AT&T Uses Forced Arbitration To Overcharge Customers, Senators Say (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Five Democratic US senators allege that AT&T's use of forced arbitration clauses has helped the company charge higher prices than the ones it advertises to customers. The senators pointed to a CBS News investigation that described "more than 4,000 complaints against AT&T and [subsidiary] DirecTV related to deals, promotions and overcharging in the past two years." But customers have little recourse because they are forced to settle disputes with AT&T in arbitration, according to Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). "Forced arbitration provisions in telecommunications contracts erode Americans' ability to seek justice in the courts by forcing them into a privatized system that is inherently biased in favor of providers and which offers virtually no way to challenge a biased outcome," the senators wrote in a letter yesterday to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson. "Forced arbitration requires consumers to sign away their constitutional right to hold providers accountable in court just to access modern-day essentials like mobile phone, Internet, and pay-TV services." Forced arbitration provisions such as AT&T's also "include a class action waiver; language which strips consumers of the right to band together with other consumers to challenge a provider's widespread wrongdoing," they wrote.

Comments

forced arbitration for consumers..

[gl4ss]

..is stupid to allow.

anyone knows that. only americans don't.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[drinkypoo]

The americans who are allowing this to happen (politicians) have to be getting something out of it. The rest of us have little opportunity to avoid it.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Calydor]

Well, at least it sounds like those politicians are starting to have had enough and are pushing back. MAYBE they were simply ridiculously naive and thought the providers were going to be honest and honorable in arbitration, because that has ever happened before.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Salgak1]

And besides, the "International Decade of ME, Al Franken" expired sometime in the 1990s (Obscure Saturday Night Live reference. . . .)

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[TheGratefulNet]

a republican concept; deny regular people any rights, keep them in fear of big corps and slowly erode what little rights they have left.

BIG BUSINESS is all that matters to them.

and they forget that the other half of the population is NOT in the business ownership 'club' and does not benefit from the 'give the ruling class everything they ask for, and more shit.

did you notice only D's were fighting this?

no, both sides are not equally bad. not by a long shot.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[GameboyRMH]

Was just going to say this. How did this 1800s-ish idea manage to be born into and survive in the modern world? We know that company stores and debtors' prisons are bad ideas, yet many countries are OK with forced arbitration.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[GameboyRMH]

and they forget that the other half of the population is NOT in the business ownership 'club' and does not benefit from the 'give the ruling class everything they ask for, and more shit.

Oh they didn't forget, they either believe in magical trickle-down nonsense, or they just don't care.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[BarbaraHudson]

..is stupid to allow.

anyone knows that. only americans don't.

Most civilized jurisdictions have provisions that don't allow onerous provisions in contracts of adhesion (basically, contracts where it's just take-it-or-leave-it, no possibility to negotiate terms that are one-sided in favour of the provider). Even without such provisions, such contracts are a clear violation of public policy. Except, I guess, in oligarchies like the USA of Today, where, not matter who you vote for, you lose, business wins.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[jriding]

Why don't we try this. Vote out the politician that backs Big Corp. Then vote out the politicians that back Big Banks. Stop voting based on if there is a D or an R before their name.
Once the politicians realize that the R or D will not get them the votes they might start listening to US the People instead of wall street or big corp.

Instead the continue to divide and concur, and we all lose.
Until that happens wall street and big corp always win.

PS. Yes I understand this would require Dems to actually vote for Repubs and Repubs to vote for Dems.
Start voting the MAIN issues and stop worrying about the other stuff. Keep voting on each issue until we only have politicians that vote and decide laws for us not the elite.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Anonymous Coward]

In some places AT&T is the only option, Verizon doesn't actually have great service EVERYWHERE. Also, they all use forced arbitration clauses in their contracts. So yeah, you don't actually have a choice.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[DickBreath]

Yes. That. Forced arbitration is bad.

Surely in the 21st century, a modern company like AT&T can find better ways to screw their customers without the need of forced arbitration.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[GameboyRMH]

As opposed to demand-side economics.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[whoever57]

Why don't we try this. Vote out the politician that backs Big Corp. Then vote out the politicians that back Big Banks. Stop voting based on if there is a D or an R before their name.
Once the politicians realize that the R or D will not get them the votes they might start listening to US the People instead of wall street or big corp.

That's what the Wolfpac is about.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

The US has the BEST government MONEY CAN BUY.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

Which, in case you're terminally sarcasm-impaired, is why ALL government lobbying for BOTH parties needs to be a) truly public, i.e. easily available to and searchable by EVERYONE, and b) capped at a sane figure, say $1000 MAXIMUM per lobbyist.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Solandri]

It's not a Republican concept. It's a freedom concept. People are free to make their own decisions.

Every purchase is a sale. Every sale is a purchase. Economic transactions are symmetric that way. You are exchanging money for satellite TV service. DirecTV is exchanging satellite TV service for money. They are free to set the terms under which they'll agree to pay you (with service). You are free to set the terms under which you'll agree to pay them (with money). If both of you can come to equitable terms, then the trade happens. If you can't agree, then no trade happens.

If you don't like the arbitration clause, it's real simple - don't agree to it. Tell them you won't be buying their service because they insist on arbitration, and walk away. Find someone selling a similar product who doesn't require arbitration. If every seller requires arbitration, then perhaps you should investigate why they're all requiring arbitration, instead of immediately making the knee-jerk reaction of prohibiting it because you don't like it. If "half of the population in the business ownership 'club'" is requiring arbitration, there's probably a good reason for it.

Only Democrats were fighting this because taking away people's freedom under the guise of "the government knows better" is an anathema to Republican principles. Republicans believe in letting people make their own decisions, so the bad ideas die (because fewer people agree to them) while the better ideas flourish. They don't even claim to know which are the bad or good ideas - they just believe in your right to discover them for yourself.

Remember, this isn't a court which concluded that AT&T used arbitration to overcharge customers. This is a group of Senators claiming it. (I'd actually agree with them when it comes to cable and Internet service. Those are frequently government-granted monopolies in this country so you don't have the ability to walk away from deals you don't like - there are no other sellers because the government has prohibited them. But satellite TV and mobile phone services have competitors you can go to if you don't like the terms offered.) The one area I'd agree with them is that DirecTV's advertising is deceptive. Those $50/mo offers are introductory prices, and after the first year the price jumps up to the regular price which is buried in the fine print and difficult to find. My cable company OTOH advertised the regular price directly underneath the introductory price - in a smaller non-bold font, but very easy to see so I knew quickly and exactly what I was getting into. But that falls under the jurisdiction of the FTC, not class action lawsuits.

Re: forced arbitration for consumers..

[AvitarX]

True, but it seems of the 5% of senators that care about this issue, 100% are democrats.

This leads me to believe that democrats are less on the hook here, and both parties are not actually the same.

Re: forced arbitration for consumers..

[AvitarX]

I live in a state, the state has an established way to settle disputed when neither side agree.

It makes as much sense to be able to sign that away as it does to sign away government involvement in the event I murder someone.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the arbitration clause, it's real simple - don't agree to it. Tell them you won't be buying their service because they insist on arbitration, and walk away. Find someone selling a similar product who doesn't require arbitration.

Ha Ha you're funny! Like I have a choice of 20 different TV providers! I bet you think the "free market" works, too.

If every seller requires arbitration, then perhaps you should investigate why they're all requiring arbitration, instead of immediately making the knee-jerk reaction of prohibiting it because you don't like it. If "half of the population in the business ownership 'club'" is requiring arbitration, there's probably a good reason for it.

Yes, because they all figured out using it diminishes customer power, that's why..

Only Democrats were fighting this because taking away people's freedom under the guise of "the government knows better" is an anathema to Republican principles

No......[sigh]. it's because Republicans always always stick up for business over the individual. And actually, you realize, it's the arbitration clauses that are taking people's freedoms away.

Re: forced arbitration for consumers..

[GameboyRMH]

This. You can go without DirecTV and AT&T cable (which might mean no subscription TV in some parts of the US) but it's becoming practically impossible to run from forced arbitration clauses, because they're fucking everywhere these days.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[akgooseman]

That's a delightfully naive essay supporting Big Business. In the real world, Big Business pays "creative" lawyers to write one-sided contracts embedded with anti-consumer bomb shells and land mines. Now it's easy to say people should read the 30 page contract, but, even if we did, how many of us are savvy enough to understand legalese written by an expensive team of lawyers that don't work for us? Top that all off with slick advertising campaigns trying to convince us that BigCorp provides the best service, best price, is more honest than the competition, and loves God, hotdogs and apple pie. Big Business stacks the deck against consumers at every opportunity. Opaque, one-sided contracts are designed to keep us split up and individual with insufficient resources to level the playing field. In this particular case, maybe I reject AT&T - Verizon, T-Mobile, etc are no better, so what's my choice if I don't want to sign the contract?

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[currently_awake]

America: governed by the rich, for the rich.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[currently_awake]

Politicians are much smarter than they let on. They make a deal to let a big corporation take advantage of the voters, then tell the voters the corp was sneaky and underhanded. Only when the voters start revolting do they push the corps back into line.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[sjames]

So you're saying we are perfectly free to huddle in a shack with no electricity, no telecommunication, no gas, no water, etc if we don't like the nearly ubiquitous clauses limiting recourse to the courts?

Actually, we're not, the shack would be condemned as uninhabitable without at least power and water.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[anegg]

Words fail me. Rich people spend their money; there are gross examples of this all over the place. Some of them spend too much (see stories about Johnny Depp for an example). The money that rich people don't spend is unlikely to be "in their bank account," because bank accounts don't pay any interest. Rich people tend to invest their money, so that they can get richer. The money that they invest typically gets used by other people to do things that increase someone's value, and some of that increased value gets back to the rich people who invested money in the first place.

I think there are lots of problems with income disparity and wealth disparity. But your ultimate sentence doesn't match my observations.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Archangel Michael]

Yes, all caused by Tax n Spend that sends money to DC, and then to the big D and R donor corporations who get special treatment and laws and bailouts.

Regulation, Taxes all are regressive. And your solution is ... likely ... more regulation and taxes. Pretty soon, you end up like Venezuela. And I am the retard. Got it.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[spaceman375]

A little more focused: How about anyone who takes an oath of office, elected or appointed, has to renounce any party affiliation and reaffirm their commitment to representing their constituency and the country?
      Parties are for colleges, like the electoral college maybe. They are NOT supposed to be running the f*ing country. Right now these 'must be intelligent somehow to be where they are' people spend most of their time trying to tear down anything the 'other guys' do or even want to do. They need to sit together according to state, not who they like to party with.
      Make them work together; right now it's far more wasteful than just corruption could be doing.

Re: forced arbitration for consumers..

[skam240]

No one pays more then they are supposed to in taxes because any extra amount they would pay would make virtually no difference in federal tax revenue. Only an increase spread out over a large body can make a meaningfull difference.

This is exactly why all taxes are not done on voluntary basis. No one would pay them and yet most people believe that the federal government should collect some sort of taxes so it can exist.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[skam240]

I feel conservatives get to Venezuela in a lot of things is like hiw the Underpants Gnomes from South Park got to "profit!".

Step One: Political stuff I dont like
Step Two: ....?
Step Three: Venezuela!

In summary, there's no reason a country has to end up like Venezuela as you describe above. There's no slippery slope here where everything HAS to go to far

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Agripa]

The americans who are allowing this to happen (politicians) have to be getting something out of it. The rest of us have little opportunity to avoid it.

The politicians are fishing for more bribes from AT&T.

Re: forced arbitration for consumers..

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that since only 90% of Democrats are rotten, they're less on the hook and radically different from the other party?

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Zxern]

Johny Depp is hardly rich compared to what some make in this country. Hedge fund managers are racking billions with a B in income every year. Yes they spend some of it. But not enough to drive any kind of demand.

For example. You could make 1 $100million yacht and sell it once. Or make and sell 100,000 $1000.00 boats. Which is better for the economy as a whole?

Typically that's how the stock market should work, people invest extra cash to help a business grow and see a return down the road. But that hasn't been the case for quite a long time now. Why do you think so many companies are burning cash in stock buybacks? It's certainly not to grow the business.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[Notabadguy]

So you're saying we are perfectly free to huddle in a shack with no electricity, no telecommunication, no gas, no water, etc if we don't like the nearly ubiquitous clauses limiting recourse to the courts?

Actually, we're not, the shack would be condemned as uninhabitable without at least power and water.

Since you think saying no to DirectTV is equivalent to huddling in a shack without electricity, water, gas, or basic essentials...

Yes, you SHOULD huddling in a shack without those things for a while to get your priorities in order.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[sjames]

You think the more important utilities aren't using arbitration clauses?

Of course, internet service is becoming increasingly important if you want to find a decent job.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[guises]

Unfortunately, it's not politicians allowing this to happen. It's the Supreme court. Here, this is the most relevant decision. Though there are a set of decisions related to that.

... Is what I was going to say. Actually, I'm reading a little more on this and apparently it goes back to the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, which allows for contractually-based forced arbitration. The recent rulings seem to be about extending this to class-action lawsuits. i.e.: AT&T is using the arbitration clause to not only force individuals into arbitration, but to preclude any class-action suits against them. Someone will hopefully correct me if I'm reading that wrong.

So I guess we could blame present day politicians for failing to get rid of a century-old law, but that seems kind of arbitrary. Maybe we should just point out that this law is a harmful one, and ask that it be removed without placing blame.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[drinkypoo]

Unfortunately, it's not politicians allowing this to happen. It's the Supreme court.

Judge is a political position. They are nominated, elected or selected, and rule on matters of political import. And we've all heard of activist judges. The fact that they have enough decisions to make of political import that we can claim their job is amounting to activism proves their political impact.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[PlaynBass]

You are already too late if your involvement begins with voting for or against the candidates that the parties present to you. The key is to regain control of nomination process, which is where the real power lies: Look towards anything that will level the playing field and encourage more independent candidates, then make sure by requiring open books on campaign financing. Our governmental systems serve money and power institutionally over and before any consideration for the lesser mandates of the Constitution to, "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...". The Constitutional checks and balances set in place to protect the weak and less successful have largely been supplanted by the arcane rules of the legislative bodies and party politics that manipulate them for political ends. Does the original capitalization give us any insight as to the relative importance of the terms and the intent of the document that followed? The interesting times that beset us now are like a pustulent boil, the long-dormant volcano of underlying infection of injustice, misuse of privilege, and a crippling starvation of access to the basic necessities of a technological civilization. To expect an upswelling from the public to vote the scoundrels out is to ignore the long-term indoctrination and atrophy of the US American voter, softened by years of servitude brought on by an economy of personal and institutional debt, which keeps us all enslaved to the global financiers who derive their profits from our continued blind servitude to a rigged and uncaring marketplace.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[GESUS]

Yeah, over here there is no way for a business to write a clause in a contract that overrules the law of the land (involving a private citizen, corps have lawyers so they can sign away most things). I think that could even void the entire contract.

Buuut I'm not living in the land of the free so what do I know.

Re: forced arbitration for consumers..

[Archangel Michael]

Taxes that are voluntary ... tobacco, alcohol, gasoline .... The higher the taxes, the less revenue you get.

Taxes that aren't voluntary ... income.

Taxes are regressive. All of them.

Re:forced arbitration for consumers..

[gl4ss]

hmm wait, slavery is now a freedom concept?

look, one of the keys to making freedom stay is simple, you don't allow people to sign out of the freedom.

look - if you allow arbitration for consumer issues then you might just as well cancel all consumer protection laws while you're at it.

so again, allowing companies to ask you to sign for arbitration is stupid. everyone knows that the end result is consumers getting screwed over.

They are free to set the terms under which they'll agree to pay you (with service). You are free to set the terms under which you'll agree to pay them (with money). If both of you can come to equitable terms, then the trade happens. If you can't agree, then no trade happens.

in case you didn't quite follow it, allowing arbitration allows the company to change the rules of the agreed contract and the resulting confrontation is then resolved in a closed court chosen by the company behind closed doors. it's a switch and bait. the terms of the transaction are changed or the terms of it are hidden in before.

and really you shouldn't allow it because then it will soon expand to starbucks as well and everything else - maybe all car companies start asking for it. recall? no, don't need. you agreed already to settle the issue at your expense behind closed doors and also to never tell anyone.

look I wouldn't mind if the arbitrator was am actual neutral 3rd party but that's not how arbitration works and everyone knows that.

Enforcable?

[McGregorMortis]

There are many common contract clauses that courts have found to be unenforceable. Arbitration-only and class-action-blocking clauses both seem like prime candidates to be found unenforceable.

Is there any case law along those lines?

Re: Enforcable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and the case law is in favor of the compelled arbitration clauses.

Re:Enforcable?

[pr0fessor]

No clue about federal laws but some states have laws that guarantee a persons right to a court in both civil and criminal matters. These type contracts are not used in those states.

Re:Enforcable?

[Anonymous Coward]

No clue about federal laws but some states have laws that guarantee a persons right to a court in both civil and criminal matters. These type contracts are not used in those states.

Federal law supersedes state laws. Federal law FAVORS arbitration. So that doesn't actually work.

See, for example Ruszala v. Brookdale Living, 1 A.3d 806, 415 N.J. Super. 272 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010) (where the NJ legislature tried to limit forced arbitration in nursing home contracts via state law, and the New Jersey Appellate Division, a state court, held the New Jersey violated the Federal Arbitration Act).

Re:Enforcable?

[Richard_at_work]

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in 2015 (DirecTV vs. Imburgia) that arbitration clauses in consumer contracts were binding, even above state law go the contrary.

Re:Enforcable?

[Richard_at_work]

California lost that argument in the Supreme Court (DirecTV vs. Imburgia - 2015).

Re:Enforcable?

[orlanz]

There was a 2015 Supreme Court ruling* that specifically addressed this, with arbitration, involved DirectTV, and a DirectTV clause that said "except where overruled by State". They ruled that Federal Law overruled California's** AND thus the exception clause in DirectTV's contract!!!

When it comes to Telecoms it's been extremely rare in the past 30 years that the politicians don't favor big business. Telecoms hate state by state regulations... unless it protects them against competition.

We had a very brief stint with Mr Wheeler as FCC chair. But something he swam upstream for years against a Republican majority is being washed away in mere months under Ajit. With Republicans owning the government there is no chance the arbitration issues will get corrected. They are also working on gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which is the only other organization that can address the issues via the unfair consumer contracts angle. I guess consumer contracts will get far worse in the next 4-6 years before the pendulum swings back and gets to partially fix it.

* = http://www.latimes.com/busines...
** = States rights... I only need them for stuff my party doesn't like!

Re:Enforcable?

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Arbitration-only and class-action-blocking clauses both seem like prime candidates to be found unenforceable.

Is there any case law along those lines?

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly held that arbitration clauses in the main are enforceable (ironically enough, in a case against AT&T Mobility)

That said, there are specific provisions of arbitration clauses that can be held unconscionable and thus unenforceable (e.g., allocating costs in a way that will effectively prevent the little guy from seeking arbitration at all), along the same theories long used in general contract law as you mention.

Re:Enforcable?

[BarbaraHudson]

Probably wasn't even a real lawyer. The cost of the phone call from a real lawyer would make it not worth their time to fight.

Re:Enforcable?

[Solandri]

One side doesn't decide it. One side insists on it, and the other side has to agree to it if they want what the first side is selling (satellite TV service in this case).

Your bank robber analogy doesn't work because the robber is forcing the bank to hand over its money. In the case of satellite TV service, you are willingly giving AT&T money in exchange for a service you want. Just like you have the right not to buy from them if you don't like their terms, they have the right to refuse to sell to you if they don't like your terms.*

Arbitration clauses are a result of (ironically) jury trials in civil courts awarding huge damages for trivial or stupid reasons. Since jurors are selected at random from the entire population, you cannot be sure if you're going to get competent or incompetent jurors. Lawyers exploit this by dismissing potential jurors who might actually understand the technical minutia of a civil case (I've been dismissed every time after I say I have an engineering degree from MIT). Companies responded to this uncertainty by requiring arbitration - where they know cases will be decided by competent arbitrators. (Arbiters work for an independent company - they're not employees of the company selling you the product/service as you seem to think.)

* The Supreme Court cases allowing arbitration were based on satellite TV and cellular phone service - both of which are national and thus have competition. I suspect the arbitration clauses in cable TV and landline phone service would be found illegal, because those are government-granted monopolies. The buyer doesn't have a choice in those cases - if you want cable TV, the government forces you to buy it from that one cable TV company. If the cable company insists on arbitration, that becomes more like your bank robber analogy.

Re:Enforcable?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Oh look, a $400 million settlement, where the half dozen principle plaintiffs get $30,000 each, the lawyers get $50 million, and all other customers get $7 off their next pay-per-view.

One will donate to Franken's campaign. If we follow the money, let's follow all of it. What wreckage for a tiny fraction of one cent on the dollar.

Re: Enforcable?

[omnichad]

Right. And it will continue to be that way unless a consumer protection law is passed about this specifically. Otherwise, this is a contract - and people are allowed to sign away lots of rights in a contract - even in a unilateral one.

Re:Enforcable?

[pr0fessor]

I had not heard that but would assume that it would really depend on the state and the wording of the law as a well worded state law would be done in a manner that complies with the federal laws. Things like a minimum wage are easy the federal government says shall not be less than and the states says shall not be less than a higher number.

 

Re:Enforcable?

[thunderdanp]

I'm an attorney, but am not a specialist in this area. I wonder if this is an example of a contract of adhesion, that could be found unconscionable. Of course, that takes either a consumer or an Attorney General stepping up to bat on that theory.

Re:Enforcable?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

In most jurisdictions, the Small Claims Procedure Act (or equivalent) provides the defendant with the right to remove the case to the full district court. Moreover, even small claims court is bound by the laws; if the relevant jurisprudence favors mandatory arbitration, the small claims court will honor a motion to dismiss based on that.

But it saves money!

[Anonymous Coward]

Arbitration panels are always filled with industry insiders. They are always unfair. (The financial services industry does the same thing. )

They claim it's for the "good of the consumer" but as we see, whenever an industry says that, it is never the case.

And too many folks have drank the "government regulations are bad" Kool-Aid and we are going end up with even less protections when the Republicans get done. The pendulum is swinging way too far to the right.

No, this IS a partisan issue. The Republicans only care about big businesses like AT&T and we can all just get some knee-pads and KJ and bend over a take it.

Re:But it saves money!

[omnichad]

If suing the provider is against the contract, it's time we start suing arbitration companies for their corruption

AT&T is the devils anus

[bazmail]

Ditched em years ago. Shop around and don't be too shy to haggle in person in store. It works.

Re:AT&T is the devils anus

[BarbaraHudson]

They can't stop wireless ISPs that aren't related to the big telecoms. A Pringles can antenna can help if you're in a fringe area.

Re:AT&T is the devils anus

[Nunya666]

Unless you live in an apartment complex that has an exclusivity agreement with them, Meaning that they won't let any other provider into the complex.

If choice is important to you, then choose to live in a different apartment complex.

Their logo is the Death Star. What do you expect?

[enjar]

They alter the deal all the time, and you pray they don't alter it further.

Re:Essential?

[Calydor]

The keyword was modern-day essentials. Sure you might survive without, but good luck finding a new job in this day and age without at least a cell phone and proper internet.

Re:Can they?

[thaylin]

If you are attempting civil remedies for fraud then youa re stuck with arbitration, but if you are trying to get criminal then you need the state AG to go after them, and good luck unless you are in a liberal state.

Who knew arbitration would be exploited? Everyone.

[sinij]

I am shocked, shocked to hear that corporations abuse arbitration clauses to profiteer and engage in dishonest billing practices.

Fix the damned court system...

[bradley13]

I'm sure that arbitration can be abused. However, until the US fixes its damned court system, companies have no choice but to insist on this.

Personal example: I used to run a small company that produced a niche ERP system. Our Swiss attorney told us: Whatever you do, never sell to a customer in the US." We made one exception. We sold the system to a small organization that was just determined it was what they needed. A few months later, for reasons we were not privy to, the company fired someone who was a major user of the system. So she goes to a lawyer, to sue us, because she lost her job. I mean, really, WTF?

The tort system is a lottery, and both lawyers and plaintiffs use it as one - hoping to strike it rich off the back of someone else. The lawyers are the ones to tell their clients "no, you don't have a case, go get a life". A lawyer who takes a frivolous case to court should be fined, and required to personally pay the other side's legal expenses.

Re:Fix the damned court system...

[thaylin]

Forced arbitration would not have helped you there because your contract was with the company not the lady...

In addition in cases of frivolous cases the party does have to pay legal expenses of the other side.

Re:Fix the damned court system...

[thegarbz]

So she goes to a lawyer, to sue us, because she lost her job. I mean, really, WTF?

That's not a broken system. That's a permissive system. A broken system would be if she won.

Re:Fix the damned court system...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Did the Bradley13 get compensated for defending against this unfair and frivolous law suite? If not it is a broken system.

Did the lawyer or the plaintiff have any risk at all they might lose something, anything? If they did not have any such risk, it is a broken system

All of us who could have benefited by competition if Bradley13 was competing in the market. He was scared away. We ALL lost.

Re:Fix the damned court system...

[Luthair]

My understanding is its pretty rare for defendants to be awarded court costs. Probably particularly true when the accuser is an individual and the defendant is a company.

Re:Fix the damned court system...

[thegarbz]

Did the Bradley13 get compensated for defending against this unfair and frivolous law suite? If not it is a broken system.

I don't know, ask him. Many court systems around the world allow you to get sued for anything and all expenses get covered by the loser.

Even if he wasn't that's hardly a case for denying people the right to sue. Any way you cut it forced arbitration is a sidestepping of legal principles and companies sure as hell do not have "no choice" in the matter, especially given that despite America's stupid reputation for suing everything that moves the odds of it happening are still minute enough for it to simply be written off as a minor business expense.

Re:Choose your poison

[thaylin]

So you are going with stigginit, because you dont like Franken screw the customers who are being cheated...

Bunch of idiots.

[will_die]

You cannot sign away your Constitutional rights, you still have the right to sue you are just agreeing to where it will decided. However welcome to the fight for tort reform.

Re:Bunch of idiots.

[BarbaraHudson]

Since when do you actually sign a contract when you call them up to get tv, phone, internet, cable, or satellite tv? BTW - a contract signed after the fact - for example, on the back of a work order signifying that the work was done - is not legally binding unless you also sign the back separately. Bye-bye severance fees.

The problem is with corruption, not arbitration

[christopherrto]

On paper, arbitration is far more efficient and cost effective than court action, and I for one am for it. The problem appears to be the bias involved. If the arbitrator is a neutral third party, who is familiar with the case law/issues, then it would be far more cost and time effective, and provide fair outcomes.

Re:The problem is with corruption, not arbitration

[thaylin]

The problem is how do you get a buisness to fix their abusive practices if you cannot group together. Grouping together for 1 case is more cost effective for both parties then not, but the business does not want to fix abusive practices that would be brought to light by group arbitration so they ban it.

Re:The problem is with corruption, not arbitration

[sjames]

Well, there's the problem. The arbitrator needs to get paid. Inevitably, he is dealing with 2 parties. One that will likely never need arbitration services again and another that could just about fill his calendar single handed, if they like the results.

How is it even possible

[DontBeAMoran]

Forced arbitration requires consumers to sign away their constitutional right to hold providers accountable in court just to access modern-day essentials like mobile phone, Internet, and pay-TV services.

If it's a constitutional right, then wouldn't it be illegal for AT&T to ask clients to sign it away? Why would that even hold in court?

"You signed a paper saying you are not human, therefore the court does not recognize you as a human being anymore." is as stupid as this thing.

Re:How is it even possible

[thaylin]

No. You cannot have your rights taken from you, but you CAN give them away if you so desire, but it only affects that agreement. So your analogy would be more like:

"You signed a paper saying you are not human, therefore the COMPANY does not recognize you as a human being anymore.". The court and other companies would still be required to recognize you as a human, but you agreed not to be in regards to the first company.

Re:How is it even possible

[DontBeAMoran]

You cannot have your rights taken from you, but you CAN give them away if you so desire.

That's insane that this is even allowed. In which hypothetical cases would something like this be useful? If it's a right then a company should not be able to take it away from you.

Re:How is it even possible

[3247]

If it's a constitutional right, then wouldn't it be illegal for AT&T to ask clients to sign it away?

Owning property is a constitutional right. Even though, you can sign it away (that's called "selling").

Re:How is it even possible

[Calydor]

So you signed away that you're a human being, and the case goes to arbitration with a company-owned arbitrator who would then, seeing as you are no longer recognized as a human being by them, be allowed to do whatever he wants to you, including but not limited to torture and murder?

Re:How is it even possible

[thaylin]

it is illegal to torture and murder pets.. lol

Re:How is it even possible

[thaylin]

Again they did not take them, you gave them up "freely", just like you give up your right to privacy when you use ios or andriod, or any modern free cloud offering.

Re:How is it even possible

[will_die]

You cannot even give them away, for example you cannot sign a piece of paper saying that you can now be treated like a pre-US civil war black slave and ignore those amendments.
The state under certain circumstances can take those rights away, for instance locking you in jail and after being released preventing you from hanging out with other known criminals.
You can choice to not use those rights, for instance not exercising your right to bear arms.
So in the case of arbitration, you still have the right, however you have said you would accept a court of arbitration instead of a state run court.
So if these people want to do something join with the people wanting tort reform and remove the federal law from 1920s that set limits on class actions.

Re: Enforcable? Overloaded courts?

[jedidiah]

Nothing about "overload" has made it that way. Judges have simply sided with corporations. They don't care about the erosion of individual rights.

Should be a chocie

[gurps_npc]

Contracts should NOT be allowed to block both personal court cases and class actions.

I.E. If you require arbitration, then you must allow class actions. If you block class actions, then you can not require arbitration.

Also, all arbitrators should be required to participate in some kind of YELP like ranking system, allowing the suer to have SOME idea of how the arbitrator works, because the contract writer surely did research on them before they picked them.

CBS News is reliable again?

[Attila Dimedici]

Isn't CBS News the news company that ran with the story that George W. Bush went AWOL from his Air National Guard unit based on documents which could not have been written less than 10 years after they purported to have been written? (rhetorical question)

The news article quoted in the summary found over 4,000 COMPLAINTS that AT&T had used arbitration to overcharge. It does not tell us how many of those complaints it actually verified. The only evidence they offered that arbitration is biased is that only 18 customers actually used it. They did not provide any evidence that a larger number tried to use it and gave up, only that only 18 customers used it.

Re:CBS News is reliable again?

[thaylin]

What do they have to do with anything? there are 4000 complains of overcharging STOP. That is a lot for any company, even one ATTs size.

They do not say that it is biased because 18 people used it, I am not sure how you are reading that. They are claiming it is biased because it is stacked with industry insiders. But lets look at the statistics, in employment cases arbitration favors the business pretty much 80% of the time, in trail the employee wins ~70% of the time, that is almost completely opposite. In the side businesses win it is judged by a typical non lawyer with business ties,in the other it is judged by judge and a jury.

Re:CBS News is reliable again?

[Attila Dimedici]

4,000 complaints certainly warrants an investigation. Perhaps someone will do one. However, until these complaints are investigated we have no basis for taking action. You cite some interesting stats concerning arbitration vs lawsuits. Those are not mentioned in the CBS article, nor are they mentioned in the letter from the Senators, who are basing their letter on the CBS non-investigation.

There may be a problem with arbitration (and if the numbers you cite are true, there is...although those numbers suggest there is a similar problem in the opposite direction with the courts). If an investigation reveals that such a problem exists, then action should be taken (although, your numbers make it seem like that problem represents a violation of existing laws, so the action might be prosecution rather than new laws).

Re:Essential?

[kilfarsnar]

Broadband internet, cable tv, and cellular service are not essential services. First world problems.

Seems appropriate. The United States is a first-world country, why wouldn't it have first-world problems? And yes, broadband Internet and cell phones are essentials in the modern world; cable TV not so much. Try working a professional job without them. Go ahead, tell the interviewer you don't have a cell phone or Internet in your home and see how they react. Just tell them when you'll be home to receive a call and that the rest of your correspondence will be by mail.

As society increases its capabilities and comes to rely on them, modern technology and equipment become essential for living and participating in society. But I'm guessing you already knew that.

Ayn Rand

[fulldecent]

I do not respect the authority of no-lawsuit clauses for essential services.

Solved. This is a non-story

Please provide reference to a SCOTUS ruling which affirm arbitration agreements in this circumstance and I'll shut up. P.S. now SCOTUS is hearing whether employer-mandated non-class-action clauses are enforceable: http://www.insurancejournal.co...

Re: Ayn Rand

[Anonymous Coward]

DirecTV vs. Imburgia.

Re:Ayn Rand

[compro01]

Please provide reference to a SCOTUS ruling which affirm arbitration agreements in this circumstance and I'll shut up

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion

Re:Choose your poison

[kilfarsnar]

I'm not a fan of AT&T. In fact I don't much like them at all.

But I'm even more skeptical of lawyers and courts and of National Socialist senators like Mr. Franken.

So as much as I hate it, I think I'm going to cheer for AT&T in this case.

This is how Republicans keep getting elected (well, that and gerrymandering). You don't like AT&T, but you'll side with them because you think Al Franken is a "socilaist". Not even that, but a "National Socialist"! He's a State Senator, so I'm not sure how he could be considered national. Ooooh, you meant like the National Socialist German Workers party! Very clever, you sure nailed him with that one. Well played

Re:Essential?

[BarbaraHudson]

Broadband internet, cable tv, and cellular service are not essential services. First world problems.

Seems appropriate. The United States is a first-world country,

America is the first-world country.

Congratulations on the USA getting universal public health care!

So...we're done with "impeach Trump" then?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> (the day after Comey's testimony) Five Democratic US senators talked about (something other than Trump)

Just to be clear...we're done with the "impeach Trump" bit then?

So Don't USE AT&T?

[Toad-san]

Is that so hard to understand? Or do you just hope everything will work out so all those bad contracts won't ever come into play?

When I was an independent software programmer, I'd get all sorts of boilerplate (and totally bogus) contracts from firms who wanted me to do a job for them. You know, "Everything you do and will ever do will belong to us; you can never do anything like this ever again; and we'll own everything you have if you make the slightest objection." I'd drag out ye olde red pencil, slash the hell out of the contract, and mail it back for a redo. (No, I'm not a lawyer.) They'd cry and whine about the delay, I'd send them a nice simple clean contract ("I'll do what you want, you'll own what I do for you and nothing else, you'll pay $xxx at these points, $xxx on final delivery and approval.") They'd always sign my contract, never had a problem.

If you don't like it, don't sign it! If you don't understand it, don't sign it! If you need a lawyer to explain it to you, don't sign it! Doh.

Re:So Don't USE AT&T?

[sjames]

Go look up the term "contract of adhesion". Then consider that the competition will shove similar contracts under your nose.

Then you will understand why the situation bears no resemblance to anything you posted.

Re:So Don't USE AT&T?

[david_thornley]

We're talking about monopoly or near-monopoly services. What would happen if there was one company that wanted your services, and they would only sign the contract they made for you, without changing a single word? How about if there were four, all of which insisted on their own unaltered contracts?

The Effort doesn't make sense

[Neuronwelder]

Just add more hidden fees and be done with it already!!

Stupid constitution

[holophrastic]

I don't understand. Why do you have a constitution that can be signed away?

Re:Stupid constitution

[thaylin]

It cant be.. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. The constitution regulates ONLY the government, not businesses. you cannot sign away your constitutional rights, but you can sign away your legal rights to a Business.

Re:Stupid constitution

[holophrastic]

So you can still have the government sue at&t for ripping off consumers?

Either you can or you can't seek governmental justice for business affairs. It would seem, to me, that seeking justice from the courts would be a constitutional right. I would have expected that there would be nothing that you could do or could sign that would limit your right to do so.

Of course, it's not my constitution -- something that I'm thankful I've been able to say repeatedly all year.

Re:Stupid constitution

[thaylin]

You cannot, as a private citizen sue the company, but if you can convince the state AG to go after themt hat would work, but that is VERY hard to do, especially in GOP states where the businesses seem to do no wrong.

Re:Choose your poison

[omnichad]

He's a State Senator, so I'm not sure how he could be considered national.

He's a US Senator, who happens to represent a specific state. That is national.

Re:Essential?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

First world=NATO, Second world=Warsaw Pact, Third World=non-aligned countries. That's the "original" definition that developed in the 1950s.

Re:If you don't like forced arbitration...

[thaylin]

How when they all use forced arbitration.

Re: Enforcable? Overloaded courts?

[sabri]

Judges have simply sided with corporations.

Judges don't side with corporations. Judges interpret the law, made by representatives of the people.

You want to change the outcome of a court case? Change the law.

And for the record: I'm not defending these stupid arbitration clauses, and I personally believe that they should non-enforceable. But it's up to congress to change the laws, not judges. Be careful what you wish for.

Everyone seems to agree this is unfair

[PJ6]

and yet we have a major ideology saying that government is bad if it tries to stop big business abuse, and if you disagree, you're a "liberal".

Re:Choose your poison

[kilfarsnar]

Meh, fair enough.