Slashdot Mirror
CenturyLink Fights Billing-Fraud Lawsuit By Claiming That It Has No Customers (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: CenturyLink is trying to force customers into arbitration in order to avoid a class-action lawsuit from subscribers who say they've been charged for services they didn't order. To do so, CenturyLink has come up with a surprising argument -- the company says it doesn't have any customers. While the customers sued CenturyLink itself, the company says the customers weren't actually customers of CenturyLink. Instead, CenturyLink says they were customers of 10 subsidiaries spread through the country. CenturyLink basically doesn't exist as a service provider -- according to a brief CenturyLink filed Monday.
"That sole defendant, CenturyLink, Inc., is a parent holding company that has no customers, provides no services, and engaged in none of the acts or transactions about which Plaintiffs complain," CenturyLink wrote. "There is no valid basis for Defendant to be a party in this Proceeding: Plaintiffs contracted with the Operating Companies to purchase, use, and pay for the services at issue, not with CenturyLink, Inc." CenturyLink says those operating companies should be able to intervene in the case and "enforce class-action waivers," which would force the customers to pursue their claims via arbitration instead of in a class-action lawsuit. By suing CenturyLink instead of the subsidiaries, "it may be that Plaintiffs are hoping to avoid the arbitration and class-action waiver provisions," CenturyLink wrote.
"That sole defendant, CenturyLink, Inc., is a parent holding company that has no customers, provides no services, and engaged in none of the acts or transactions about which Plaintiffs complain," CenturyLink wrote. "There is no valid basis for Defendant to be a party in this Proceeding: Plaintiffs contracted with the Operating Companies to purchase, use, and pay for the services at issue, not with CenturyLink, Inc." CenturyLink says those operating companies should be able to intervene in the case and "enforce class-action waivers," which would force the customers to pursue their claims via arbitration instead of in a class-action lawsuit. By suing CenturyLink instead of the subsidiaries, "it may be that Plaintiffs are hoping to avoid the arbitration and class-action waiver provisions," CenturyLink wrote.
Its weird how Americans really get fucked when it comes to internet service or mobile data/cell service.
Whats going on?
Capitalism. And a government that has been bought and paid for by those big ass corporations.
And the fact that this company that committed fraud wants to push their customers into arbitration should be a big clue how arbitration is just a sham - the arbitration panel will rule in favor of CenturyLink because it'll be filled with industry cronies who are doing the same thing.
No, that's not true. Limited liability. You can sue for anything you like, but the owners of a limited liability corporation are not going to lose a lawsuit.
That all depends. Limited liability is not zero liability: the shareholders of a company that is sued might be required to pay back dividends or other payment they received of the company's profits to cover liability: particularly if it becomes deemed transfer in conjunction with fraudulent actions or a crime.
There are situations where the courts can pierce the corporate veil and hold the parent company or investors responsible in excess of their investment; for example, especially, if the parent company was intermingling assets of their multiple subsidiaries, or if the parent or operating companies were significantly undercapitalized with major assets being transferred to the parent or vice-versa (eg a corporate structure that is an alter-ego of one or more of its owners organized only to act
as a 'shield').
IANAL but this is corporate law 101: The company responsible is always the company whose name and branding is on the materials that the company's customers interact with. There are many examples of case law confirming this, including a SCOTUS ruling.
CenturyLink's name and branding was plastered all over the materials used to purchase the service. CenturyLink's branding was plastered all over the billing statements. This applies regardless of whether the materials are physical or online. Either CenturyLink's legal team is as stupid and lazy as CenturyLink's employees, or the c level executives didn't bother consulting with a lawyer at all. This isn't even a crapshoot, it's more like driving your car into a wall and expecting that it won't get damaged.
You've just given me an idea! >:D
no, only kidding. I had to look up who CenturyLink are - a US internet/telecoms service provider. How did the US telecoms industry evolve into the embodiment of most of the points on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist?
They didn't; telcos have always operated this way, starting way back when Ma Bell still had a monopoly.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
... a government that has been bought and paid for by those big ass corporations.
Government interference in a market is a socialism thing.
The first is corporations controlling government. The second is government trying to control corporations. While you're right that the second would be closer to socialism, what actually exists is much closer to the first, which is plutocracy (or corporatocracy).
Nope, no sig
Capitalism. And a government that has been bought and paid for by those big ass corporations.
You realize that those two things are diametrically opposed? I mean, you admit that one of the problems is the government. Government interference in a market is a socialism thing.
No, not just socialism. Any form of government is going to have something to say about how markets work and what is or is not allowed.
The topic wasn't government influence in a market so much as it was about corporations writing the rules. That's either corporatism aka facism or that's corruption - which is possible in socialism, democracy, or any other form of government.
I think a common misunderstanding of the phrase "corporations are people" is that corporations have the same rights as people, when it's actually acknowledging that there is ultimately no separate intelligent entity known as a "corporation", it is essentially run by people and all the decision are made by real people. Thus things like free speech must extend to what a corporation says. A key but important distinction even if the misconception is a side effect of the decision.
And "liability" in the sense of LLCs refers to civil liability, I'm not sure where you get criminal liability from. If someone commits a crime, there is no corporate structure in the world they can have to remove their "liability". What is true is that within a corporate structure, evidence may be easier to destroy or hide and conviction is more difficult.
LLCs have done more good for us than bad. They have enabled massive investment that would have never happened had those legal protections not been in place. Knowing a number of lawyers who work in corporate law as well, it is not the shield from criminal activity you think it is.. judges won't hesitate for a second to pierce through that veil and convict directors, management, etc., whoever was involved in the malfeasance.