Slashdot Mirror


Supreme Court: AT&T Can Force Arbitration

suraj.sun writes with this unhappy news, as reported by Ars Technica: "The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that AT&T — and indeed, any company — could block class-action suits arising from disputes with customers and instead force those customers into binding arbitration. The ruling reverses previous lower-court decisions that classified stipulations in AT&T's service contract which barred class arbitration as 'unconscionable.' ... In cases where an unfair practice affects large numbers of customers, AT&T or other companies could quietly settle a few individual claims instead of being faced with larger class-action settlements which might include punitive awards designed to discourage future bad practices."

1 of 415 comments (clear)

  1. No activisim here, please move on by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    WRONG. This "judicial activism" stuff is crap. The courts are not suppose to blindly obey the laws congress passes. Haven't you heard of "checks and balances"? They, along with the president, are suppose to keep congress in check. Congress giving the courts "latitude" is irrelevant. The courts are suppose to strike down unjust laws (you know, things that violate the constitution).

    There is no judicial activism here. According to the article, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) took precedent. In that act, corporations have the right to seek binding arbitration in disputes to avoid lengthy, costly court battles. This isn't a break for AT&T or corporations, this is a slam against those lawyers who drum up all of these class action suits with the intention of getting corporations to settle without going to court. The FAA also allows states to set restrictions, too, however, California, the state in question did not.

    The case that brought this up, again according to the article, was that AT&T charged sales tax on a supposedly free phone. Somebody sued and turned it into a class action suit. Of course, AT&T doesn't get to keep the sales tax charged. The real beef should have been with the state of California which was requiring AT&T to charge and remit the tax. Oh, but wait, you can't sue the State for that. So, the attorneys go after the corporation, which is where all the money is supposedly.

    There is no activism here, the system worked like it should. Congress had passed a law that to help mitigate all of these frivolous class action suits. AT&T tried to go to arbitration under that law. The lower court said they couldn't. They Supreme Court said, yes they can. The mistake that the lower court made was that it did not take into consideration the FAA, only the user contract, which it ruled against. The Supreme Court never ruled on the user contract, because the federal law took precedent.

    As for courts striking down unjust laws, that's not their purpose. Congress can pass any law it wants. It doesn't have to be just. However, if it violates the constitution, then the courts will strike it down. Most laws are unjust to some group or another, but that doesn't make them unconstitutional.

    There is nothing new here, so just move on.