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.
Now nearly 200 years later, the "corporations are people" crowd has steadily usurped the rights and liberties meant for real people in flesh and blood to these corporations. No criminal liability. Assets flow one way, Liabilities flow the other way, so no civil liability either. Perverse arguments like "spending money = speeach" and "corporations can have religious belief" has made mockery of our society.
We can't clone ourselves, and transfer liabilities to the clone and keep assets with us. We can not clone ourselves, transfer the salary earned by the clone to us, call it "carried interest" and pay lower taxes. But corporations can do all these and more.
Unless we limits the rights of the corporations commensurate with the liabilities they carry, we are doomed.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
The argument that they don't have customers is not nearly as clear as they suggest -- what matters is what is in the contract, not how they actually provide services through affiliates.
Read through, for example, the digial phone subscriber terms of service that contains the dispute resolution clause involved in those products.
Does it identify the corporate entity that is on the other side of the transaction? (hint: "In this agreement, we use the terms 'we,' 'us' or 'our' to mean CenturyLink.")
Does it mention any local or operating company? (hint: run a word search)
Does the notice section clarify any of this?
Does the agreement contain an "integration clause" that says that all other information or representations are to be disregarded? (hint: section 8. H.)
So who is to say that the CenturyLink holding company is not a party to the subscriber agreement? Who might have drafted the agreements (which apparently are identical no matter which operating company serves the customer)?
If you look at the basic agreements, only the High-Speed Internet and Internet Access Services Residential Terms and Conditions (updated in fall 2017l) actually specifies that the agreement for that product is with a particular affiliate providing services. Both the digital phone and TV service agreements do not. Earlier versions of the internet agreements may not have as well...
This isn't going to get them a quick dismissal without judicial findings of fact...
Corporations should not be allowed to own other corporations.
One layer of obfuscation and liability protection is sufficient for legitimate businesses.
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
Only if CenturyLink actively manages their subsidiaries day-to-day operation do they pierce the veil (or whatever the term is) of the subsidiary arrangement. We have CenturyLink, nee Level 3, nee TW Telecom for our office fiber. The only communication I have that says CenturyLink is the announcement of the merger.
That said, the announcement says:
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
They claim they get the big bux because the buck stops with them. If they negligently let the legal team make whatever crazy move it wants without supervision, and compound their negligence by not correcting the situation after the fact, why should they be absolved?
While I agree that it is asinine, prison time is a bit over the top.
No it isn't. Time and time again asshats like this use the "corporate card" to shield themselves from shit like this. They get away with all kinds of shit and laugh while hiding behind corporate laws and lawyers. It's more than time we stripped them of assets and send their ass to prison.
We are more than happy to lock up some kid that robs a liquor store for $50 bucks for 20 years. But IF we send one of these fuckers to prison its for 6 months even though they stole millions. Bull fuckign shit. lock them up and let them rot.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Looks like voting wasn't enough. Are you running yet?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Guess how many "unsafe" products would be released? Zero
You are way to idealistic. I'm developing a product. If it is safe (99%) I'll make millions, otherwise (1%) it will kill people. It isn't easy to determine which case holds. So I have a choice: 99% chance of becoming a multimillionaire along with 1% chance of a prison sentence, or I can just drop it (and all the funds I've put in to development up to this point.) If I'm a psychopath, I'll leap at this chance. If I'm not, I'll likely fool myself into believing the 1% chance is really zero, and go for it.
History abounds with cases where people have done unsafe things, even when it was their own lives at stake, when pressured by bosses or prospects of financial bounty or ruin.
What you suggest might well help, but it won't magic away unsafe products.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Also consider then...
Centurylink's name and branding was on the bills...
As per centurylink's arguments in court, the people who received the bills were NOT their customers.
Thus fraud has clearly occurred, because people who are not customers of centurylink were billed for centurylink services.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
While I agree that it is asinine, prison time is a bit over the top.
Why is prison time over the top?
Billing people for services they never subscribed to is FRAUD...
If an individual did this, they would be prosecuted and sentenced to jail time. Why should this be any different if a corporation does it?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!