AT&T Makes Its Terms of Service Even Worse, To Discourage Lawsuits 412
techmuse writes "AT&T has changed its terms of service (including for existing contracts) to prevent class action suits. Note that you are already required to submit your case to arbitration, a forum in which consumers are often at a substantial disadvantage. Now you must go up against AT&T alone." This post on David Farber's mailing list provides a bit of context as well.
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in a thoroughly corrupt society can big corporations get away with saying "you can't sue me because I don't agree to be sued", while other big corporations win judgments against common people for thousands of times the actual damages. I thought only sovereign nations were supposed to be able to just decline a lawsuit.
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
What further evidence do we need that "sanctity of contract" should not be the most important principle in a legal system?
Re: phirst post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I have no idea if US law has such provisions against attempts to forbid class actions.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:1, Insightful)
Only in a thoroughly corrupt society can big corporations get away with saying "you can't sue me because I don't agree to be sued", while other big corporations win judgments against common people for thousands of times the actual damages. I thought only sovereign nations were supposed to be able to just decline a lawsuit.
It's called "Corporate Government".
Wow, this is serious (Score:4, Insightful)
I find this repulsive because AT&T services are something that should be considered a life necessity. Since AT&T is the only business that provides these services, consumers have no choice where to get this required need to sustain their lives.
What we really need is another option than AT&T, so that when we are given the contract to sign, we can just say "no" and go to a competitor with a less stringent contract.
That will be the day, friends, when the first competitor to AT&T arrives and gives us an option.
Oh, wait...
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:4, Insightful)
Only in a thoroughly corrupt society can big corporations get away with saying "you can't sue me because I don't agree to be sued", while other big corporations win judgments against common people for thousands of times the actual damages. I thought only sovereign nations were supposed to be able to just decline a lawsuit.
It's called "Corporate Government".
Mussolini defined it as "corporatism."
"Pray I do not alter it any further ..." (Score:3, Insightful)
I love how they change the contract after you have agreed to it.
Re: phirst post! (Score:2, Insightful)
From what I understand they don't have the right to limit all complaints to arbitration, but the contract is there to make people THINK they have given up the the right to sue.
This clause is likely no different.
Surprised? (Score:1, Insightful)
I already canceled my AT&T service over their use of warrantless surveillance, their censoring of Pearl Jam, their blocking of web sites, and their influencing of American Idol voting outcomes. There are alternatives out there, and AT&T will only be able to continue doing stuff like this as long as people keep doing business with them.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in a thoroughly corrupt society can big corporations get away with saying "you can't sue me because I don't agree to be sued",
You can (or can't) sue a company based on your State's laws.
Just because AT&T puts it in the contract doesn't make it enforceable.
If your State allows a ToS to ban class actions, change your laws.
Re: phirst post! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure you can. Just write that into a binding contract that both parties agree to.
Um, that's kinda the point nonewmsgs was making. Can you make such a contract that is actually binding? Just because a contract has been understood and agreed to by all parties does not make it binding.
Re:Surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
I already canceled my AT&T service over their use of warrantless surveillance, their censoring of Pearl Jam, their blocking of web sites, and their influencing of American Idol voting outcomes. There are alternatives out there, and AT&T will only be able to continue doing stuff like this as long as people keep doing business with them.
Let me get this straight - you place "influencing of American Idol voting" on par with "warrantless surveillance"?
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
As a consumer you might have right above and beyond whatever is in the contract. They cannot put a clause, for example, that goes against any laws. You cannot make you sign away those rights, at least where I live.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that there is something terribly wrong when laws allow companies to decline liability via a standard form contract. The practice obviously favors large corporate interests over ordinary people. When companies large enough to have legal departments start to be dominant force shaping policy, we know we're the sick man of the world.
is this legal? certainly not ETHICAL (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of specific examples of where you can't just dump in certain exemptions into your TOS and wash your hands of liability. I'm surprised this isn't one of them.
I don't see why it's legal in a generic sense to be able to surrender your rights to legal action as a TOS.
Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access (Score:3, Insightful)
When AT&T is your only choice for DSL, however...
...then you switch to cable.
Re:Nothing beats the government (Score:3, Insightful)
How exactly is that outrageous? The MTA might change their terms, and they will make an effort to let people know about it in various ways, although probably not by sending out mail to every MTA Fast Lane participant?
Oh! The horrors!
Most corporate terms of services have similar clauses, although the lack requirement for written notification isn't always included, there are many situations where it is. In fact, the only examples where I recall receiving terms changes via mail these days are from financial institutions, which makes me think it's most likely a legal requirement. Everyone else pretty much just tells you to keep your eye on some web page somewhere.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Free Market Punishes Consumers Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, It's like going to prison and having the choice of being raped ever night by either Bubba OR Mo, you have 2 great choices for your raping preference, you should feel blessed to live in a country that will allow you the freedom to choose who will violate your asshole.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to wealth concentration, and wealth concentration inevitably distorts the political system into favoring those with wealth. Even if you start out with the same rules applying to everyone, after a few decades, that's assuredly not the case anymore. Consider the big trusts of the 19th century, or the original AT&T [wikipedia.org], or the Teapot Dome scandal [wikipedia.org], or the more recent Department of the Interior Scandal [nytimes.com], or own present-day financial system as described by Simon Johnson [theatlantic.com].
People like you, against all rational self-interest, argue in favor of those who currently hold the reins of power. People like you comprise the lunatic fringe that's historically impeded any attempt at breaking entrenched powers and enriching the life of the common person. In short, fuck you and the libertarian horse you ride in on.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate this word. The word just reeks of passivism, acceptance, and defeat. With apologies to George Orwell, all a consumer does is choose which color of corporate boot is stamping on his face forever.
I prefer the word "citizen".
Re: phirst post! (Score:4, Insightful)
Likely this is more to discourage people who don't know any better from filing a class action suit, but it won't prevent them.
In fact, since this change affects every AT&T customer, this just may be a perfect cause FOR a class action suit.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah yes, the good old "free markets are great because free markets are great" argument!
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't Comcast already get it's ass handed to them in court over similar terms?
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are confusing "Capitalism" with "Free Market." Like Fascism, Communism, Socialism, and may other isms, Capitalism is anything but free, hence the likes of AT&T.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a good point you make. We have institutionalized corruption in America - and it has evolved with a diabolical incrementalism, and its not like it has just happened at random, via some fucked up legal natural selection.
Things never seem to get better for the average person, and if they do, it's one step forward and two steps back. ...I wish there was a way to do an end run around all of this bullshit and get some sort of protection for the common people....Like, a contract with government that defines our rights and protects them, makes clear that they are inherent and not granted by man, and in order to work properly it would have to make clear that it alone is the highest law of the land.......ehhh
The exclusivity deals are a part of this - AT&T is what it is right now because of the Iphone, without that they wouldn't have the market share they do...I have to say that I think it's time for mass resistance to this kind of shit. All of this kind of stuff is why I think, instead of feeling bad, a lot of people actually feel great when they download corporate copyrighted material, or reverse engineer their handsets or do whatever it is they want to do with their technology...it's the only way a lot of people feel like they can fuck these assholes back for once.
Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public (Score:5, Insightful)
Class action lawsuits are almost always a complete abuse of the legal system. They deliver huge multi-million dollar profits to lawyers. The "class" of plaintiffs usually gets a coupon or something worth less than $5. And the rest of us innocent people who just want phone service (or whatever) are forced to pay an extra de facto "tax" to cover the costs of the huge payout to the lawyers -- lawyers who are essentially free riders, who produced exactly nothing of practical value in return for the money they've taken.
In theory, class-action lawsuits protect consumers. But the current system harms consumers much, much more than it helps us.
Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public (Score:5, Insightful)
Class action lawsuits could be improved, sure, but even in their present form, they discourage companies from performing certain actions, and that itself as value.
Again, only in america. (Score:3, Insightful)
putting terms into contracts that prevent/prohibit constitutional usage of rights by citizens ...
i never heard this thing in any other country, except african countries that are run by dictatorships. BUT, somehow, corporations do this in america, and not only they do not get their ass fined by constitutional courts, but also get away with it and even win cases.
please, noone give the 'great american system' bullshit to anyone, anymore. that kind of crap is unheard of. you dont have a fucking system, only something that enables big ass money holders to crample individuals and citizens.
Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public (Score:3, Insightful)
By your argument, monetary fines would be pointless, too. But it's still a punishment to the company in question--if they have to raise their prices to make up the difference, maybe more customers will go to a competitor (I think ATT has at least one competitor in most places).
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to wealth concentration"
Which successful system doesn't? Once the winners get to the top of any system, it's in their self interest to stay there. It's best to deal with it after the fact, instead of placing down onerous rules that hamper everyone.
China, India, and Brazil aren't advancing due to their awesome social policies. That's capitalism baby.
Re:Don't buy the product. (Score:3, Insightful)
"If you do not like the contract, do not do business with AT&T. You've got a choice."
That depends. I know plenty of folks who are effectively locked into AT&T for "high speed" internet because:
So "choice" suddenly becomes a whole hell of a lot less easy...unless by choice you mean selling the family stead and moving into the city/burbs just to feed the coffers of the telcos to get HSI.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, by "middle ground", I'm not talking about just getting into the "bad" category. It's more of a separate thing that allows both to exist. It's called "the people". The people make up both government AND corporations, and we have the power to do with them what we please. We did, and should continue to, play them against each other to make our lives better. I'm not advocating for not being hard on them both. Be hard on BOTH of them, rather than the one you choose to fight for. There's no reason for us to allow either to become too powerful. We gave both the government and corporations power with the intent to wield it and benefit ourselves. Everyone in this country either sides with government or corporations, which is completely countering the population's goals. Why not side with the people? Why not side with the only entity that can outright control everything we've created? This doesn't fall into the category of any adjective other than smart. If we didn't, and if we don't in the future, we're going to be fucked over by things we made to help us.
You don't let the two strongest types of entities that we've ever created work together. That's bad for the people.
There's nothing abstract about this. In fact, what you're talking about is really the point I was trying to get across to begin with. I hope I made that much, much clearer this time around.
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
I love how all of your examples of "unfettered capitalism gone wrong" involve the US Government circumventing the market, it is pretty much the opposite of "unfettered capitalism". All of these issues were caused by Government involvment and regulation - the WORST example being Bell Systems, which received a government guaranteed monopoly on telephone infrastructure. The company was eventually split, bringing about the likes of AT&T and others (ComCast and Verizon came from this as well, though I believe they had different names at the time). The taxpayer funded infrastructure was almost certainly necessary, but the government sanctioned monopoly was the worst way to go about it. We still deal with the results of that interferance in market forces today.
So, the only examples you have of capitalism failing are all at the hands of government interferance, and you want to use that as proof the government needs to be more involved? What are you, stupid? That's the same logic that bails out a tanking company and then gets upset about shareholders rewarding CEOs million dollar bonuses for saving their bottom line.
The common person's life is most enriched when they have the most opportunity to succeed. Communism has shown that when the government controls and owns everything, the common person has the least opportunity to succeed. Look at Soviet Russia before it collapsed or communist China before they began introducing more capitalism to their system, Russia had 0% unemployment but 1/3 of the country could not afford a loaf of bread per day. Even if they could afford it, the supply always ran out. China caught things before it got that bad, and now they are becoming the dominant economic power in the world, yet you could hardly call it a free country. Anarchy is just about as bad, the only thing that may make it better than communism is the fact that at least you have a chance (if a slim one) to rise out of nothing to succeed.
What the government SHOULD be doing is attempting to make the market as free as possible for the individual. This requires some regulation and control, but the goal should not be to make it fair to everybody (that's impossible, in any system), but to create the most individual freedom without inhibiting another individual's freedom. The -only- economic system that can do that is a capitalist system. Socialism looks good on paper, but the further you try to push it the worse it gets. Capitalism is much easier to predict and control, though you can see the results of poor government regulation in the recent crisis as well. Dig into the root causes of the market crash, and you'll see quite a lot of government involvement in unbalancing the market. All in the interest of "enriching the life of the common person". I bet all those people who were recently forclosed on feel real enriched thanks to the government programs that allowed them to buy houses they could not afford.
In otherwords, quit reading the bullshit of a bum who'd rather complain about his station in life than work to improve it (aka, Carl Marx) and open your eyes to what really happened, and what continues to happen to further fuck over the "common person". Under the current leadership (Bush and Congress included), we have the super-rich who are too big to fail, and the lower class who are too small to succeed.
Go ahead, try and get some bailout money for yourself, you'll see what I mean. Too small to matter, that's what the "common person" is to Obama, Congress, and hell the rest of the US Government.
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you are confusing him with somebody who gives a shit.
Everybody on here spews bullshit about socialism, capitalism, free markets, etc. Arguing actual facts on here is irrelevant when we must debate the definitions of terms that have multiple meanings in various contexts.
Unenforceable - The SCOTUS has already decided. (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought that the U.S. Supreme Court had already decided that AT&T couldn't force people to use arbitration [sfgate.com]?
Isn't AT&T just putting these things into their terms of service to prevent people who don't already know their rights from exercising those rights?
Creating terms of service which contain legally-unenforceable clauses should be illegal. Attempting to confuse people out of their rights is unconscionable, and AT&T should be forced to immediately create and distribute TOS not specifically mandating arbitration.
But because of their previous abuse of TOS, it would be good if their new TOS were mandated to include articles outlining that users do have the legal right to sue them and do have the legal right to participate in class-action lawsuits. This would discourage such abuses in the future, both abuses by AT&T and by other companies which may want to use similar misleading tactics.
Re:Unenforceable - The SCOTUS has already decided. (Score:1, Insightful)
link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/01/17/MN11644.DTL
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
A clause like that would be so one-sided that attorneys could probably bring a case and claim that the "lawsuit immunity" makes it an unconscionable contract, or makes the document an illegal contract (since it denies a party of their right to avail themselves of legal remedies against breach).
When the courts see something like that, they are likely to take a punitive stance against the maker for contriving such a one-sided agreement and claiming its a reasonable contract. E.g. Other terms they want to be enforceable are more likely to get stricken too.
If the whole thing gets found to be an illegal contract it can't be enforced against the consumer. So for example, if the suit was to avoid having to pay a termination fee, such terms might ultimately result in summary judgement against ATT.
The maker of a contract generally wants severability to be utilized, so if one term is unenforcable, the rest of the agreement stays in full force. But if they're so blatant as to say "YOU CANT EVER SUE us," the courts may be prone to simply ignore it and throw the whole thing out.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
How about if the contract says: "You also agree to the terms at http://somedomain.example.com/terms.php?t=3528905325 [example.com] incorporated herein by reference." ?
Where, of course, the terms at the URL are constantly being changed. And you only know what they originally said, if you printed them and kept a printout (which 90% of people won't do) ?
Oh yes, and every 6 months they'll send you a letter by post that says "The terms of service at this URL have been updated. By continuing to use the service, you agree to the changes. Reply to this message or call us to cancel service if you do not agree to the new terms."
But they won't tell you what the changes are, or even keep record of what/when they changed things. So you have to manually print and re-read the entire thing every 6 months if you want to keep up on the updates.
Re:Nothing beats the government (Score:2, Insightful)
In instances where consumers are being raped blind in the name of corporate profits, a government-run non-profit option is by far superior; it often supplies equivalent services (sometimes better) at a fraction of the cost.
Now this is not true in every area. Just most.
And this is exactly why corporate America, the GOP, and their buddies at Fox News so vehemently oppose any and all government run programs. Not because they are ineffecient and inferior, but just the opposite, and it ends the gravy train of unfettered corporate industries that line their pockets with billions dollars every year, at our expense.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh great. You can quit, and maybe get a job somewhere else with the same type of contracts. Having the choice between eating a shit sandwich and a shit wrap, still means you are eating shit and flour.
Re:Good. Fewer class-action suits helps the public (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm interested as to which western nations don't allow class actions? The other point of interest is that this is a case where selling in a single place that allows class actions would essentially force the relevant company to try and avoid risk of these (i.e., release safe products) in all locations they sell at.
Basically, the only way to prove your assertion that evidence is lacking is to demonstrate that companies selling products ONLY in nations/places that don't allow class-action suits are releasing MORE defective/dangerous products compared to companies selling in at least one location that allows class-action suits. I'd draw a pretty venn diagram, but I'm afraid of how nerdy that might make this discussion seem!
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
The people make up both government AND corporations, and we have the power to do with them what we please. We did, and should continue to, play them against each other to make our lives better.
This is Milo Minderbinder's "we all own shares in the syndicate" philosophy from Catch-22, a parable about Capitalism. The American and German governments were at war with each other, but both contracted with and for the "syndicate". So if you were asked to bomb your own country's assets, it was because the syndicate contracted for it. And since everyone owned shares in the syndicate, it was to his own benefit to bomb his country's own stuff.
In the book, as in real life, while everyone does own some share of the "syndicate", the vast majority of the shares are in the hands of the few. Like the guys in the planes contracted to be shot down by their own "side", it's not the large shareholders that will be asked to make the sacrifice for the good of everyone.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:3, Insightful)
"$1200 is well above the $500 required to be considered a felony, and that doesn't go to piddly small claims court, that goes to federal court."
No it doesn't. Sure, you can take it to federal court. But you would either have to be a moron or willing to spend serious time and money to make a point. Great if you have the time and money...
"No doubt when your AG found out and started poking around PayPal's lawyers began shitting bricks, hence the reimbursement."
I doubt they panicked. One person is an annoyance. One AG looking to make a name for themselves can be REALLY annoying. What would really cost them money is being regulated like a bank.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow, this is serious (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't worry. All of AT&T's competitors have this contract too. Who wouldn't? If you can prevent yourself from being sued, why wouldn't you?
Re:no, the term to be familiar with is "material" (Score:3, Insightful)
Material here doesn't relate to an item ("physical matter") but to "something that matters," i.e.something of consequence. In other words, if the adverse terms have no actual impact (let's say they increase the fee for text messages from five cents to ten cents but you're already on the unlimited text message plan for the life of the contract -- that's adverse, but it has no material impact upon you) you might not be able to get out of the contract. But if they demonstrably matter, even if it's something that shouldn't affect you unless you are a nutjob (unlimited text messages goes from "unlimited" to "may be limited at carrier's discretion to 9999 per month") then you should be able to opt out.
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with everything except the last clause - "the results can no longer be considered the product of a capitalistic market". It's an example of the "no true scotsman" argument.
If a capitalistic market fails because people are badly informed or misinformed, it's still a capitalistic market, and we have to accept that capitalistic markets don't work well under all circumstances.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
They want you to think you have no rights and cant do anything.
Just like the signs in parking garages "Owner is not responsible for......"
In fact they are responsible. They just want you to think you can't sue them.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Even in the absence of a law voiding such clauses in contracts if you were to sue on the basis of a beach of contract the defendent would have a tough time using that claim in court. If the judge had a good sense of humor he/she might treat the case as uncontested.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
If your Representative is not listed as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary but you live in the same state as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. Write your Representative [house.gov] to urge the member to move the bill to the floor, so that your Representative can get a chance to help you out. Usually, members of the same state know each other pretty well and talk to each other about broad topics that affect the state as a whole.
If you live in a state that has no members on the committee. Check to see if your Representative or a Representative from your state co-sponsored the bill. [loc.gov] If so, make your case using that point; if not, write your Representative asking why they did not co-sponsor the bill and make your point about how not having legal recourse affects you and your community in general.
Always remember one big point when you write your Representative...Always make sure you make it entirely clear what it is you expect your Representative to do, and make sure it is within their power to do so. If you just tell them about HR 1020 and that they should support it, then all you are going to get back as a reply is, 'their sorry but it must make it out of committee before they can do anything about it, but if it does make it to the floor they'll be sure to consider it carefully. Yours truly, Rep. Blah Blah Blah (X-Your state).'
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:3, Insightful)
See, you don't understand: the people of the United States aren't "citizens" anymore, they're "consumers", "homeowners", "taxpayers", and "workers". They only matter insofar as they engage in economic transactions that benefit the wealthy and powerful.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that would actually be *bluffing*, not calling a bluff.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
The free market doesn't exist the way you think it does, it can't because the free market is ALWAYS subject to external non free forces. One guy with a gun can set the price of any object to zero. A seller can lie to you about what they're selling, contaminate what you're buying, or any number of other things.
Regulation is just the rule of law applied in a specific circumstance, and if you think that because all of a sudden I'm selling you something or buying something from you that I'm no longer a human with all the general faults that humans have which require all the other laws we have, then you're an idiot.
We need laws to stop people from killing people, and we need laws to stop businesses from killing people. We need laws to stop people from stealing from people, we need laws to stop businesses stealing from people. Businesses are made up of people, and they're just as likely to be dishonest scum sucking weasels as any crack addict you might find in a dark alley. Perhaps even more likely since that crack addict has to kill you with his bare hands, whereas the CEO only has to sign a piece of paper.
Regulation is necessary, it always has been and it always will be. The question up for debate has always really been, which regulations are appropriate and which regulations are inappropriate. There are certainly bad regulations, but there are also good ones.
You also have to remember that when certain actions are taken, like pouring toxic waste into a river, certain costs are incurred. The company doesn't incur those costs, the people living by that river do. As a representative of the people living by that river, the government is quite right in stopping the company from pouring that waste in.
That's a rather simplistic example of course, but the principle is the same. The free market does not make flawed people less flawed. The free market relies fundamentally on the rule of law for it to function(most specifically the legal protection of property). The idea that an individual is subject to the law, but that a group of individuals should not be is a logical fallacy. Therefor law needs to apply to corporations, and that's what regulation is.