Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Defeats Class Action In Unlimited Data Throttling Case (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes from an Ars Technica article: Customers who sued ATT over its practice of throttling unlimited data plans will not be able to pursue a class-action lawsuit against the company. ATT argued that the customers could not only have their complaints heard individually in arbitration, and Judge Edward Chen of US District Court in Northern California has sided with the cellular company. Chen accepted ATT's argument, noting that the Supreme Court previously upheld ATT's arbitration provision in a 2011 decision. In the 2011 case, ATT Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court found that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted a California state law that limited the power of companies to force customers into arbitration. [Chen's ruling granting ATT's motion to compel arbitration was issued on February 29 and highlighted in a MediaPost article Friday.] "Plaintiffs argue that the Concepcion Court never addressed the specific issues now raised -- i.e., that enforcement of the arbitration agreements would violate their rights as protected by the Petition Clause of the First Amendment," Chen wrote. "Because there is no state action in the instant case, Plaintiffs lack a viable First Amendment challenge to the arbitration agreements. As Plaintiffs have not challenged the arbitration agreements on any other bases, the Court grants ATT's motion to compel arbitration."
ATT is still being punished by the FCC and FTC. Ars Technica writes, "The FCC last year proposed a $100 million fine to punish ATT for throttling the wireless Internet connections of customers with unlimited data plans without adequately notifying the customers about the reduced speeds. Separately, the FTC sued ATT in an attempt to gain millions of dollars worth of refunds for customers who paid for unlimited data and had their speeds throttled."
ATT is still being punished by the FCC and FTC. Ars Technica writes, "The FCC last year proposed a $100 million fine to punish ATT for throttling the wireless Internet connections of customers with unlimited data plans without adequately notifying the customers about the reduced speeds. Separately, the FTC sued ATT in an attempt to gain millions of dollars worth of refunds for customers who paid for unlimited data and had their speeds throttled."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'll put to you this way, if you ever are dealing with customer service, and have decided, well, I am just going to have to sue them, you know it's over. If you tell them that, they'll say go ahead, and they are out. If you instead document your problem, send a dispute notice with intent to arbitrate, they have 45 days to deal with you (in most cases), or else they are $1,000 minimum. You will get a call, it will be someone who can settle and solve problems, and that's that.
Not to discredit your great essay and experiences, but I've actually had resounding success multiple times by threatening to sue. However, I don't just yell "I'm going to sue you!" or something like that which they probably hear on a daily - if not hourly - basis.
I start at the top: "You've breached your contract, and because of that I will now sue your company. I do not make threats of lawsuits, I am telling you what I will do. Our contract has an arbitration clause, however, I will argue in small claims that because you've breached the contract my obligations are null and void and I should be able to sue you directly. I live in a close community where the judge doesn't take kindly to people who don't keep their word. It will cost me about $150 to file, it will cost your company a thousand dollars in lawyer time just to deal with coming here and unsuccessfully defending yourselves before you lose and pay me what I want. But, here's the funny part - even if you win, you lose. You will still ultimately pay your lawyers more to defend your company than you would pay me in fulfillment of your contract. Your call."
I've used a variation of that speech on three occasions - two to get a new refrigerator - and each time I was quickly transferred to someone who gave me exactly what I wanted without asking further questions.
You can't say "I'm going to sue". Instead, you have to make it painfully clear that you at least have passing familiarity with the legal system and the process. That little speech wouldn't work as well against their actual lawyers, by the way, but I have another method for dealing with them and I've had great success in other areas where I've interacted directly with counsel.
Do you have ESP?
But, here's the funny part - even if you win, you lose. You will still ultimately pay your lawyers more to defend your company than you would pay me in fulfillment of your contract. Your call.
Otherwise known as a cost of litigation settlement demand -- exactly the same technique patent trolls use to try to skim from businesses large and small. But, like many of them, eventually you're likely to run into a Newegg that understands that if it just forks over money every time it's threatened like that, it'll experience death by a thousand cuts. Companies make judgment calls all the time that it's better in the long run to pay the lawyers more for a particular case to set an example that they're not an ATM to everyone who comes along with their hand out.