable clothes should be treated as such.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[winwar]

"$1200 is well above the $500 required to be considered a felony, and that doesn't go to piddly small claims court, that goes to federal court."

No it doesn't. Sure, you can take it to federal court. But you would either have to be a moron or willing to spend serious time and money to make a point. Great if you have the time and money...

"No doubt when your AG found out and started poking around PayPal's lawyers began shitting bricks, hence the reimbursement."

I doubt they panicked. One person is an annoyance. One AG looking to make a name for themselves can be REALLY annoying. What would really cost them money is being regulated like a bank.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[moon3]

Look at the problem from the other side. Do you want to be sued by every whacko that do not understand the product and decides to sue ? This is a basic legal defense otherwise firms and corporations would be sued out of existence. Most legal actions against technology firms is stemming from some kind of misunderstanding at the user end, often the plaintiff is malicious, extortion seeker or simply stupid. Also you need to cover your ass because some contractor or 3rd party vendor will likely screw your product in some way you will not be able to fix.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[bentcd]

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".

"Citizen" is not what they mean however. Convicted felons are consumers, visiting foreigners are consumers and children are consumers. None of these are necessarily citizens. If pressed I would go for customer although it doesn't quite fit all uses.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[metacell]

Hm, I don't think that was the grandparent's point. Under Mussolini, Italy became highly dependent upon Germany. The dictator himself became a puppet in the hands of the German government, and much of his own population saw him as a traitor. By the end of WWII, Mussolini and his lover were captured, shot and hanged by their ankles by a gas station to have their corpses desecrated by the public.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[jimicus]

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.

In most countries, companies can't decline liability.

The whole point of such terms is to discourage people from suing, the company knows full well that such terms won't stand up in court. Hell, if they're that certain the terms are solid they can simply refuse to attend court on receiving the summons, instead sending a short note saying "We refer you to this clause in our terms of service" but I bet you anything you like they wouldn't.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point about federal court was that the AG would sue them there, not shadowofwind's wife.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[shadowofwind]

As it happened, we did go to AG first, it just took a while for those wheels to turn.

The judge was a man.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Attila Dimedici]

Very few states (if any) actually allow companies to decline liability via a standard contract. In all of the states I have even a passing familiarity with the law, the best that they can actually do is force you to pursue your dispute through arbitration before you go to court.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Attila Dimedici]

Or you can go into business for yourself if you prefer.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[dissy]

My point is that there is something terribly wrong when laws allow companies to decline liability via a standard form contract.

The point everyone else is making is, there are no laws that allow companies to do that. In fact there are laws against it.

You seem to have a problem in trusting corporations too much. Just because they say something is so, does not make it so. Just because they claim the law is one way, does not make it so.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Kelbear]

Why do you say that?

The judge may very well see this as:
"You agreed to the terms of the contract, so you're bound by them. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have agreed."

Continuing to pay for the service can be used as proof that you agree to the modified terms.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Saint Stephen]

Apparently, so Robespierre during the French Revolution, and we all know how THAT turned out.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[palegray.net]

Please see my other comments about clauses like this being illegal in many jurisdictions.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[dkleinsc]

See, you don't understand: the people of the United States aren't "citizens" anymore, they're "consumers", "homeowners", "taxpayers", and "workers". They only matter insofar as they engage in economic transactions that benefit the wealthy and powerful.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[nhytefall]

Would this include every tinfoil-hat wearing /. reader as well?

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Late Adopter]

In the GP's defense, what he actually said was "as a consumer", which could be read as meaning "when a person engages in the role of being a consumer", which is not necessarily to the exclusion of all the other things a person is.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[Orion Blastar]

When you quit a job it is like a slave running away. Eventually they will end up working as a slave for someone else just like an employee will end up working for a different company, it is like being caught and sold again.

Slaves quit by running away, remember that Underground Railroad? Try to make it to a free state is like trying to find an employer that does not have an employment contract that makes one a wage slave.

The only real freedom from slavery in modern days is to start up one's own business.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[ScrewMaster]

Do you want to be sued by every whacko that do not understand the product and decides to sue ?

Well, then they should move to have their online business units fall under Common Carrier regulation, just like their telephone services. What, that would cost money? We'd have to live with QOS standards and pay fines if we don't comply with the regs?

Maybe if they get hit with a few expensive class-action suits they'll rethink the exemption they paid for from the Communications Act that allows data services to be treated differently than phone service.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[ScrewMaster]

Would this include every tinfoil-hat wearing /. reader as well?

No, because tinfoil hats only pick up the Universe, not U-Verse.

Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society

[ScrewMaster]

Under Mussolini, Italy became highly dependent upon Germany.

I presume he thought he'd come down on the winning side.

Re: phirst post!

[jamstar7]

Sure you can. Just write that into a binding contract that both parties agree to.

Really?

[QuoteMstr]

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

Re: phirst post!

[Shin-LaC]

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.

We don't have to care.

[symbolset]

We're the phone company.

Next step

[youn]

you will have to agree to pay their legal fees if you sue them... and pay for any dammages that may be awarded too :)

Re:Next step

[ktandaeo]

That would make them a homeowners association.

Aren't they required to honour the original?

[MartinSchou]

Aren't they, as cosigners, required to honour the original contract?

Someone else wrote "great, now I can get out of my contract for free", but are you really required to rip up the contract you already have? That they won't renew the existing contract is fine, but ... telling you to rip the one you have up?

I'm fairly certain you couldn't do it the other way around.

"AT&T? Hi, I'm just calling you to tell you, that I've faxed over the new terms of our contract, stipulating that I get to spank your CEO in public every Saturday afternoon. You can either sign it or release me from my contract. Yours truly $name."

Somehow I think that'd just be ignored by AT&T and the courts alike.

Re:Aren't they required to honour the original?

[Brian Gordon]

Obviously the issue is that the original contract had a clause like "AT&T can change this contract at any time. Sign below if you agree to be bound by any changes we make." It's not symmetrical because the contract isn't symmetrical.

Re:Aren't they required to honour the original?

[Doctor_Jest]

Indeed. I remember some fee (I am not certain of which one it was, you could be correct on what kind) went up after January, and a contract holder, by law could get out of the contract without an ETF because they changed the rules of the contract as signed by you back when you joined the ranks of Sprint. Of course they weren't about to publicize that, and it took some wrangling to get someone who wouldn't put you on hold for hours or try to "out wait" you. I didn't do it, because I've got a seriously cheap phone plan that doesn't actually suck. :) If I were to quit now, I'd be ass-raped by another Wireless provider... so I'll stick with the devil I know. :)

If this portion of the contract is fundamental to what you signed before (not some arbitrary add-on that "terms change with notice") I imagine AT&T will get lots of cancellations (or at least a noisy few) with no $170 ETF. :) *shrug* I don't know if this change qualified though.

Re:Aren't they required to honour the original?

[nametaken]

I think the original contract usually allows them to amend it without it being a breach.

Re:Aren't they required to honour the original?

[Bigjeff5]

That's also an unenforceable clause. You'd have to sue for breach of contract, but you'd win. It's a federal statute, state laws don't trump it.

Re:Aren't they required to honour the original?

[Bigjeff5]

Such clauses are unenforceable, since federal contract law already require agreement to any amendments by both parties in order to be valid. State laws don't trump that, though it can become a battle to prove it so.

If you sue for breach of contract, you would not be able to maintain the un-amended contract if the phone company wants to drop it as a result of the suit and they can show it does not result in damage to you by doing so.

Those clauses are basically only in there to make you think you can't sue, and therefore don't sue. They also put them in there because it is better to have part of a contract struck down than to realize you didn't have your ass covered down the line. There is always the chance they'll land a dumbass judge who will see things their way on some absurd clause.

Re:Aren't they required to honour the original?

[cbhacking]

Many contracts have a clause in them allowing the contract to be changed at a later date (such right usually being restricted to one party only). However, I believe that legally speaking, you can back out of that new contract at any time if you so desire. In other words, the contract states that AT&T is allowed to change the contract (and you aren't), but the law states taht if they do change it, you get to walk away.

IANAL, and this may vary by state anyhow.

Re:Aren't they required to honour the original?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone else wrote "great, now I can get out of my contract for free", but are you really required to rip up the contract you already have? That they won't renew the existing contract is fine, but ... telling you to rip the one you have up?

They don't tell you to cancel your contract. If you write to them that you do not accept the new terms, they will either continue the contract on the old terms or cancel the contract.

You can either sign it or release me from my contract.

That's not how it works. You'd have to write: "Your continued rendering of services constitutes acceptance of these terms". You should also include terms that make them pay for the privilege of getting spanked, and pay even more if the CEO is unavailable for any reason.

Re:Aren't they required to honour the original?

[mounthood]

I'm fairly certain you couldn't do it the other way around.

"AT&T? Hi, I'm just calling you to tell you, that I've faxed over the new terms of our contract, stipulating that I get to spank your CEO in public every Saturday afternoon. You can either sign it or release me from my contract. Yours truly $name."

Somehow I think that'd just be ignored by AT&T and the courts alike.

You're right, but why? I think: We are biased, but we call it common sense. People think that a corporation doing something is serious and all business. An individual that does something similar is just trying to make a point. We don't think the laws should be applied equally: Corporations should be disciplined by the government or law enforcement, not by consumers. After all, law enforcement is who keeps the peace, and remember that McDonald's coffee case?... People should not imitate businesses because they aren't doing the beneficial work that businesses do. I think people really believe that corporations are good, as well as big and powerful and outside of our understanding, and that individuals are not justified in questioning or challenging them. Interestingly, I think this changes when people are on a jury and forced to pay attention to the facts of a single case.

EULAs

[stagg]

This is very reminiscent of lengthy, legally binding EULAs on software and webpages that the average consumer doesn't read or understand.

Re:EULAs

[Anonymous Coward]

EULA's aren't legally binding. They aren't even valid. Once you buy the software from the store, you are given the right to do nearly anything with it, including open up the shrinkwrap. You don't need to ask the shrink wrap for permission to open it. Even if it says, "by opening this package, you agree to...", you don't actually have to agree to that to open it. You already have the right to open it.

As for clickwrap licenses, those are invalid, because, in acquiring the software, you acquired the right to click on any button in the software. In return for clicking on the "accept" button, you don't owe the software manufacturer anything other than the money you already paid for the software. You certainly don't owe them your acceptance of the EULA.

Furthermore, You can always hack the installer to show a different EULA, such as, "This program is in the public domain.". You haven't agreed not to reverse engineer it yet, so you still have that right. And, in exercising it, you can avoid ever losing it.

For internet forms, I'm not sure if you can click on the "By clicking here, I agree to the TOS" checkbox without legally being bound to it. However, if it only says by clicking there, then you can use tab and spacebar (or javascript) to manipulate the controls to check the box without clicking it.

Re:EULAs

[iYk6]

It is pretty much exactly the same. Except for a utility company, you actually do sign the contract. "We" pretend to agree to the terms, and "they" pretend that the terms are enforceable. It is sort of a dance in civilized societies. It has little to no actual legal bearing.

Re:EULAs

[DJ Particle]

This. EULAs define the level at which you can still receive support. Go outside the EULA and all it means is that you will no longer get support anymore. It doesn't mean it's actually illegal.

Re:EULAs

[glwtta]

This is very reminiscent of lengthy, legally binding EULAs on software and webpages that the average consumer doesn't read or understand.

Hmm, never seen such a thing... though there are plenty of lengthy EULAs filled with wishful thinking, that the average consumer doesn't read or understand.

Re:EULAs

[metacell]

I'm not so sure about that. True, opening a shrink-wrap or clicking a button doesn't in itself bind you to a contract. But if I understand correctly, the US legal system allows for the seller to add terms to the purchasing contract after you have paid and left the store (while the consumer, on his/her hand, has the right to go back to the store and return the product, since the deal isn't closed until he/she has had opportunity to consider the terms). The text on the shrink-wrap or the computer screen is just there to ensure you know the terms of the contract before you decide to start using the product.

No, I don't think this is a good thing, since it only leads to lengthy and excessive disclaimers almost nobody bothers to read.

Re: phirst post!

[Tubal-Cain]

That works fine in non-monopolistic markets. When AT&T is your only choice for DSL, however...

Hey guys...

[RabidMoose]

...I know nobody ever reads TFA, but there doesn't actually seem to be one here. Just a link to the company's website, and two articles to provide context to the non-existent article.

Re:Hey guys...

[stagg]

http://my.att.net/csbellsouth/s/s.dll?spage=cg/legal/att.htm&leg=tos A quick google search shows that it's in the updated TOS on their webpage already.

Re:Hey guys...

[stagg]

"Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may bring an individual action in small claims court. YOU AGREE THAT, BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT, YOU AND AT&T ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION CLAIMS. This Agreement evidences a transaction in interstate commerce, and thus the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this provision. This arbitration provision shall survive termination of this Agreement." I assume this is the part being referenced.

Re:Hey guys...

[fatalwall]

Also if you go on the site there is no date stamp telling you when the contract was last updated. The date stamp leaves me rather displeased with ATT though as i should not have to guess when it was last updated

Re:Hey guys...

[nanospook]

You will never catch me Not Standing during foreplay!

Re:Hey guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak to any other state than MA and even then only as a self-researcher.

There are many occurrences in our laws of the phrase, "... held to be against public policy and void ...," and I can't imagine that a non-sue clause would hold water here.

One might even cite as precedent, the very specific law that bans such clauses in Landlord-Tenant cases.

Re:Hey guys...

[Private.Tucker]

Also if you go on the site there is no date stamp telling you when the contract was last updated. The date stamp leaves me rather displeased with ATT though as i should not have to guess when it was last updated

It's at the bottom, reading "Last Updated: June 14, 2009"

Re:Hey guys...

[fatalwall]

really? I looked here again to make sure i didnt miss anything http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-phone-service/legal/service-agreement.jsp?q_termsKey=postpaidServiceAgreement&q_termsName=Service+Agreement but the same as the other day there isnt a time stamp

Re:Hey guys...

[Private.Tucker]

There's the confusion. I agree the wireless site is missing a time stamp. The one I was looking at was the above linked one for broadband. For wireless, I did a search for TOS, and the support post mentions that the TOS was updated back in 2007. It's all too shady.

How can requiring arbitration...

[introspekt.i]

...take away consumers right to class action lawsuits? I thought requiring arbitration was one of those things like signing a waiver from liability, it gives the illusion of some legal protection, but it's not always the case? IANAL Please advise/inform if you know.

Wow, this is serious

[dada21]

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...

Re:Wow, this is serious

[Dutchmaan]

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...

Choosing phone companies gives about as much choice as choosing a politician. In the end you get the same corrupt non functioning product no matter what you choose.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

But there are differences here. For example, as loathsome as you may find them, Verizon Wireless actually specifically allows VOIP over their 3G service.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[hamburgler007]

Cell phone service is a life necessity for some people. And when all the cell phone providers enforce the same kind of rules, companies that can afford an extended lawsuit that they might very well win because of the court's (and governments) bias in favor of big businesses, it is serious.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[happyhamster]

Competition won't solve this, only strict public REGULATION can. The problem with competition is that it assumes (wrongly) that some players are better than others. However, currently in the U.S. all corporations are about equally evil. Be it Microsoft, Apple, Google, Verison etc., overall they all mistreat their employees, customers, and the public(by not paying their share of taxes). When all market players are equally bad, competition is worthless. You need public regulation.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[Ibag]

Maybe there are other phone companies, but I'm pretty sure that horribly unfair contracts are the norm (with terms like required arbitration and that the terms of the contract can be changed at any time without notice). Additionally, without jail breaking (which might be undone the next software upgrade), you can't switch if you are an iPhone user. To say "just use someone else, competition solves everything" is a bit glib and shortsighted, if not downright disingenuous.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[MogNuts]

Yes, because an IPhone is an absolute necessity...

The world of cell phones didn't exist for almost 3 decades before the IPhone...

Scary thing is you probably most people on this site consider an IPhone more important than food or a roof over their head.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[PRMan]

I have Vonage, they're a pretty good competitor.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

That will be the day, friends, when the first competitor to AT&T arrives and gives us an option.

Oh, wait...

But what if all of the other players collude (T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, et al.) in jacking up rates to maintain their obscene profit margin? Switching companies has little effect, either way you're over a barrel.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[Rob the Bold]

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...

You'll know you've found the "competitor with a less stringent contract" by the unicorns playing in their front yard.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[Ibag]

An iPhone may not be a necessity, but if you ALREADY HAVE ONE and you drop AT&T as your carrier, you are essentially throwing away money and converting it to an iPod. If this was about what carrier to choose if you were just starting out, or if smart phones didn't exist and all cell phones were roughly equivalent, you might have a point. As it stands, I honestly have no clue how what you are saying is relevant.

Re:Wow, this is serious

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. All of AT&T's competitors have this contract too. Who wouldn't? If you can prevent yourself from being sued, why wouldn't you?

Re: phirst post!

[arbiter1]

i agree, do they have the legal right to prevent class-action lawsuits. i don't think they do.

"Pray I do not alter it any further ..."

[pentalive]

(including for existing contracts) from the summary

I love how they change the contract after you have agreed to it.

Re:"Pray I do not alter it any further ..."

[psycho12345]

More like, "By paying your bill (even automatically), you hereby agree to any changes since the last billing cycle". Of course its a catch-22, agree and get screwed or don't pay and get your credit ruined.

Re:"Pray I do not alter it any further ..."

[Brian Gordon]

That's easy. You call them and say "I never agreed to these terms. Tear up my contract." After you're discharged from the contract you pay your bill.

Re:"Pray I do not alter it any further ..."

[Skye16]

No, just cancel. It's not a catch 22, there's a very simple out for you. They can't even charge you an ETF if they change the contract midway through its term.

Re:"Pray I do not alter it any further ..."

[hazem]

I love how they change the contract after you have agreed to it.

I think a lot of these anti-consumer contracts have language that says that they can change the terms of the contract. It's strange, like self-modifying code.

I use a cheap, no-contract (no more than month to month) cell phone company (http://www.virginmobile.com/). Sure it comes with a bit of a lame phone (target market is teenagers), but I can dump them today if I want to. I'm amazed at some of my friends who wonder why I don't get a nicer phone "for free" and sign up with one of major carriers. They complain about their crappy broken phone they can't replace (because they're under contract) or the phone bills that have hundred dollar calls from foreign countries that the company won't dismiss and threaten to send collections...

When my $20 phone finally craps out (had it for over a year now.. no problems), I think I'll try these guys: http://www.straighttalk.com/ServicePlans, relatively cheap decent phones and $45/month unlimited everything. Either that or maybe cricket (http://www.mycricket.com/).

I had Verizon once, and they were okay. I suppose if they come out with a decent phone and a $45/month for everything plan (with no contract), I'll think about going back.

One of the nice things about Virgin Mobile is that if something happens to your phone, you can be back up and running in about as much time as it takes you to buy a phone at the store. I was having a party at my house and an hour before people started showing up, I stepped on my phone and broke it. I quickly ran to a local store and had phone service in about 20 minutes; only missed 3 calls asking for directions. I now keep a spare cheapie in case something like that happens again or if an out-of-country guest needs a phone while they're visiting. I just put $20 on it for them and they're good for a while without worrying about international rates.

Re:"Pray I do not alter it any further ..."

[Archangel Michael]

I love how they change the contract after you have agreed to it.

Send in a notice with your next payment of your bill, that you've revised the contract additionally, and include provisions that the next time they change the contract, they owe you all payments previously remitted on your part, or something equally absurd. Make sure that you include that acceptance of payment constitutes agreement to the new terms and conditions. If they would like to cancel your account that they have 15 days to notify you of that cancelation of the account, and you are not liable for the terms of the previous contract, since they started renegotiations of the terms of the contract.

ALL it takes is being able to play the same stupid games they play, only play them better.

there's a reasonable chance this is not enforcable

[hedrick]

A number of cases like this have gone through the court. Often enforcement is at the State level, but several state courts have indicated that terms like this are not enforceable.

I'm pretty certain this has been the case for ages

[Mister Xiado]

The problem is, the morons who are only going with AT&T because they simply MUST have an iPhone are the same type of idiots who won't read their bills, much less the contract before signing it. Did you know that if you call AT&T to complain about minute overages and data use charges, your service can be terminated without notice, immediately? I can assure you that it won't unless you start making threats over the phone, but it's in the damn contract, in which the only fine print is the names of the cities on the coverage map.

Re: phirst post!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Surprised?

[93 Escort Wagon]

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.

Let me get this straight - you place "influencing of American Idol voting" on par with "warrantless surveillance"?

Re:Surprised?

[meta-monkey]

I guess somebody was a HUGE Adam Lambert fan...

Re:Surprised?

[dbcad7]

I already canceled my AT&T service over their use of warrant-less surveillance

You mean their cooperation with the government.. They did not surveil anyone.. The intelligence agencies did.. It's not that I forgive them for it, but I do understand what happened. There is blame enough to go around with people in actual authority that abused it.. Yes they could have refused, but I at least can see how they got suckered.. Hopefully everyone knows better now.

Re:Surprised?

[Landshark17]

"Let me get this straight - you place "influencing of American Idol voting" on par with "warrantless surveillance"?"

Anyone who puts the two on the same level is a twit, but to be fair, both do demonstrate a willingness of the company to ignore the public good or to overrule public opinion at a whim. One is clearly worse, but neither are the kind of thing I want from a company I trust with my communications.

Keep an eye on H.R. 1020

[e9th]

H.R. 1020 is an attempt to put some reasonable limits on mandatory arbitration. It's not doing too well, but write your congressman.

Re: phirst post!

[node 3]

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.

Nothing beats the government

[mi]

While private companies' contracts may seem outrageous, nothing beats the government agencies at this game:

a) The MTA may change the "FAST LANE Program Terms and Conditions" at any time by giving customers notice thereof. The terms and conditions shall become effective seven (7) days after such notice has been given. No written notice is required, and you hereby waive any requirement that written notice be provided. Such notice may be given through any means, including, but not limited to, advertising such notice in the media, posting such notice on message boards along the MTA's toll roadways, or otherwise, as determined by the MTA. If you have provided an electronic mailing address to the MTA with your application, you authorize that such notice may be provided by sending such notice to that electronic mail address, in the MTA's discretion.

Re:Nothing beats the government

[WillyWanker]

And this is why I would *NEVER* give the MTA or any other similar organization free will to deduct money from my checking account and/or bill my credit card in exchange for saving a few seconds when I travel. Nope. Never. Not gonna do it.

And this doesn't even cover how they now send you tickets using data gathered by these systems. So now you don't even need to get caught by a live policeman. So much for due process.

Re:Nothing beats the government

[node 3]

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.

Re:Nothing beats the government

[DJ Particle]

I'd heard about that...so if you have a transponder, and your average speed between 2 checkpoints is over the limit (based on time codes), you get a ticket? I don't see how that can be legal. That will cause more accidents than save them (as paranoid people with transponders will be traveling markedly slower than the rest of the traffic and become obstacles...I know how they drive in MA)

Re:Nothing beats the government

[WillyWanker]

Yeah, that's exactly how they do it. You just get a ticket in the mail a few days after the trip.

I don't understand how it's legal either. How do they know who's driving the car? What if it was someone else you lent the car to?

I had a different experience with this retarded program. I borrowed an EasyPass from a friend of mine and wound up getting a ticket in mail for unauthorized use of an EasyPass, telling me that not only did I have to pay for the toll but also a $25 fine.

Turns out that to allow someone else to use your pass you have to register their plate number in advance, something neither I or my friend knew. I eventually managed to get the ticket dismissed, but you don't even want to know how difficult and time consuming it was.

Re:Nothing beats the government

[zippthorne]

Brilliant. "as determined by the MTA" Invariably means that you should periodically visit the disused lavatory in the basement. The one with the sign, "beware of the leopard."

Re:Nothing beats the government

[mi]

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

"The ways" — if any — will be determined by them. The changes will go in effect in 7 days. You could drive to airport, leave for a week-long vacation, come back and drive home under a completely new contract — without knowing it... And, unlike with the wireless companies, you can not switch to competition in MTA's case...

Most corporate terms of services have similar clauses

Citation needed. I'm yet to see anything so bad and blatant...

Re:Nothing beats the government

[mi]

And this is why I would *NEVER* give the MTA or any other similar organization free will to ...

You are getting off-topic. The reason I posted this example was to preemptively counter inevitable lamentations, how "unfettered capitalism" (of AT&T) is bad, and how "public policy needs to protect private business from its own excesses" (quote from Barney Frank — "my" congressman).

This uncontested absurdity of yesterday is already an acceptable slogan of today. Accepted "by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other — until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology," — to continue Ayn's Rand's quotation.

So, here was the example of the government agency being the worst offender — by far... And yet, people want to keep trying — be it health-care (woa-woa, flamebait!), car-making, or cellular service provision, why do the idiots think, that getting the government take over an industry is going to improve anything?

Re:Nothing beats the government

[WillyWanker]

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.

Re:Nothing beats the government

[Bigjeff5]

Because in many instances the "public" option is superior and/or significantly less expensive than the private option.

Name one.

Re:Nothing beats the government

[Bigjeff5]

Posting contract changes on a leapord's ass and calling it public notice, now that's brilliant.

Fortunately, our forefathers had the forsight to design a system in which a private citizen is perfectly capable of suing the government itself, and winning.

Re:Nothing beats the government

[WillyWanker]

Schools. Firefighters. Police. Medicare. Social Security. Broadband. Public utilities.

That's 7 off the top of my head.

Re:Nothing beats the government

[Sean0michael]

schools

This government-run "non-profit" is not superior. Whether its K-12 or Higher Ed, private schools do it better. Sometimes they even do it cheaper. Look at the voucher program in Washington DC and all the good it has done for those who were able to take part of it -- then explain why Congress wants to end it. Why else does Obama send his kids to private school? Education for all is great -- but public schools are more broadly considered failing than succeeding, and that's why many parents would love the option to get their kids a better education in a private institution.

Firefighters

This local option currently works well as a government-run organization. It only works because no one has the incentive to allow fires to continue burning and destroying property. Insurance companies could maintain their own fire departments, who would ensure that homes insured by other companies don't catch their own on fire, while perhaps earning some compensation for their cooperation. And a company that lets a house burn down instead of helping will soon have no customers.

Police

Law enforcement and the use of force is the exclusive domain of government, and as such cannot have anyone else perform that task. It should not be in your list.

Social Security

This social safety net is definitely a "non-profit". Did you know that the original legislation excluded most women and minorities? It is a pyramid scheme that relies on continuous growth in the base and in the tax receipts, which we have not seen. It worked when we had lots of new baby boomers and a 16:1 ratio of people paying in to people taking out. That ratio is now closer to 3:1. I fully expect not to get a dime from Social Security when I retire, even though I pay my share like everyone else. I know for a fact I would get a much better return on my money than -100% from just a regular savings account.

Broadband

Where do you live that the government supplies you with a broadband internet connection? Unless you mean the free wifi at the local library, I'm not sure what you mean by the government's far superior non-profit broadband provider.

Public Utilities

These are not government run non-profits, but are highly regulated private entities in many cases. If they were government-owned, it would be a lot easier to pass our green initiatives and clean up our carbon footprints.

There are few things that I think the government does well: run our military, maintain order, and loosely regulate commerce (on federal/state/local scales). The Constitution is very specific in the ways that the Federal government promotes the general welfare and leaves the rest up to the states and the people. I'm much more worried about what the government can do if it chooses than what any company might do.

Re:Nothing beats the government

[WillyWanker]

schools

This government-run "non-profit" is not superior. Whether its K-12 or Higher Ed, private schools do it better. Sometimes they even do it cheaper. Look at the voucher program in Washington DC and all the good it has done for those who were able to take part of it -- then explain why Congress wants to end it. Why else does Obama send his kids to private school? Education for all is great -- but public schools are more broadly considered failing than succeeding, and that's why many parents would love the option to get their kids a better education in a private institution.

For the vast majority public school is by far cheaper. Not necessarily better, but that's why I said and/or.

Firefighters

This local option currently works well as a government-run organization. It only works because no one has the incentive to allow fires to continue burning and destroying property. Insurance companies could maintain their own fire departments, who would ensure that homes insured by other companies don't catch their own on fire, while perhaps earning some compensation for their cooperation. And a company that lets a house burn down instead of helping will soon have no customers.

But like you said, it still works, and works well.

Police

Law enforcement and the use of force is the exclusive domain of government, and as such cannot have anyone else perform that task. It should not be in your list.

Not true. Many wealthy people employ their own security force to protect them. This public service is much like the fire department. We take it for granted because it's always been there. But I wonder, if that weren't the case, and "law and order" was kept by private police forces, how easy it would be to establish a "socialist" police force today? I can just hear the GOP screaming "communism" and "KGB". Remember, the 2nd amendment grants us the right to form militias that are unfettered by the government. Could you imagine if, instead of police as we know it, each community had their own public militia???

Social Security

This social safety net is definitely a "non-profit". Did you know that the original legislation excluded most women and minorities? It is a pyramid scheme that relies on continuous growth in the base and in the tax receipts, which we have not seen. It worked when we had lots of new baby boomers and a 16:1 ratio of people paying in to people taking out. That ratio is now closer to 3:1. I fully expect not to get a dime from Social Security when I retire, even though I pay my share like everyone else. I know for a fact I would get a much better return on my money than -100% from just a regular savings account.

Critics have been proclaiming the demise of Social Security for 50 years. And it's still here, and it still works. And despite the DOOMsayers that insist it will go belly up by 2020, I have every confidence it'll still be here. And what's the alternative? Private pensions? IRAs? OK, SS is not perfect, but it works well enough. The alternative would be catastrophic.

Broadband

Where do you live that the government supplies you with a broadband internet connection? Unless you mean the free wifi at the local library, I'm not sure what you mean by the government's far superior non-profit broadband provider.

Try Greenlight, in the city of Wilson, North Carolina. The plan that has the local cable company so worried they are vigorously lobbying the state legislature to ban it. Greenlight offers faster speeds for less money. Oh, and they do phone and cable TV service too. And I'm fairly sure there are a number of municipal WIMAX systems being planned all over the country (and again, they are facing stiff resistance from local ISPs and cell carriers).

Is the link correct?

[wrencherd]

The link in the post above points here:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_24/b4088072611398_page_2.htm

Is that the correct article? That one seems to be about bank issued credit cards--was this intended?

Land of the Free and Hone Of the Brave?

[phlegmboy]

Not when it comes to Corporate America and their victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers.

It seems that in the USA the corporates can just bend you right over and fist fuck you till they have extracted all they can then just toss you away like yesterdays garbage.

Re:Land of the Free and Hone Of the Brave?

[WillyWanker]

Yes, as long as corporations own our politicians, that's exactly how it's gonna keep working.

Re: phirst post!

[pcolaman]

Exactly. They can put in the contract that you have to kiss a moose on the buttcheeks if you are late on your payment, but terms of a contract holding up in court are a different animal. 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.

is this legal? certainly not ETHICAL

[v1]

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.

Because I can't stand AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

...because of crap like this.... ...because of their secret rooms.. ...because they spied on Americans' emails... ...because they provided the NSA with a database of American's phone calls... ...because they used their influence to lobby Congress to retroactively get immunity and hide their activities... ...because of their former CEO's stated views on Network Neutrality...

I'm telling everyone I know to switch to T-Mobile. I get great 3G reception, they will actually unlock my phone after a couple months, they have great customer support (in my experience), visual voicemail, and they support Android. $25/a month for unlimited internet...

I have NO affiliation with T-Mobile aside from using them for a couple years, and I would invite criticism of them so people can make an informed decision. I'm just sayin... in MHO an iPhone isn't worth AT&T. For anyone on the fence, Android is actually pretty damn great.

The Free Market Punishes Consumers Again

[MarkvW]

This is a great reason for public-owned internet services. Once they get monopoly power, you feel the business end of their business.

Re:The Free Market Punishes Consumers Again

[Aladrin]

It's not a free market. There are government controls that prevent it from being a free market, like allowing people/corporations to own certain frequencies of radio waves.

Re:The Free Market Punishes Consumers Again

[Macrat]

Or when corporations run the government.

Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access

[tepples]

When AT&T is your only choice for DSL, however...

...then you switch to cable.

Re:Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access

[MadnessASAP]

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.

Re:Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access

[Foobar of Borg]

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.

You have also done a very good job of describing our two party political system. ^_^

Re:Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access

[PachmanP]

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.

Nah in that instance (cable vs dsl) it's more like you can get butt raped for a pack of smokes by Bubba or Mo. You could always choose not to smoke.

As an aside, would dialup be like giving Larry a handjob?

Re:Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access

[sjames]

So you're saying that the choice is between unga bunga and death?

Re:Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access

[tepples]

We don't get cable where I live, you insensitive clod!

If you have satellite TV, get satellite Internet.

Re:Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access

[Dragonslicer]

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.

You have also done a very good job of describing our two party political system. ^_^

That's how I described the elections last year. "Both parties will fuck you in the ass, you just get to pick which one you think is more likely to use lube"

Re:I'm pretty certain this has been the case for a

[node 3]

The problem is, the morons who are only going with AT&T because they simply MUST have an iPhone are the same type of idiots who won't read their bills, much less the contract before signing it.

Wow, Mister Xiado, how'd you come to that conclusion? Wanting an iPhone, and as a result, being tied to AT&T makes one an moron/idiot?

Did you know that if you call AT&T to complain about minute overages and data use charges, your service can be terminated without notice, immediately? I can assure you that it won't unless you start making threats over the phone, but it's in the damn contract, in which the only fine print is the names of the cities on the coverage map.

[Citation Needed] I've read the terms of service (not every word, but the gist of the various sections) and I'd be very surprised that there's anything that says what you've written.

Please, provide a link, or quote from, the relevant section that specifically states that merely complaining about charges allows them to terminate your contract immediately and without notice.

Or was this some sort of reverse idiot test? Where you see how many up mods you can get from idiots who merely like the idea that what you wrote might be true?

Re: phirst post!

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

State law in Montana forbids waiving your right to a lawsuit and forcing you in to arbitration. I only know this because I was assisting my mom, a lawyer, with finding a phone at Verizon to take to Europe and when they had her sign their agreement she pointedly told the person behind the counter, "You know this isn't legal in Montana!" I assume other states have similar provisions on the books.

One Wonders...

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

... even if AT&T does that will it actually stop them. I can imagine that a court might rule that AT&T can't do this.

Contract buggy blue, no suing back!

[Arancaytar]

Forgive my non-lawyer ignorance, but can you actually forbid someone from suing you? As a retroactive clause in a contract, even?

"By downloading this pirated video off BitTorrent, you have implicitly agreed to forfeit any and all options of initiating a lawsuit for copyright infringement."

Wonder if that would work.

Hint: Probably not. :P

Re: phirst post!

[jeepien]

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.

Already tried, already failed

[Todd Knarr]

AT&T/Cingular already tried these terms with their cel-phone service. They failed.

Re: phirst post!

[russotto]

can you really expressly forbid class action suits in such a way that the law respects it?

IANAL, but I would say "Probably not", given that AT&T has tried similar clauses before and had them struck down as "unconscionable".

Huh?

[compro01]

Didn't Comcast already get it's ass handed to them in court over similar terms?

You're looking at this all wrong!

[wbren]

Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may bring an individual action in small claims court. YOU AGREE THAT, BY ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT, YOU AND AT&T ARE EACH WAIVING THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION WITH RESPECT TO ARBITRATION CLAIMS.

This is a big win for the consumer. We can finally rest assured that AT&T cannot enter into a class action against its consumers.

You might laugh, but this is AT&T we're talking about. To quote Angels in the Outfield: "It could happen."

Torn.

[zippthorne]

On the one hand, the agreement is clearly designed to take away or discourage recourse and thereby reduce AT&T's liability risk.

But on the other hand, no one really benefits from class action suits except the lawyers. I mean, yeah, the company gets punished for wrongdoing, but the victims don't get made whole, which I thought was kinda the whole point of lawsuits as opposed to criminal proceedings.

Re:Torn.

[QuoteMstr]

But on the other hand, no one really benefits from class action suits except the lawyers.

What's the alternative? To let companies get away with violations of the law until the DOJ gets around to prosecuting them?

We all benefit when antisocial corporate actions are discouraged, even if we're not all made whole. Your argument is actually a reason for better class-action procedures, not a reason to dismiss the entire concept.

Re:Torn.

[zippthorne]

Violations of the law? Yes, they should wait for DOJ gets around to it. And they should receive prison time. If laws are broken, then someone broke them. That person should get the punishment necessary.

Now liabilities. Torts. Companies should have to suffer the consequences of those as well. But invoking "class action" should require some tradeoffs for the lawyers as it does for the plaintiffs.

How do you propose to deal with the possibility of injustice being done by lawyers seeking a larger class and punting on the settlement. 10--30 percent of a crappy but gigantic settlement is still a big number for the lawyers.

Hatred

[DaMattster]

AT&T is nothing but a bunch of fascists. I refuse to use them for anything. I wouldn't touch them for internet or cellular service .... if there was nothing else available, I would rather go without the service at all. AT&T stands for all that is reprehensible about a corporation and the way they willingly cooperated with the warrantless wiretapping is inexcuseable. Anyone that uses AT&T is simply helping them become even stronger. Since their terms of service changed, go ahead and run, don't walk, away from these a$$holes.

Re: phirst post!

[blackraven14250]

What if the class action is a federal suit?

Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[Kohath]

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.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[QuoteMstr]

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.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[Kohath]

The "value" is outweighed many times over by the cost.

The system, as it currently exists, is unjust for that reason (and for other reasons).

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[whoever57]

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.

If that were true, one might expect that western nations that do not allow class-action lawsuits would have many cases of defective and dangerous products. Well, guess, what... they don't. The evidence that class action lawsuits protect consumers from anything is lacking.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[piojo]

By your argument, monetary fines would be pointless, too. But it's still a punishment to the company in question--if they have to raise their prices to make up the difference, maybe more customers will go to a competitor (I think ATT has at least one competitor in most places).

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[Kohath]

If the system were structured to accomplish something besides transferring money to lawyers, that would be a better point. Every other company besides AT&T has to pay legal bills too, regardless of whether they win or lose in court.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[darkmeridian]

If it weren't for class action lawsuits, corporations would have perverse incentives to salami slice and take small portions of money from a lot of consumers, none of whom would have an incentive to sue for a few dollars. Pretend a phone company rips off all of its customers by $5. They have 5 million customers, so they get $25 million they are not entitled to. Without class action lawsuits, no one would bother suing over $5, and the phone company gets to keep the money. A class action lawsuit will force the company to cough up the $25 million. Sure, each customer will only get a small settlement, but that's the exact circumstance the class action was designed to fix.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[lilrobbie]

I'm interested as to which western nations don't allow class actions? The other point of interest is that this is a case where selling in a single place that allows class actions would essentially force the relevant company to try and avoid risk of these (i.e., release safe products) in all locations they sell at.

Basically, the only way to prove your assertion that evidence is lacking is to demonstrate that companies selling products ONLY in nations/places that don't allow class-action suits are releasing MORE defective/dangerous products compared to companies selling in at least one location that allows class-action suits. I'd draw a pretty venn diagram, but I'm afraid of how nerdy that might make this discussion seem!

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[whoever57]

Basically, the only way to prove your assertion that evidence is lacking is to demonstrate that companies selling products ONLY in nations/places that don't allow class-action suits are releasing MORE defective/dangerous products compared to companies selling in at least one location that allows class-action suits.

Actually, rather than proving a point, my comment was to refute the G-GP's assertion that class action suits modify the behaviour of companies. I don't claim the proof of my assertion, rather, I claim that the G-GP's assertion is unsupported by any evidence.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[Fulcrum of Evil]

class action lawsuits are there to make it hard to screw a million people out of $5 each. Without a class action, there's no way you're going to pursue action.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[lilrobbie]

Burden of proof is such a fun thing to throw around :)

I see the point of your post... but my feeling is that the G-GP's assertion is more likely to be true than yours.

The best thing I can think of to prove this (in a very unacademic as only slashdot condones...), is a good ol' google search: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=avoids+class+action

That tells you that some companies do care about avoiding class action suits. Therefore the G-GP's assertion has some support in articles :)

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[whoever57]

class action lawsuits are there to make it hard to screw a million people out of $5 each. Without a class action, there's no way you're going to pursue action.

I'm not so sure. In the UK, generally the loser of a suit pays the winner's legal costs. Thus a company won't defend multiple small-value lawsuits once one such lawsuit has been lost -- and companies may not even defend the first one because the cost of losing is far greater than the $5 claimed by the plaintiffs.

Anyway, what I was trying to point out was that if the GGP was correct, and class-action lawsuits are a powerful protection for consumers, in countries where class actions are not allowed, one would expect to see consumers being screwed far more regularly. However, I don't see any evidence of this in the UK (which doesn't generally allow class action lawsuits).

Or, to be more brutal, you have accepted the FUD from US lawyers about the need for class action lawsuits.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[Fulcrum of Evil]

well, we don't have loser pays, so the tradeoff is different. we have a lot of problems over here, but class action is necessary at the moment.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[Kohath]

They would lose most of their customers doing that. How is that a win for them?

If class action lawsuits had a loser-pays (at least some part of legal costs) provision, and if lawyers could only make a fee instead of hitting the jackpot, then it might be worthwhile.

As it is, consumers are losing the money anyway. The company collects it to pay their legal bills. It might not be the whole $5, but it's far, far too much. How much money is it worth to you for "insurance" against a company stealing $5 from you? You're already paying a lot more than that in legal bills that are passed on to you.

Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public

[jonaskoelker]

and that itself as value.

Does your keyboard 'ave a French accent?

Again, only in america.

[unity100]

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.

Re:Again, only in america.

[freedom_india]

I agree with you.
Andrew jackson and Woodrow Wilson would be turning in their graves, while JP Morgan would be clapping.
In India, the reserve bank forced banks to cross-accept debit cards in their ATMs without surcharges. Naturally banks balked at this, but the reserve bank simply bulldozed over them. Now i can use any bank's card on ANY ATM without any surcharge. What's more the Reserve bank has forced them to put this on display in all of their ATMs.
Secondly, the local telephone companies wanted the ability to trash a consumer's credit score based on his telephone bill payment. The courts refused it.
Indian laws specifically make the corporate veil invisible in many criminal cases. So there are no "settlements" here. The CEO is prosecuted and jailed. No golden parachute crap, no evading responsibility.
My contract with my 16Mbps broadband provider specifically states that for every day the service is out, the company prorates the rental amount and credits my account with the money. Similarly iam free to use torrents, or any other crap. No restrictions.
if the speed goes below 12Mbps, the company of forced to charge me only for that plan rates.
Of course the company didn't like these terms: tough luck. The LAW and courts included this clause by force.
Preventing access to courts by arbitration is prohibited by law. Our Supreme court once thundered against this and put the CEO in jail for this.

The best society money can buy.

[Anonymous Coward]

> If your State allows a ToS to ban class actions, change your laws.

I'd love to, but I'm pretty sure that AT&T uses the money it extorts via unfair and unconscionable contracts like this to pay lobbyists to ensure that my congersscritters allow them to screw us.

Don't buy the product.

[Organic Brain Damage]

If you do not like the contract, do not do business with AT&T. You've got a choice. They're not selling you something you need (air, food, water, shelter).

Re:Don't buy the product.

[oDDmON oUT]

"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:

• They live in an area not serviced by cable.
• The topography of the area they live in precludes LOS wireless access.
• They live in an area which has a dead zone effectively negating using "air cards" from another provider.
• The copper serving their area makes satellite an exercise in pain.
• Some combination of, or all of, the above.

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.

Re: phirst post!

[Ihmhi]

So you're telling me that this might not be legally binding?

Unenforceable - The SCOTUS has already decided.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Unenforceable - The SCOTUS has already decided.

[Anonymous Coward]

link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/17/MN11644.DTL

Re:Speaking of Class-Action Suits

[Yaur]

Can't speak to DSL but back in the day there was some flaky (X.25) CSUs out there that would start having problems and get fixed, temporarily anyway, by running a line test. The reason was that the test required putting them into loop back mode and then switching them back which reset the connection.

Re:I'm pretty certain this has been the case for a

[XcepticZP]

Wow, Mister Xiado, how'd you come to that conclusion? Wanting an iPhone, and as a result, being tied to AT&T makes one an moron/idiot?

Because only a moron/idiot would feel that they MUST HAVE an Iphone(Doesn't look so hip with proper capitalization, does it, fanbois?). Besides, it would be much better to get an unlocked Iphone. That way you don't have to agree to the ATT terms in order in use it.

Re:Speaking of Class-Action Suits

[klenwell]

Thanks for the reply. Not that any of it makes any sense to me. :) But if an AT&T tech had said something to that effect, it would have saved me running all over the internet looking for an explanation.

It is becoming very obvious

[executivechaos]

More and more as time goes on, that AT&T really doesn't care at all about the average customer, and more so about it's larger corporate clients. I mean, I live in another country, so I'm not directly affected by this kind of stupidity...but at this point, I simply would leave AT&T and go to another carrier. The reason they continue to abuse their customers is because it hasn't proven to cost them any kind of profit loss. Stop spending money with idiot companies America.

Re:It is becoming very obvious

[cheros]

It appears you don't always have a choice in operators in the US. Otherwise it appears AT&T would have been without customers quite a while ago (well, at least the smart ones).

I'm not sure, however, I don't live in the US so I have no idea how their coverage overlaps. Anyone?

Re: phirst post!

[Rob the Bold]

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.

The binding isn't even tight enough to keep from being loosened and re-tied by one of the parties.

illegal contracts are still illegal

[NynexNinja]

A company can put whatever it wants on a page and call it a "contract", but illegal contracts are not enforceable.

Re:illegal contracts are still illegal

[DragonWriter]

A company can put whatever it wants on a page and call it a "contract", but illegal contracts are not enforceable.

Sure but, unfortunately, though, there's generally no added penalty for putting illegal terms in a contract with a severability clause, so there is little incentive for companies not to use their contracts as vehicles for distributing FUD that scares people away from exercising rights they have in law.

I am a lawyer, and under California law...

[Anonymous Coward]

... courts have specifically held that you can't contractually waive the right to bring or participate in class actions for things like cell phone contracts, where the lawsuits probably aren't financially worth bringing one at a time. For two cases discussing this, see

• Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., 498 F.3d 976, 983 (9th Cir. 2007), available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/08/17/0655964.pdf
• Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148, 162-63, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 76, 113 P.3d 1100 (2005) available at http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal4th/36/148.html (login required)

I'm not sure how it works in other states.

Re:I am a lawyer, and under California law...

[SSharon]

AT&T has been involved with this dispute in the past. I recently wrote a paper on copyright law and one of the cases I cited was McKee v. AT&T Corp. WL 3932188 (Wash. 2008). The court listed the following terms in the contract as offensive: prohibition of class actions, mandatory arbitration, forced secrecy of arbitration results, no punitive damages, no attorneys fees, shortened statute of limitations, and acceptance of New York law. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had no meaningful choice because everyone should have access to phone service and there is rarely meaningful competition. Sounds familiar right?

(You can see my paper at http://ssrn.com/author=1259310 and jump to footnote 38 to read about the case in context.)

Oh, and IANAL-Y (yet, because I'm waiting to pass the two bar exams I just took)

arbitration system is fraudulent

[Wansu]

Here's an excellent column by am Martens about this arbitration business. Judicial Apartheid

Re:no, the term to be familiar with is "material"

[xigxag]

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.

Comcast was not part of the Bell breakup

[Fallen Kell]

Comcast did not come from the split up of AT&T (otherwise I would own lot more share of Comcast). The split went to the "Baby Bells", which were Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, NYNEX, Pacific Telesis, Southwestern Bell, and US WEST being created. AT&T still existed after the breakup as well. Verizon was formed when Bell Atlantic merged with Ameritech. Southwestern Bell, eventually changed their name to SBC, who later bought Pacific Telesis, and later then bought AT&T Corp (and changed the name from SBC to AT&T Inc since AT&T carried the bigger name, even though it was the loser of the takeover), and finally purchase Bell South.

So recap, AT&T, split to 8 companies, then years later when the government stopped their regulation and allowed free market forces to dictate, those 8 phone companies consolidated into 3 companies, AT&T Inc, Verizon, and Qwest (Qwest formed from US WEST). Don't be surprised when further consolidation occurs. The only good thing going right now is that Verizon is primarily located on the north east, and Qwest is obviously in the mid-west/western side of the country with AT&T covering the entire middle and southern portions of the country. Verizon and Qwest are less likely to merge due to this large physical separation.

Re:Comcast was not part of the Bell breakup

[socsoc]

Ameritech? Verizon was formed when Atlantic Bell merged with GTE. Ameritech has always been part of the AT&T family, via SBC or whatever.

Class action suits are libertarian in spirit

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Think of them as a kind of privatized law enforcement. In place of a prosecutor going after a defendant for ripping off millions of people, a plaintiff's attorney does the job instead.

You'll find abuses in both government law enforcement and private law enforcement. The difference is that in the case of class action lawsuits the people who want to get away with illegal activity have powerful and well-oiled propaganda machines.

Unfettered Capitalism

[Nekomusume]

This is where unfettered capitalism actually ends up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacre

That said, a totally free market is impossible without eliminating any and all power discrepencies between agents within the market. What most people who say they want a free market actually want is a market in which they are free to exploit anyone and everyone without any sort of legal oversight.

Who writes the contracts ?

[Alain Williams]

It is almost impossible for a consumer to negotiate a change to these contracts, the utility/supplier/... will generally just say ''if you don't agree you don't get to use our electricity/phone/bank/...''. This is OK in a truly competitive market - you go elsewhere.

However in many markets there are a small number of suppliers who know that they can dictate any terms that they like since their few competitors are just as bad and it is almost impossible for a new entrant to come in giving the consumer a better deal. This is the sort of situation where the government ought to step in and regulate contracts; I propose that:

when a provider of services to the public has more than 10% of a market[**] that their contracts be drawn up by some independent body that is charged with ensuring that the agreement is fair to both parties.

They won't like it, but it is the only way that we can stop being shafted by the large corporates.

[**] They may provide 5% of the national market, but if they provide >10% in a small region that would be sufficient condition. To be fair we need to say that this only applies when they have at least 1,000 customers.

His point is

[Sycraft-fu]

The law DOESN'T allow that. Just because they say so, doesn't make it the case. I can write whatever I want. I can say "By reading this post you agree to send me $100 per month for the next 20 years. You also agree you can't file a lawsuit against me, etc, etc." That's fine, none of it matters. You can ignore it. Just because I wrote it doesn't mean it has any legal force. That I claim "You agreed to it," doesn't change anything. Even with actual, signed contracts there are things you can't do. If I put a clause in a contract that has you sign yourself in to slavery, it'll be ruled invalid. You can't sign yourself in to slavery.

So this isn't indicative of a problem with the system, it is indicative of companies being stupid. They want things to be a certain way so they are trying to make their TOS say it is that way. Ok fine, but that doesn't mean it has the slightest bit of legal standing. In particular, shit like this has already been struck down in other cases.

"All your base"? WTF?

[jonaskoelker]

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

Since they're the evil masterminds of cellular telephony specifically (among other things), wouldn't that be

ALL YOUR BASE STATION ARE BELONG TO US

?

Might as well go whole hog...

[jonaskoelker]

I might as well push that joke to the limit...

Since it's telephony, the phrase "YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE" absolutely has to be followed by

MAKE YOUR MONTHLY MINUTES

Re:Might as well go whole hog...

[An ominous Cow art]

MAKE YOUR MONTHLY MINUTES

MOVE 'SIM' !

FOR GREAT PROFIT !

(For once, I agree with the Lameness Filter's judgment :-))

Re: phirst post!

[compro01]

Schwartz v. Comcast also found to be invalid in Pennsylvania. And I believe it's also invalid in Washington and California.

It's free money.

[FellowConspirator]

When you have a contract with AT&T and they modify the terms, the law permits you to reject the terms - in writing. If you reject the terms, the company can do one of three things: they can retain you as a customer per your original agreement, attempt to personally negotiate mutually acceptable terms (not likely), or terminate the agreement. If they terminate the agreement, you cannot be penalized. So, if you just got a shiny new iPhone, it's yours. Sure, you have no service, but you just got your phone on the cheap.

That said, while it makes for a nice contract clause, there's precedent that placing limits on customer's legal options isn't binding. In fact, generally speaking, arbitration clauses are increasingly less effective. The idea being that no party can enjoin another against the protection of the law. It's no different than saying, "if we do something illegal, you cannot call the police and report us." Certainly, they can try. What this clause does is create a cost-barrier to relief. Sure, it probably won't stand up in court, but you're going to have to go to court with pricey lawyers and waste time and money just to get as far as filing suit. That's what arbitration clauses do too -- even if the court decides that the arbitration clause doesn't apply, getting that far is outside the means of your typical customer. It's called gaming the system. Justice is very expensive.

My terms of service

[UID30]

Its a good thing that "MY" terms of service (written down on a bar napkin years ago, and may be subject to blurring due to beer spills) bar any restriction on my ability to seek restitution or damages from any service provider whose terms of service require arbitration and/or prevent participation in class action lawsuits against them.

I gave all my service providers 1 year to make known any problem they had with my terms of service ... from when i first scribbled them down and made them public by vocalizing them to anybody at the bar who cared to listen.

I should also mention that my terms of service require arbitration and prohibit my service providers from participating in a class action law suit against me. Oh. And they have to bring me the number of that cute barmaid from across the room, too.

I Dumped AT&T a Long Time Ago

[NeverVotedBush]

And would do it again if I still used them as an ISP.

I can't believe people still put up with this kind of behavior.

Weirdly working - not working DSL

[JavaManJim]

My DSL has experienced these local solvable issues.

1. Lots of intermittent line failure. The wire from my DSL modem to the wall corroded. A look using a magnifying glass showed significant corrosion of the four wires that plug into the wall. A new cable from Fry's fixed this.

2. My DSL modem. Netopia if you want to know. Fails occasionally.

2A. When its working go to DOS and find the modem's address.
DOS
nbtstat
Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 172.32.0.254 (get this ip address)

2A. I have a staple to reset via that hole in the back of the DSL modem.

2C. I type http://172.32.0.254/ which brings up a little web page from
the DSL modem I go to the setup tab and type my DSL modem's userid
and password. Your modem may vary.

Hope this helps!

Re:Weirdly working - not working DSL

[JavaManJim]

2A that's NOT a staple but a straightened out paper clip. I use this to poke it into the reset hole in the back of the DSL modem. This erases the stored userid and password.

It should be illegal

[C_Kode]

It should be illegal to attempt to impair someones rights to protect themselves in a EULA or any other form of contract. Puting that in there is equal to say, we have the right to screw you and you have to accept it.

Cell phone contracts

[HTH NE1]

The first time I signed a cell phone contract was also the first and only time I've been denied the right to possess a copy of that contract.

I want a hand-held scanner with internal memory that only needs to be tethered to a computer to retrieve the scan after the fact. Preferably one that can pass for a reading light so they won't know I just copied their contract for my later perusal.

Does this make any sense to anyone?

[Lead Butthead]

This arbitration provision shall survive termination of this Agreement." I assume this is the part being referenced.

How can a term within a contract survive the termination of the contract itself?

no.

[unity100]

for, the social environment you live in is the creator of your circumstances. as long as the equation of freedom with the 'i can do whatever i want with money' bullshit continues in america, you will end up in the same situation regardless of where you nuke and start over. you have to change the mindset, and drop the 'money is success' and 'money makes rights' stuff.

Re:I'm pretty certain this has been the case for a

[Mister Xiado]

It's in print in the contract as well as the Customer Service Summary you get with the start of service. ALL billing disputes are to be submitted in writing to a provided address within 90 days, or 100... But anyway, customer support fields billing issues because NOBODY reads the terms of service. Hey, just like EULAs.

AT&T doesn't bother enforcing much of what they have in the terms of service unless the customer is being a collossal asshole. Seriously. I've seen thousands of dollars in charges forgiven in one instance, mainly because it was a simple case of the customer not being aware that using an iPhone without the mandatory data bundle would result in utter financial ruin.

I'd be more than happy to directly quote the sections of the ToS that I referred to, but alas, I'm posting this from an AT&T BlackBerry, from within the belly of the beast. I'm certain all of this information is available on the public website, but my lunch is almost over.