Supreme Court Upholds Arbitration In DirectTV Case 119
An anonymous reader sends word that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 6-3 decision that DirecTV’s service agreement barring mass arbitration by its customers must be enforced. The NYTimes reports: "The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that dissatisfied customers of DirecTV in California could not band together in a class action and must instead pursue individual arbitrations. The decision, by a 6-to-3 vote, was the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions that have made it harder for consumers to go to court to pursue claims of fraud and defective products."
"DDOS" the justice system? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like as many users that can afford to sue should do that individually, and i wonder if it wouldn't cause problems for the judges/justice system to have tons of individual case where one big case would have sufficed. If they worked together they may even be able to bring the price down a bit on individual cases as there is a lot of work in common for all the cases.
would love to see a real life "ddos" XD
Re: (Score:3)
Because only a fool or a madmen spends thousands of dollars pursuing a claim over fifty.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Trying to hale them into the venue may be a problem (Won't be for DirecTV, but it's not a foregone conclusion otherwise...)- coupled with having a Judgement does not equate to anything special other than it's a debt validated by a judge. They can order something be paid, but it's little more than a piece of paper saying that the party has the authority to come collect the debt.
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop making stuff up.
Re: (Score:2)
I always felt the backlash against the coffee case was ridiculous. Amateur legal experts deciding without looking at any evidence that the case was stupid and it turned into the poster child for a legal system gone wrong. The case was perfectly valid, there were difficult points to consider on both sides, and the judgement was fair. It started up the whole hysteria of a tort system gone wrong though, the citizens were duped into cheerleading for the corporations.
Class actions are about the only means lef
Re:"DDOS" the justice system? (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs so much because lawyers don't work for free.
Theoretically this is what class action suits are for. Many people who want to pursue small damages.
Re: (Score:2)
it costs so much because lawyers are greedy assholes. not working for free is one thing, working for obscene amounts of money is another.
Re: (Score:2)
Post under your account first.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the AC, but I share his sentiment. Please define obscene, and then explain why you chose that definition.
You're seeking the advice of someone whose job involves years of study and continuous certification, and probably a team of highly-skilled experts to assist. What exactly is a reasonable rate for their time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyer's time isn't free any more than yours is. A high value case requires expensive preparation. Beyond anything else, it simply requires the TIME and EFFORT of a highly trained specialist. The entire effort needs to make enough economical sense for someone to bother.
Or you could just stop being a selfish entitled ass and pay a lawyer by the hour and stop making excuses for being a leech.
Either way, the services of people that are more educated than you are not free. Doesn't matter if it's an MD or a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've probably spent more time in training and education than the average lawyer, yet I earn 1/10th what they do.
A quick check [payscale.com] shows that lawyers near you average C$71,777 annually, and that's after two to four years of postgraduate study in a specialized field, with ongoing continuing education.
In comparison, the median salary [payscale.com] for your profession in your area is C$63,154, with no postgraduate studies or CE requirements.
However, lawyers get to write the laws, so a whole bunch of otherwise simple matters require a lawyer to write the above mentioned letters, because the law says they have to. It's a racket.
Yes. IT admins also get to build computers, so that's why our jobs are so easy, right?
If you actually want to learn how law really works, I strongly suggest reading The Illustrated Guide to Law [lawcomic.net], which
Re:"DDOS" the justice system? (Score:5, Insightful)
it costs so much because lawyers are greedy assholes. not working for free is one thing, working for obscene amounts of money is another.
While that is a valid topic for another day, the cost of prosecuting the shoplifting of a pack of gum is always going to cost far more than the gum no matter how reasonable the wages are. But if you didn't prosecute it, petty shoplifting would be rampant. Class actions are supposed to serve the same function for civil law, if you violate a lot of contracts for a few dollars each no individual is harmed enough to make a law suit meaningful but the class as a whole does. They know individual arbitration is a waste of our time because of the amounts involved. And they'll use the illegitimate gains from the 99% who won't complain to cover the arbitration cost.
The alternative that we have here in Norway is usually more in the direction of strong consumer protection laws, competition authorities and such but that would imply a far more regulated market that you probably don't want. And you're usually equally opposed to voluntary organizations standing up to big business like unions. Americans like to be free individuals. That tend to get stomped on by forces much bigger than themselves, then whine about it. Then demand less regulation so they can get even more screwed by even more lopsided agreements, then whine some more. Anything that even resembles collective action is stamped as socialist and evil.
There will always be power structures, if it's not big government and big business then it'll be gangs of thugs, oligarchs controlling key resources and such. And every power structure will be a mix of good and evil. Democratic institutions are not just about the public good. Capitalist institutions aren't just about fair and honest competition. Media isn't just about fair and unbiased journalism. Special interest groups don't just want their voice heard. Every power structure works for itself, the individuals in it and in collusion with other power structures. It's about keeping the giants caught in a system of checks and balances so the ants aren't stomped on. Getting "your day in court" is part of that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Two words: Binding Arbitration (Score:1)
Except that a lot of these scumbags not only require you to "waive your right to class-action" but also to "submit to binding arbitration" (usually an arbitrator assigned by the corp).
Re: (Score:1)
This is what the court decreed against in the article. That the binding arbitration is valid in the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
You are forbidden in the customer agreements from using any legal process other than what the corporations allow you to use. Ie, binding arbitration. You can not sue, you can not file a claim, you can not win. If binding arbitration somehow decides in favor of the consumer then these arbitration agreements often have additional fine print that either side may request additional arbitration with costs shared between the two parties.
Most of these small claims are not worth the time unless it's class action
Re: (Score:2)
Small claims court is nice for some things. However, you have to show up at the hearing, which won't be on your schedule, or have a default judgment against you. It's not really suitable for something like $50, although if you have no other commitments you might want to out of curiosity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or fee-shifting rules, where the looser pays.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the looser the person who has looser morals?
loser = opposite of winner
looser = not tighter
Please learn the difference, this isn't a hard one, and it makes you look very uneducated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to be helpful and teach people the proper words that are used in certain situations is arrogant now? This board is frequented by many people who don't speak English as a first language, and often make mistakes without realizing it. I feel it is helpful to point out those mistakes as they prevent people from appearing uneducated in the future.
If you are going to foe me for me trying to help you with a common mistake, that is your choice, it doesn't bother me one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shoulda used preview, even for a short comment. My duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress is working exactly as intended. It should be difficult to get things through congress as it increases everyone's personal freedom.
Also, the current administration has mainly highlighted the need to negotiate with your political rivals, by refusing to negotiate, which has caused most of the recent problems you would point to as broken. Politics is about negotiating, when the President goes on TV to complain how he won't negotiate with the terrorists in congress, what you should translate that to i
Re: (Score:2)
That's neither controversial nor pejorative--avowed obstructionism and theater legislation have become points of public pride for many in the House, especially.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
IIRC at a certain point, cases can be combined. So the effect would be limited to the law clerks doing a lot of reading and phone calls.
The right thing to do is find something that qualifies for small claims court. Set up a how to wiki, and file cases gradually.
Small claims is expensive for a big business, and they will probably default on most claims. Bonus, everyone gets more money and DTV loses
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think judges/courts have anything to do with arbitration?
Barring arbitration altogether? (Score:1)
So why didn't totally bar arbitration altogether in its service agreement? In small print, "You cannot sue us, anytime, anywhere over anything. Period. No exceptions. Don't even dream of trying to contact a lawyer."
Re:Barring arbitration altogether? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why didn't totally bar arbitration altogether in its service agreement? In small print, "You cannot sue us, anytime, anywhere over anything. Period. No exceptions. Don't even dream of trying to contact a lawyer."
The company wants arbitration instead of class action suits because arbitration tends to work better for the companies than getting hit by the actual law.
Users tend to sign away their right to legal protection by agreeing to arbitration in terms of use etc., giving the company the ability to screw over large numbers of people while risking only individual lawsuits and not class action suits that would actually have some effect on the company's bottom line.
IMHO such use of arbitration should be generally illegal.
Re:Barring arbitration altogether? (Score:4, Informative)
Agreed. It's gotten so bad I'm fully expecting the SCOTUS to shit out a pretzel after it finishes the contortions necessary to explain why Dollar General should be allowed to ignore its contract with the Native American tribe that they signed, agreeing to subject itself to Native American court jurisdiction, without allowing every other "person" to ignore the jurisdiction-setting clause in every single contract in this country.
It'll probably involve something like claiming that because mere humans can only exist in one physical location they must be subject to a jurisdiction no matter where in that country that jurisdiction is, even if it has nothing at all to do with the physical location of the human, while Corporate People exist everywhere and nowhere at once and therefore cannot be subject to any jurisdiction at all except by Their whims and Their whims are allowed to change whenever They feel the jurisdiction They chose has become doubleplusungood, despite what any contract heretofore executed shall claim.
http://indiancountrytodaymedia... [indiancoun...etwork.com]
tl;dr: SCOTUS will find a way to justify letting Corporations out of their binding arbitration contracts while keeping the rest of the normal humans stuck in theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have a government that represents the people, what we have is a government composed of people elected to be representatives. Which means that we are subject to the horrors of obtaining the government we deserve if our voters don't pay attention.
Re: (Score:3)
This anti class action is also paired up with the requirement to use an arbitration system instead of the legal system. Arbitration is fine, if it is voluntary. Too many of these contracts require the arbitration though. This is the part that the courts should overturn if they had any sense of decency left.
The question is, how many non-violent methods remain available to citizens in order to redress the wrongs committed by corporations?
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't be able to get away with "You can't sue us for any reason", but demanding arbitration also means that they pick (and pay) the arbitrator. They select someone who is favorable to them and who will rule in their favor as often as possible. No, it doesn't make winning against them impossible, but if winning against them was impossible then forcing arbitration might be ruled illegal. So they take the occasional token loss and still wind up vastly ahead of where they'd be if actual lawsuits were
Re: (Score:2)
In practice this doesn't work. The third party is often paid for by both parties; this means the consumer pays a large amount relative to their income compared to the amount paid for by the corporation. The intent here is to scare away the consumer. Why bother with the headaches if you're just trying to get $100 back? Some agreements (I've seen this in employment contracts but I haven't checked consumer agreements) where either party can appeal a judgement by paying for additional arbitration, with no l
Re: (Score:3)
So why didn't totally bar arbitration altogether in its service agreement? In small print, "You cannot sue us, anytime, anywhere over anything. Period. No exceptions. Don't even dream of trying to contact a lawyer."
That's easy, because some places you can't waive legally guaranteed rights that are afforded to you by law by contract. It actually makes the entire contract void.
Re: (Score:2)
And has the supreme court spoken on this? It seems that legal theory does not always match reality.
RIP Corporate Legal Accountability (Score:2)
Any legal accountability corporations had just dissipated into the ether. It's no longer a "If class action settlement $X is less than recall cost $Y, then we do Z", now it's "if X% of affected customers go to arbitration, with average settlement $Y, and X*Y recall cost Z, then we don't recall." I'm willing to bet that the proportion of people who would bother to do the effort of arbitration for a low chance of being granted a pittance is far less than the tiny proportion of a class who apply for an already
Re: (Score:1)
It already is a standard component of every "take it or leave it" legal contract, and has been for years. It's been upheld by the Supreme Court before, this is nothing new. AT&T and Sony took it (separately) to the Supreme Court years ago, and won. Buying games on Steam? Yup, that clause is in there, and has been for 4 or 5 years.
You wouldn't believe how difficult it can be to not do business with any companies that includes these clauses these days.
Re: (Score:1)
> and a $7 rebate coupon
Pretty much this is what you are losing out on.
The 2 or 3 who filed the initial lawsuits that get banded into the class action get some, and the lawyers who created it get a massive amount (winning a lottery amounts) and then others get a snail mail letter saying file a claim and here's a check for $11.
I got something like that out of the blue because Comerica way overcharged. It is the 3rd or 4th such thing.
Supreme court.... (Score:2)
These clowns have been bought and paid for for quite a while now. Honestly, they are supposed to uphold the constitution not bow to their corporate masters.
But they are all lawyers, so of course they will act like scumbags.
All I want to know is... (Score:1)
...why Tivo isn't suing the everliving shit out of DirecTV. Conversely, I would like to know why DirecTV even still claims to actually sell "DirecTivos" anymore. If you try to actually get one you just get a never-ending runaround.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as patents go, TiVo and ReplayTV introduced DVRs at the same time, so between them they held the fundamental DVR patents. TiVo and ReplayTV had an agreement that they wouldn't sue each other.
In 2007 DirectTV bought the assets of ReplayTV, presumably to get the patent portfolio, just so that they could offer a TVR without being sued by TiVo.
Bye Bye DirecTV (Score:2)
Looks like there's another product/service I won't be purchasing.
This is really quite simple, vote with your wallet (Score:3)
If enough people are upset, setup a site to coordinate these many thousands of people and issue a warning to DirectTV (or Comcast, whoever) that on a specific date, tens of thousands of users are going to refuse to pay their bill - period. To make this really effective, have an escrow account setup where the money gets deposited to show that this is a protest.
Truth be told, tens of thousands of people refusing to pay might not be enough to catch DirectTV's attention but get a few hundred thousand people threatening to withhold payment and the accountants are going to look at what that does to the cash flow and scream.
What I like about this is idea is that it's the perfect method for Americans to protest because they don't actually have to do anything, all they have to do is nothing (as in don't pay their bill). Let's face it, we, as a nation, excel at doing nothing.
just wait for GOP health care where they have a no (Score:2)
just wait for GOP health care where they have a non doctor say what is per ex after the fact sticking you with the full bill + no court due to a forced arbitration
How is this different than corporations. (Score:2)
Contract Law (Score:3)
DirecTV charged me a $135 termination fee. I challenged the fee by demanding a contract with my signature that obligates me to that fee. Their response was the contract was "implied" when they started the service.
"Implied" contracts - IE non-signed - are inadmissable and not enforceable in a court of law. I didn't seek relief in court for obvious economic reasons. But I am not shy about discouraging everyone I know from accepting services from DirecTV.
The question that has not been answered in the cases in this article is this: do the parties have a signed contract in the dispute? If not, then DirecTV has no legal mandate to termination fees under contract law and the class action status should had been allowed.
There is no law that mandates agreement to a legal document in exchange for layman services or sales. Anymore if I am handed a paper that is contains any legalese, I respond that I will not sign it until I review it with my lawyer, and I reserve the right to amend the contract. People do this with real estate leases and contracts all the time. A signed receipt for sales or services is not an agreement to a legal contract.
Re: (Score:2)
"Implied" contracts - IE non-signed - are inadmissable and not enforceable in a court of law. (...) A signed receipt for sales or services is not an agreement to a legal contract.
I'm sorry, but you are plain wrong. If you go to a hair dresser, describe the hair cut you want and afterwards refuse to pay because you never explicitly agreed to that neither verbally nor in writing the courts will consider it an implied-in-fact [wikipedia.org] contract. Same reason the grocery store can't have you arrested for shoplifting, the courts will imply a sales contract even though it's nowhere in writing. If witnesses or the CCTV shows you paid, the reciept isn't even necessary.
In your case I'm guessing DirecTV
Re: (Score:1)
If you read the parents article, the service was *NOT DELIVERED*, so there's no free haircut here. Additionally, it wasn't the cost of the services he's objecting to (that is implied in any purchase of goods), it's the "termination fee" which they indicate was additionally implied.
Re: (Score:2)
A contract is supposed to be a meeting of minds, something that both sides agree on in all details. It should not be possible to have something unexpected sprung on you because of a contract.
SCOTUS is NOT there to fix bad legislation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are going to pretend to be a constituitional scholar, you should probably at least learn the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Here's a hint: the Constitution does not say anything is inalienable.
Am I the only one frightened by this? (Score:2)
Why are they suing? (Score:1)
"Corporations Became People You Can't Sue" (Score:1)
Washington Monthly, June/July/August 2014
"Thrown Out of Court: How corporations became people you can't sue." by Lina Khan
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c... [washingtonmonthly.com]
Interestingly, a recent post at Washington Monthly reported that we have "Sharia" law in the U.S., as some companies require that arbitration be through religious mediators. (In the cases mentioned, Christian and Scientology arbitrators.)
http://www.washing [washingtonmonthly.com]
more proof that the US as run by corporations (Score:1)
Then Stop Voting Republican (Score:2)