Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Suffers Another Blow In Court Over Throttling of 'Unlimited' Data (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A federal judge has revived a lawsuit that angry customers filed against AT&T over the company's throttling of unlimited mobile data plans. The decision comes two years after the same judge decided that customers could only have their complaints heard individually in arbitration instead of in a class-action lawsuit. The 2016 ruling in AT&T's favor was affirmed by a federal appeals court. But the customers subsequently filed a motion to reconsider the arbitration decision, saying that an April 2017 decision by the California Supreme Court "constitutes a change in law occurring after the Courts arbitration order," Judge Edward Chen of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said in the new ruling issued last week. The state Supreme Court "held that an arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public policy and therefore unenforceable," Chen wrote.
AT&T argued that the court shouldn't consider the new argument, saying that plaintiffs raised it too late. The plaintiffs could have made the same argument before the April 2017 Supreme Court ruling, since the ruling was based on California laws that "were enacted decades ago," according to AT&T. Chen was not persuaded, noting that "there had been no favorable court rulings" the plaintiffs could have cited earlier in the case. "The Court also finds that Plaintiffs acted with reasonable diligence once there was a ruling favorable to them," Chen wrote. As a result, the plaintiffs can now proceed with their case in U.S. District Court against AT&T. However, AT&T will appeal Chen's latest decision, presumably in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
AT&T argued that the court shouldn't consider the new argument, saying that plaintiffs raised it too late. The plaintiffs could have made the same argument before the April 2017 Supreme Court ruling, since the ruling was based on California laws that "were enacted decades ago," according to AT&T. Chen was not persuaded, noting that "there had been no favorable court rulings" the plaintiffs could have cited earlier in the case. "The Court also finds that Plaintiffs acted with reasonable diligence once there was a ruling favorable to them," Chen wrote. As a result, the plaintiffs can now proceed with their case in U.S. District Court against AT&T. However, AT&T will appeal Chen's latest decision, presumably in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Stop calling plans with limits 'unlimited'.
Throttling, data-caps, whatever else are still limits.
WTF! Go away!
After its all said and done. AT&T gets hit with a slap on the wrist fine. Fine em $12, that'll teach em not to do it again.
As a user who pays a reasonable fee and uses a fair share of data, I appreciate these caps being in place to keep down costs that would otherwise be jacked up by the data hogs out there. If you want to torrent movies, stream on 5 TVs all day long and god knows whatever else you're doing to chew up that kind of data cap, tough fucking luck, it's time for you to pay your fair share. Bandwidth isn't free, pumpkin.
If the plan promises !10Mbps unlimited, then the plan needs to provide 10Mbps 24/7 as I FUCKING PAID FOR IT!
That doesn't mean that they can restrict(LIMIT) my service 25% of the way through the month because they don't feel like providing the service that they sold me. They sold the service. I paid them for the service. They must deliver the fucking service!
is a nice piece of Pai to help things along
It is IMPOSSIBLE to let everyone download unlimited data at 10Mbps all the time - IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Also, the plan is probably called "10Mbps, unlimited data" or some shit. In my example the comma is there for a reason.
You can hate the marketing departments all you want, but it won't change hardware limitations of the networks, whatever ISP you're using.
#DeleteFacebook
I'd say the bigger news is that binding arbitration clauses were struck down in California. Expect AT&T to take this to SCOTUS rather than let it stand.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
http://www.al-awa2el.com/%D8%A...
Yes thats the only way. Call it 100gb, 500gb, 10tb. So the user will know and its all ok. Ozgun ve kurumsal logo tasarim www.alkapgo.com
Definition of unlimited
1 : lacking any controls : unrestricted unlimited access
2 : boundless, infinite unlimited possibilities
3 : not bounded by exceptions : undefined
Every attempt made by AT&T to restrict the amount of data sent to your device is a clear violation of the definition of "unlimited". If they want to re-brand their plans, then thats fine. You cant however, take a word that is commonly used and well defined and then create an alternative marketing definition for the word.
It's like why they have to call Froot Loops "Froot" instead of "Fruit" as "Fruit" implies that there is actually "fruit" in it.
It's the exact same debate about boneless wings....they have to be called "wyngz" if they do not use 100% wing meat. The problem is that people were using breast meat, which is not wing meat, and then calling them "wings".
Using marketing mumbo-jumbo to redefine commonly used terms to make people think they are getting something they arent is patently false advertising.