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."
Mandatory corporate kangaroo courts! What could possibly go wrong?
Basically, the Supreme Court saw last night's South Park and said "Yeah, that's exactly how the legal system should work!"
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
I can only assume languages such as this is fairly common? Can companies do this to employees also??
*shrug*
I'm slightly torn on this. On the one side, this means that there won't be ridiculous class action settlements where the class members get a $5 coupon towards future purchases while the lawyers get millions of dollars. On the other side, it effectively removes the only real consumer protection from wide spread practices.
I'd have to say, I'm leaning more towards it being a bad thing.
This is what 8 years of Bush bought us folks, a Supreme Court on the take (look it up, it's a fact that Clarance Thomas took bribes). Hopefully a few of 'em 'll retire while the Dems are in and Obama'll man up and put some liberals in.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They're just a way for legal firms to make ridiculous amounts of money. They're an abomination.
AT&T can only force arbitration if you agreed to it in your contract. Which you did. All major companies make it a condition of the sale.
What the court decided is that you can't get out of your contractual agreement with a class-action suit.
The unconscionable part here is the law that they're upholding, the Federal Arbitration Act, which basically lets you give up your right to sue. You don't have to, but they don't have to give you the service, unless you agree to meet in a court of their choosing. Which, of course, they'll always require, as long as the law allows them to.
That's been upheld before. This case is just deciding that the federal law trumps state anti-arbitration laws. I find it unconscionable in both cases, and "unconscionable" is supposed to be a way out of contracts, but the existence of the federal law and 5 Republican appointees on the Supreme Court says I'm wrong.
Arbitration = "impartial" non-accredited non-monitored unaccountable random person bought and paid for, who if he decides for the customer more than once in a great while is fired in favor of another "impartial" random person. Alternate definition: how to bribe a civil court judge legally.
No arbiter can be impartial. Their livelihood depends upon bias and outright prejudice (as in "pre-judging"). It is not an honorable profession.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
Justice Roberts once again proves his obedience to his corporate masters. Once upon a time the SCOTUS was seen as above such petty matters. Now it is clearly the pawn of the corporations - and this has been obvious ever since the ruling which allowed the corporations unlimited access to fund/bribe politicians.
The headline is inflammatory and wrong. AT&T can't force you to do anything. All this says is that AT&T can have an element in a contract -- that you can enter into or not -- that if there's a dispute, it goes to arbitration instead of court. If you aren't willing to accept that clause, you don't sign the contract. It's just like any other condition. If you don't like a price or a part of the service or whatever, don't sign a contract.
...because Congress will step in and provide rigorous consumer protection laws to fill in any unfairness in these kinds of agreements.
Entire body of citizens, have legally became whores to the whim of corporate interests now ?
Read radical news here
Yeah, just pick one of the zero phone companies that have no arbitration clause. What the heck do you need phone service for? Or natural gas, or electricity!
And America takes another decent-sized step toward becoming a straight-up corporatacracy.
In the absence of real justice, vigilantism will inevitable fill the vacuum. The SCOTUS should have considered that...
Time to hack AT&T into the ground.
So next time you'll have a choice between two operators. Both of them will have 'mandatory arbitration' clause.
Sure, no pressure. You can always move to another country, right?
So where is the consumer's power to resist such a thing if every phone company uses it (which clearly they will)?
This ruling provides just one more reason why the AT&T purchase of T-Mobile, if allowed, would be bad for consumers.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
So what happens when Binding Arbitration Clause is in every EULA and Service Agreement available?
What now David? And here I thought you might have more sympathy for taking down giants.
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
Yeah ok - AT&T can do it and save millions of dollars (while screwing the customer)...so I guess all those other large companies in the US won't do the same thing because its "wrong" and money doesn't mean anything to them...they're not for profit right?!
Well if that's the case I;ll just take my money and invisible hand and go to another company......oh wait.....
.
....maybe my only option is not not have a phone, not have internet, not have TV....and just like never buy anything and just not do business with ANY large company that will of course change their policies to reflect the ruling? Sure...ok...you're right...its not forced...I'll just have no modern product or service that most people consider necessary to live...im better than them anyway.
Individuals must choose, decide their "essential" nature rather than having it given from some transcendent source.
Which is probably the goal of the five conservatives on the court.
Perhaps Congress will change the statute.
What should be illegal is a company's contract blocking your legal recourse if they screw you over. This is what Paypal did too and pretty much robbing their own customers who could not sue them in return because of the same type of garbage.
Within a couple of months, ALL the companies will have this provision in their contracts. Then there is no choice if you want the service.
Some "free" market.
AT&T (the current company) never had monopoly status. The company that was named AT&T that had a telephone monopoly made the wrong choices as to what services to offer and went out of business. The name was purchased by one of the local telephone companies that was split out of the original AT&T along with a few business divisions that had some value.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
i.e. -- Congrats, ATT loves you, you're no longer a lawyer!!
"larger class-action settlements which might include punitive awards designed to discourage future bad practices"
I hear this line often, and it is wrong. Big corporations have no memory, and these "crimes" are hardly ever done on purpose. You cannot adjust your intentions if the outcome that needs correcting was never intended in the first place. Before getting into any details at all, it is blatantly obvious that any corporation would try to avoid a class action lawsuit of any kind. Same with recalls. The damage is done and the outcome is already secondary.
Of course, if it was done on purpose, then the outcome is already factored in, so they're just pissing on the system.
McDonalds requires every employee to sign away class action rights -- boom, they can nick a buck off each employee every day and it will never be worth an individual suit. They can just fire you as the total from you approaches the cost of filing your claim.
Add in Walmart and all the other chain stores and shady dealers. This ruling was NOT limited to consumer cases.
-GiH
(Yes, IAAL)
As opposed to the congress that passed the law to begin with?
Or the democratic congress that did nothing to change it?
By the letter of the law, I'm having a hard time seeing the unconstitutionality. Federal law generally trumps state, and free association is protected. It's an awful law, but bad law doesn't make it unconstitutional.
The dispute is whether you're able to sign away your right to sue. There is a term in contract law called Unconscionability, which basically prevents one party from abusing their superior bargaining power to write provisions into the contract that overwhelmingly favor their own interests. There are certain things that you cannot be pressured into signing away, and, until recently, the right to a class action lawsuit was among them.
Well, "supposedly" you can negotiate your contract.
Nevermind that the squibs in the stores (or on the phone, whatever) would look at you like you're insane if you even tried to do so.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Because the 5 conversatives are all relatively young . . . I'm not about to pull a Robertson anytime soon, but it seems thats the only way this court will shift under Obama.
-GiH
The problem is that there are enough people out there who *will* sign the contract, regardless. And for the most part, these people will be unaffected, which gives them no indication that they made a poor decision.
Similarly, since people continue to waive their rights, there's no incentive for the corporation to change its policy; there's no indication that they made a poor decision. Which leaves those of us who *don't* want to sign our rights away with two equally unpleasant options: 1) Sign up and waive our rights, or 2) opt out and do without what's considered a standard part of modern life.
This is exactly the sort of thing that cries out for regulation. There is no free market solution to this problem. Even if an entire population suddenly decided they did not want to agree to binding arbitration, they would be powerless to change it, because it's neither practical nor economical for everyone to cancel their contracts. And so having achieved its critical mass, especially in light of its market dominance and barriers to entry for new competition, AT&T and other corporations are free to continue their abuse of the consumers from which they derive their existence. What a beautiful relationship.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Don't Supreme Court justices know the law anymore? This decision is so out in right field that it doesn't even pretend to be supported by law passed by Congress. Contracts used to be invalid if:
1) They are so one-side as to be entirely unfair.
2) They force one party into a position because there is no alternative (the offer you can't refuse).
Carrier-forced arbitration meets both these points. Carriers, by the nature of their enormous power relative to consumers, will always win arbitration because the arbitrators are, for all practical purposes, on the carriers' payrolls. This is because carriers are repeat customers, whereas carrier customers are not. This severely biases the arbitrator in favor of the carriers. There is no easy way to make this even remotely fair to carrier customers. This, by itself, would be enough to nullify arbitration clauses in any sane country.
Carrier customers have no choice but to have a phone of some sort. You just can't exist in most modern markets without the ability to communicate with other people. And all carriers have the same arbitration clause in their contract, so customers have no alternative. This should also, all by itself, be enough to nullify arbitration clauses in contracts in any sane country.
Put these two things together, and it's clear that the Surpeme Court has no intention of applying the law. It seems that they don't even bother reading it anymore. They just want to apply their own sense of right and wrong as it aligns with their political philosophies. If we had a Constitutional Supreme Court, meaning a Supreme Court defined and authorized by our Constitution, prior to this ruling, it just evaporated.
Is binding arbitration actually in the contract people sign when they sign up for the service?
It is. It is also in your contract for your loans, your contract for your bank accounts, your contract for your HOA, your employment contract, your insurance policy, your airplane ticket, your computer purchase, and probably even in real fine print at the bottom of your menu when you go out to eat.
Don't worry though, it's only binding to you. If you don't like the outcome the company bought from the arbiter of their choice and dare to complain about the company online, they're free to use real courts to sue you over and over until you stop making them look bad.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Yes, it is.
Imagine that, I actually read my contract.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Come to think of it, wouldn't it be hilarious if someone fucked up and all that boilerplate contract cruft floating around out there binds both parties to arbitration?
Sony finally tracks down the guy who hacked PSN, and on the first day of court the guy waves the PSN contract at the judge and says "see here, everything to do with PSN has mandatory binding arbitration, as upheld by the Supreme Court" and gets the case dismissed. Then Sony goes to an arbiter, who says "uh, yeah, don't do that, it's not nice" and the guy says "gee, I won't". And then does it again.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Absolutely nothing, pretty much guaranteed.
...If you're a corporation.
I think that was the whole point over fighting such a silly case all the way up to the Supreme Court--to virtually guarantee that you can never be subject to a class action case again. Let's not kid ourselves, who here thinks that any company will ever again sell any service again without a clause in it forcing arbitration and disallowing class action lawsuits?
The CSA, of course, being the Corporate States of America.
I recall an old Sci-Fi movie where "corporate employees" enjoyed a higher status in society (often called "corpies") and all sorts of far-out predictions about society. In this movie, a man had his identity revoked or some sort of thing like that and so he had to go underground... had an eye replacement and all sorts of things done to him to change his identity and of course had to shield his other ID things in a shielded container. (He actually killed the bad guy by planting his ID card on the bad guy and an airborne drone tracked the ID signal and blew the guy up!) Anyone know the title of this movie?
Per Jeffrey Toobin, “in every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.” That’s conservative jurisprudence in a nutshell.
As has become abundantly clear, "activist judges" are only a problem when their rulings don't fit the conservative POV.
Luke, help me take this mask off
You've got to be among the shortest-sighted people around. Even if the contract you signed doesn't have an arbitration clause now, you can bet any renewal or "changes in ToS" updates will contain this now that the bindings of local and state law defending consumer rights have been removed. That was just about all we had protecting the consumer from such abuses. Now the binders are off and soon, the gloves will be off too.
The headline is inflammatory and wrong. AT&T can't force you to do anything. All this says is that AT&T can have an element in a contract -- that you can enter into or not -- that if there's a dispute, it goes to arbitration instead of court. If you aren't willing to accept that clause, you don't sign the contract. It's just like any other condition. If you don't like a price or a part of the service or whatever, don't sign a contract.
Should there be, in your opinion, any legal right that you could not sign away with a contract? I.e., even if you agreed to give up the right, the law would not allow enforcement?
I am not a crackpot.
Do class action lawsuits not have juries? Huh. I didn't realize that.
There's a reason the EU has separate rules for non-negotiated contracts.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Would this ruling have affected the Tobacco settle? Nope. This only affects people who sign a contract waiving the right to class action. If you simply buy a product, and don't sign, you can still file a class action.
Case in point, iPhone. Could Apple force subscribers to sign? Sure. Of course, if you sell that iPhone to someone else, or you could buy it without a contract. The court should have no problem with a class action, with the limitation that anyone who is under contract would not be included.
The really big class actions are pharmaceutical ones, where individuals get hundreds of thousands, and companies pay hundreds of millions. And I don't think this is ever going away. Why? Because health insurance companies (HMOs) receive a portion of those settlements. And they will simply place any doctor or medicine that includes a class action waver outside of their network and refuse to cover it.
So, Pfizer has a choice. Face class action lawsuits if their drugs kill people. Or force arbitration, and lose all HMO coverage (or seriously reduced rates) for brand name drugs.
It's the one time I feel thankful for HMOs. They're big, ugly, and lawyered up like a BOSS, and they can push a class action lawsuit and/or lobby congress to make a legal change that actually benefits the patient (but only because it also benefits them as well).
I8-D
But you have to realize, this happens in other contracts as well. People sign their "rights" away all the time. A plea bargain is signing away the right to a trial. A prenuptial agreement signs away the right (in most cases) to a divorce lawsuit. Now imagine if none of those things were legally binding.
Unions often sign away certain legal recourses as well as part of contract negotiations. And 99% of the time, arbitration IS better than court, at least for unions. This is often because people are more likely to go to arbitration for smaller issues that aren't exactly "illegal". Issues like employees not being disciplined according to the rules. In non-union companies, if an employer is unfair, but not illegal, employees rarely have a recourse except quit or get fired. At least with a union, you can force a company into arbitration, and regardless of the outcome, they can't just fire you for bringing up the issue... try doing that at McDonalds or Walmart. Your ass would be fired on the spot.
In that case, I don't see it as giving up a "right". You have the "right" to remain silent. What's the next line? "If you refuse this right..."
You have the right to refuse a right.
I8-D
I'm as unhappy with the decision as anyone, but let's think more deeply about what it means. Surely the arbitration clause in a contract only affects action related to that contract, so while indeed the SCOTUS upheld corporate immunity from class-action suits for breach of contract, other forms of class-action suits (specifically, liability) would still apply. So this applies pretty much just to getting cheated on your bill and/or not having the promised services delivered, and wouldn't stop for example a future Erin Brockovich. IANAL
Here's a hopeful note: many members of Congress are trial lawyers. It may be possible to muster the political will to repeal the Federal Arbitration Act.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I think part of that was in Xchange
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242150/
Don't worry, the market will sort it all out!
If you don't like it, don't sign. Get it?
As patently stupid as this is, the court forgot one detail:
There is nothing that says customers can't band together and force AT&T to arbitrate with a large group of people at the same time. Or drag out the arbitration proceedings until they are no longer profitable.
It would be nice to see some states force companies to give up the right to forced arbitration as a condition of doing business in their state! No state is obligated to permit a business to operate, especially if they deny a permit to operate as a means of protecting their citizens from unfair practices.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Crimes are prosecuted by the government, which didn't sign the agreement.
recently dismantled regulations on corporate US presidential campaign donations, thus allowing corporations to nullify the votes of the electorates.
The cabal in this country is almost complete.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
So why are you in favor of this ruling? Most class action suits have juries.
War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
While your advise is helpful in the very loosest definition of the term, I don't think it demonstrates quite the nuanced understanding of the United States legal system that I'd hope that our Supreme Court justices would hold. There is legal precedence that it is unconscionable to use your position as the provider of a necessary good or service (such as food, shelter, a means of transportation) to insert clauses that offer a vastly imbalanced consideration into a contract. Many would argue that telephone service is necessary in the modern world on the same level that transportation is, and that the telecom industry was abusing its position of power to insert unconscionable terms into standard telephone contracts.
However, I suppose "just don't sign any predatory contracts" is valid legal advice as well. I'm glad that you brought up this point!
What is now to stop all water companies in the US from putting the same clause in their contracts and stop giving a shit about water safety because the worst that can happen is toothless arbitration? If you don't like it, you don't have to have water, right? Or power or health insurance for that matter.
I'd make a significant distinction between refusing to exercise a right and surrendering a right. I have the right to remain silent. If I choose to say something it doesn't imply I've surrendered by right to stop speaking later. You can always choose to not exercise a right because you feel it is in your best interest (waiving your right to a trial for instance). Depending on the type of right choosing to surrender it may imply a future obligation. An example would be testifying in your own defense at court. Choosing to testify on your own behalf may open you to answering questions that you might otherwise have been able to remain silent.
Which leads us directly to the question of natural (inalienable, or, in other words non-surrender-able) rights versus legal rights. With this judgement our Supreme Court seems to have clarified that the right to seek justice is a legal rather than an inalienable right, and can, therefore, be surrendered. I fundamentally disagree. One of the roles of government is to foster justice, not establish it. Unfortunately the constitution disagrees:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..."
or at least appears to. I *think* they (the framers) mean to establish what justice *is* rather than establish the right to seek justice. In that case there can be no arbiter above the government for the defining of just practice. I could then choose to waive my right to trial but never surrender it. Clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with me.
OK, so in arbitration, I get my sales tax back.
In a class action lawsuit, if I'm the lucky first guy to file, I might get a couple G's to serve as lead plaintiff, the lawyers make tens of millions of dollars, and everyone else gets a coupon for $10 off their next phone.
How much did I really lose here?
paintball
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.
Anyone who's surprised by this decision is crazier then I am.
They don't HAVE to go to arbitration. The contract allows them to go to small claims court instead. It just doesn't allow them to seek class-action status.
One would hope they could expect a fair shake in small-claims court.
paintball
I'll take the liberal. Why? Because at least right now liberal means progressive, and at least that's progress. Yes, there's 'Blue dog' liberals, ones that aren't really liberals, but we can weed them out with time and effort. It's like my buddy keeps telling me: "why should I bother voting? I'm just going to lose!". The answer is, if you don't vote, if you don't do SOMETHING to keep the bastards in check and try to make PROGRESS, they're run roughshod all over you. Frankly, I would care if they did that to you, but you end up dragging me down with you.
So get off your high horse and go vote FOR SOMETHING. And for God's sake, if you're poor or middle class, read up on what the conservatives are actually proposing. Unless your rich (or astroturfing for the rich) You'll be a liberal before you know it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That local telephone company was initially known as Southwestern Bell. They renamed to SBC in 1995, acquired SNET and Pacific Telesis (both formerly parts of the old AT&T) in 1998, acquired Ameritech (A merger of Michigan Bell, Indiana Bell, Illinois Bell, Ohio Bell, and Wisconsin Bell) in 1999, acquired AT&T in 2005, then AT&T Wireless (Which was separated from AT&T in 2001, and renamed to cingular in 2004) in 2006, and renamed itself as at&t (note the lowecase).
The new at&t is the majority of the old AT&T, with the remainder making up Verizon (Formed from NYNEX, Bell Atlantic, Worldcom, Contel, Vodafone, and Primeco) and Qwest (Formed from Northwestern Bell, Pacific Northwest Bell, and Mountain Bell).
Here's a picture to illustrate all this.
http://docjones.nodalpoint.net/att_breakup.jpg
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
is just Marxist code for "redistribution of wealth" and change is just radical code for "overthrowing of the United States," right?
Been that way at least since Reagan.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
freedom and the free market (which is the same thing as freedom) and anyone that would ever sue a corporation is therefore a freedom-hater, which makes them one of: Marxist, Terrorist, Islamofascist.
By definition, if you want to sue one of our American Companies, you are a traitor.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
or would they like some more? After all, when barbecued poor person meat becomes popular, the rich and powerful will all leave if we don't give it to them, so we might as well skewer us some regular folks and start butchering for the Great Freedom Feast (by invitation only)!
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
except public employee unions which are literally the incarnation of beelzebub on earth
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
I am aware that the company that is now called AT&T is one of the "Baby Bells" and that it bought up other pieces of the old AT&T, but it is still not the old AT&T.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The first 500,000 times AT&T goes to arbitration and has the user's full losses, plus the costs of being in arbitration, sucked out of their pockets, they'll realize just how cheap class-action suits really are. First, by making it one legal action to pay for. Second, because class-action lawyers ALWAYS settle for a fraction of the real lost value, because they're getting a third of it and that's $millions even if to a member of the class it's pennies on the $.
This is actually GREAT. It means that we can go to arbitration on class issues and slap them around millions of times over the same thing.
You're thinking of the way things use to be. Arbiters are currently chosen by the corporation. You have no say in who hears your case. The Christian Science Monitor reports that the arbitration firms find in favor of the corporation against the consumer 98.4% of the time and the remaining 1.6% offer consumers laughably small compensation that does not even come close to making them whole.
Let me put it bluntly to be clear. No consumer has ever won in arbitration. Under the current regime, none of them ever will.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Frankly all infrastructure should be run by public agencies, the corps can feel free to compete, but communications, roads/bridges/tunnels, health, electricity, and all other infrastructure services should be paid for with our taxes and any profit made should go back into the system.
If you run these things for profit then where do you cut corners? How do you keep the share holders happy?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Because the defendant does not get the presumption of innocence in class action cases. Punitive damages should require a "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. They currently don't.
Hey, sometimes people own houses that get in the way of your planned strip mall. Thank God for eminent domain!
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
You have the right to refuse a right was the point, not that you are forced to refuse a right. Sure, you can shut up later. But on the other hand, once you make a plea bargain, that's it. You signed the paper forever signing off that right to trial in that case. You can still go to court, and maybe reverse something, but that's not the same thing. I think we both agree on that.
In that transaction, the states forfeited their rights to absolute sovereignty. And the state representatives signed it. It can be undone, but so can an AT&T contract. You're not forced to keep service with them.
And that's the point. You have a choice. You can agree with their terms, or you can not do business with them. At at the end of the day, it's the people going, "OMG, AT&T IS FORCING US TO....!"
But the truth is that they're not. You have a right to sue AT&T. But AT&T wants to do business with people who agree with certain terms. You can opt-out at any time. You can leave the contract. But what happened under contract is covered by contract. You can leave AT&T, and then if they somehow still screw you, you can sue.
It absolutely kills me that people want the benefits of the service/business, but don't want to give companies any benefits in return.
People wonder why we don't have fiber broadband everywhere. Ignoring the fact that we are a giant, sprawling country where that's not financially feasible at this point, it's also a fact that these companies pay for armies of lawyers just to protect itself from its own customers. 1 customer can sue them for billions under class action for some $30 charge. They're already regulated, and if we want "punishment" then "We the People" should give the FCC more power.
But AT&T doesn't print money. If they lose a billion dollars, they're going to take it out of their own customers' asses later in higher fees. They're not just going to sit idly by on their losses. So there's no "win" for the customers via class action in that case.
I'm not against class action. I think used against employers is a positive thing. Employment contracts for the poor are far less "optional" than signing up for an iPhone. But to simply say that it's all wrong to enforce a contract... that needs to be decided by legislatures... and the point the Supreme Court made was, guess what, there is a federal arbitration law, so legislation did speak, and the class action is thrown out because "We the People" said we favor arbitration via our federal representatives.
And "We the People" can undo it with a single vote. It was a voluntary choice to choose an alternative right, and it can be undone.
I8-D
Admittedly, I tend to be rather pro-business, and decidedly anti-lawyer. However, in this case, I think this sets a terrible precedent. With a single stroke of a pen, any business can now make themselves completely immune to massive litigation, regardless of how richly it may be deserved. All it takes is a few extra lines in the EULA.
Regards;
No civil cases require "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Even an individual multimillion dollar case wouldn't have that kind of requirement. If they did there would certainly be far fewer civil cases. All those tobacco lawsuits would have to have been thrown out because there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that tobacco caused an individual case of cancer. It would be nearly impossible to hold companies and people accountable with that level of a burden of proof.
War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
In some cases (depending upon the contract, of course), the cost of arbitration is shared. In that case, it is even worse for you, the poor consumer. Here's how:
See how that works? You keep paying and paying and paying and nothing ever happens. For AT&T, the cost of ditching the meeting is higher than sending someone out to attend. They simply can't be bothered.
Bottom line: they win, you lose.
Yeah, right.
Exactly. The legal system could then return to being a system for deciding disputes rather than what it is now: a procedural way to loot companies and steal from people. Companies and people should not be "accountable" to everyone who can find a lawyer, they should only be "accountable" when they've actually harmed someone and it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
For contract cases, the current standards are fine. Either a contract has been fulfilled or not.
But tort cases and punishment with punitive damages should require a guilty verdict.
There hasn't been a serious liberal OR conservative in our government that actually gives a damn about the people in this country. You think this is a one sided issue? The only thing they care about is power and money for them and their own (i.e. their "party")... oh, and political correctness.