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)
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
If they change the contract after the fact, it may no longer be binding...
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:Great (Score:5, Funny)
What I can't understand is: why did they stop there? They could have gone on to say, you can never ever sue us, individual or otherwise, and you have no right to arbitration either. Their contract may as well be seven words followed by a dotted line:
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
x______________
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
I recall another major telephone and/or cable company that added this 'you must use arbitration' clause to their contracts, and then they were sued and the judge ruled it infringed the individuals rights. Here's one ruling I found using google:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/12/arbitration_challenges.html [consumeraffairs.com]
And an interesting article on more recent 'arbitration' law:
http://consumer-law.lawyers.com/Consumer-Contracts-Mandatory-Arbitration-Clauses.html [lawyers.com]
I guess AT&T is hoping to get 'grandfathered' in...
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
They can, however clauses are null and void. It isn't unknown for companies, especially large companies, to put clauses they know full well are unenforcable in contracts to call people's bluff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe that would actually be *bluffing*, not calling a bluff.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most cable/wireless/anylargecorporation "user agreements" state that the provider can change the terms at whim. In this case the whim is an addition ocular penetration clause that allows them to skull fuck you and charge for the privilege. Such is the blessing of unfettered capitalism.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Except that, in the UK at least, the Unfair Contract Terms Act requires that you give an option to end the contract if the terms are changed and you do not agree to them. Unilateral changes to contracts voids the contract, as you have lost the meeting of minds.
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Does that Act still apply even if the contract contains a clause allowing one party to change the contract at will? In other words, what if the contract contains language allowing for its own mutability.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
same as if there was a clause allowing them to rape your mom. illegal clauses in contracts are unenforceable.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
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:Great (Score:5, Informative)
This is true- but under U.S. common law, a modification to a contract for services requires consideration (i.e., a new benefit to the non-modifying party or a new detriment to the modifying party). Some requirements of contract law may not be waived by the terms of the contract. What the original poster is talking about is a "materially adverse change" to a contract. While PHONECOMPANY may reserve its right to modify the contract, it cannot force you to accept the new contract terms. Where the changes to the terms are "materially adverse" (price/substantive rights are material) you typically have a right to withdraw from the contract with none of the penalties ("liquidated damages") that were part of the original contract. Those liquidated damages (cancelation fees) represent the value that they lose when you violate the terms of the contract, and must be reasonable.
Note that in some states, Mediation (non-binding) may be required by law. Arbitration may not be waivable. In almost all states, you cannot be forced to waive substantive legal rights (such as the right to sue for breach of contract in a court of law). Additionally, you may be protected by consumer rights acts (deceptive trade practice acts) which are a whole other story. Under deceptive trade practice acts, you are typically able to sue for damages when false statements were made which induced you to enter into the contract. So if the PHONECOMPANY salesman says "we will never change these terms," then the terms change, you may be entitled to relief (this is just a simple example at hand).
Capitalism is not unfettered, you have substantive rights under common contract law. But "poor service" is generally not a material breach of a contract, which means you are not entitled to relief or to back out of the contract. Not giving you a new, cheap phone when you lose your phone, is typically not a breach of contract at all etc.
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Also bear in mind that consideration does not have to be large, it just has to exist. The common example is the single peppercorn - it is enough to qualify as consideration. Size does not matter, it simply must be aggreed upon by both parties, and it cannot be nothing - you can't have a contract where you agree to pay $20 per month without receiving anything in return, you must receive something, even if it is only a peppercorn.
Poor service is not enough to be breach of contract if they are fulfilling the elements of the contract, only at a lower quality than expected. Unless of course, you've dictated the quality as an element of the consideration.
So if the PHONECOMPANY salesman says "we will never change these terms," then the terms change, you may be entitled to relief (this is just a simple example at hand).
The salesman does not need to say the terms will never change, a contract is not valid in the US if the terms have been changed but not agreed to by both parties. That is a federal statute, state law cannot override it, and if they try to force you into arbitration you can flip them the bird and sue for breach of contract. You might even have a shot at suing the state if they push it too much (and of course, you are actually protected by the federal statute). State laws are trumped by federal laws in every case, so state mandated arbitration does not apply when a federal statute is being broken.
Attempting to change your contract without your consent definitely falls under federal contract law. You cannot sign away your rights, and state laws cannot restrict or eliminate rights granted under federal law.
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:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
Middle ground? The middle group between 'okay' and 'horrible' isn't 'good'. You have a point in the abstract. But right now, entrenched interests have far too much power to worry about whether we're being too hard on them.
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: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: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:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that "winner" has multiple definitions, and not all of them are nice.
Unfettered by any law, the "winner" is usually chosen by the law of the jungle. They're usually the guys with the largest body count, and, generally speaking, they're not nice people. It's not really all that good for society to have them be the "winner", and it's sure as hell not good for the people who are the "loser", which in all reality is the vast majority of us.
This leaves us wanting to change the winner. Now you've really only got two ways to change the winner. Either you remove the current winner from the game and let the game pick another winner, who will basically be the same as the previous winner, OR you change the rules.
Those of us who favor more regulation basically want to change the rules so we can change the winner. Sometimes when people want to do that it's because they want the winner to be themselves, but sometimes it's because they want a situation wherein the winner doesn't make the losers life so terrible.
That's what civilization is really about, trying to control who wins so that the people who lose don't lose as badly. Despite what everyone tends to believe, the average person has far more power today than they have ever had in the entire history of our species. It's not uniform throughout the world, but it's certainly better overall pretty much everywhere.
The reason people think that this is not the case is that, because the average person covers a lot more kinds of people than it used to, they personally have less power. If you are an educated, white, western male, you have less power than you did 50 years ago, because we're sharing that power with a lot more people than you used to have to share it with. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
Re: (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 wi
Comcast was not part of the Bell breakup (Score:4, Informative)
So recap, AT&T, split to 8 companies, then years later when the government stopped their regulation and allowed free market forces to dictate, those 8 phone companies consolidated into 3 companies, AT&T Inc, Verizon, and Qwest (Qwest formed from US WEST). Don't be surprised when further consolidation occurs. The only good thing going right now is that Verizon is primarily located on the north east, and Qwest is obviously in the mid-west/western side of the country with AT&T covering the entire middle and southern portions of the country. Verizon and Qwest are less likely to merge due to this large physical separation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah yes, the good old "free markets are great because free markets are great" argument!
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
No system is perfect. And free markets only work if they are free and there is sufficient competition. In "capitalism" it is the job of the government to ensure competition, but, that idea got pretty hammered in a recent administration, which felt it was the job of government to make sure campagne contributors can maintain their monopolies.
Re:Great (Score:5, Interesting)
It is actually a critical and fundamental pillar of capitalism that the participants be well informed (read Friedman and others). Academically, if the consumer is so bogged down in misinformation or overinformation that they are not well informed than the assumptions that allow capitalism to work so well break down - and the results can no longer be considered the product of a capitalistic market.
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:Great (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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
Sounds like a great opportunity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sounds like a great opportunity (Score:4, Interesting)
At the time people were having bogus charges taken out of their accounts, we'll say $100, and because you couldn't form a class action it wasn't worth the money to sue them independently.
Some people did get together and sue them over not being able to form a class action and it was ruled that their TOS weren't fair or some such.
I could go dig through my old Cyberlaw book if anyone is interested but I can't remember the specifics off the top of my head.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:5, Informative)
This will not hold water in the courts. Don't panic.
Probably not. The problem is that it raises the bar, and makes it that much harder to actually get to court. I presume that's the whole idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:5, Funny)
Probably not. The problem is that it raises the bar, and makes it that much harder to actually get to court. I presume that's the whole idea.
When AT&T said more bars, that's not quite what I had in mind.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:5, Interesting)
This will not hold water in the courts. Don't panic.
Probably not. The problem is that it raises the bar, and makes it that much harder to actually get to court. I presume that's the whole idea.
Right. A few years ago when my wife sued PayPal to recover $1200 they stole from her, the judge threw it out both on grounds of wrong jurisdiction and that the PayPal contract says they can't be sued. The fact that PayPal just flat took the money and repeatedly lied about even having it, did not outweigh the fine print in the PayPal user agreement in the mind of that particular judge. (This was back before eBay bought PayPal, and their internal policies may have been more corrupt then.) Fortunately, PayPal did promptly give the money back (with no explanation) when a state Attorney General inquired about the case. So the system isn't completely broken, and the outcome was right. And at least the lawsuit forced PayPal to pay a lawyer for a few hours to show up in court. But the point is the bogus clause in the user agreement did stop the lawsuit in this case. (The jurisdiction question was a separate issue - there was some contradictory guidance about what state to sue in since the theft occurred online.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should have gone to the AG first, and sued after. $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 doubt when your AG found out and started poking around PayPal's lawyers began shitting bricks, hence the reimbursement.
Now, that judge was obviously a dumbass, and if you had opportunity to vote on her re-appointment (I don't think you normally do for local courts) I hope you voted no.
For breach of contract (
Re: (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 annoya
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That depends on the state. I know New York allows this.
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: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.
Re:Only in a thoroughly corrupt society (Score:4, Informative)
Welcome to the age of the EULA and TOS agreements that limit our freedoms and rights as a consumer.
Ordinarily if they violated the US Constitution they would have been thrown out by our founding fathers. But the USA is no longer a Democracy or Republic but a Corportism where Corporations rule and use lobbyists and lawyers to get away with whatever they want so they can earn more profits.
There exists even Employment Contract Agreements that are basically slavery, and companies can easily get away with them and treat employees as slaves. If the employee refuses to be treated as a slave, there are "No Fault" employment laws that says they can be fired for no reason, and then they are blackballed by other corporations so nobody will want to hire that "troublemaker" and then they become homeless or died from lack of food and health care.
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: (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: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: (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 define
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."
We don't have to care. (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't they required to honour the original? (Score:5, Interesting)
Aren't they, as cosigners, required to honour the original contract?
Someone else wrote "great, now I can get out of my contract for free", but are you really required to rip up the contract you already have? That they won't renew the existing contract is fine, but ... telling you to rip the one you have up?
I'm fairly certain you couldn't do it the other way around.
"AT&T? Hi, I'm just calling you to tell you, that I've faxed over the new terms of our contract, stipulating that I get to spank your CEO in public every Saturday afternoon. You can either sign it or release me from my contract. Yours truly $name."
Somehow I think that'd just be ignored by AT&T and the courts alike.
EULAs (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey guys... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hey guys... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How can requiring arbitration... (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
there's a reasonable chance this is not enforcable (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
The Free Market Punishes Consumers Again (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a great reason for public-owned internet services. Once they get monopoly power, you feel the business end of their business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a free market. There are government controls that prevent it from being a free market, like allowing people/corporations to own certain frequencies of radio waves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Contract buggy blue, no suing back! (Score:5, Funny)
Forgive my non-lawyer ignorance, but can you actually forbid someone from suing you? As a retroactive clause in a contract, even?
"By downloading this pirated video off BitTorrent, you have implicitly agreed to forfeit any and all options of initiating a lawsuit for copyright infringement."
Wonder if that would work.
Hint: Probably not. :P
Already tried, already failed (Score:5, Informative)
AT&T/Cingular already tried these terms with their cel-phone service. They failed. [consumerwatchdog.org]
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't Comcast already get it's ass handed to them in court over similar terms?
You're looking at this all wrong! (Score:3, Funny)
This is a big win for the consumer. We can finally rest assured that AT&T cannot enter into a class action against its consumers.
You might laugh, but this is AT&T we're talking about. To quote Angels in the Outfield: "It could happen."
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.
Re: (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).
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:Again, only in america. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you.
Andrew jackson and Woodrow Wilson would be turning in their graves, while JP Morgan would be clapping.
In India, the reserve bank forced banks to cross-accept debit cards in their ATMs without surcharges. Naturally banks balked at this, but the reserve bank simply bulldozed over them. Now i can use any bank's card on ANY ATM without any surcharge. What's more the Reserve bank has forced them to put this on display in all of their ATMs.
Secondly, the local telephone companies wanted the ability to trash a consumer's credit score based on his telephone bill payment. The courts refused it.
Indian laws specifically make the corporate veil invisible in many criminal cases. So there are no "settlements" here. The CEO is prosecuted and jailed. No golden parachute crap, no evading responsibility.
My contract with my 16Mbps broadband provider specifically states that for every day the service is out, the company prorates the rental amount and credits my account with the money. Similarly iam free to use torrents, or any other crap. No restrictions.
if the speed goes below 12Mbps, the company of forced to charge me only for that plan rates.
Of course the company didn't like these terms: tough luck. The LAW and courts included this clause by force.
Preventing access to courts by arbitration is prohibited by law. Our Supreme court once thundered against this and put the CEO in jail for this.
I am a lawyer, and under California law... (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure how it works in other states.
Re: phirst post! (Score:5, Informative)
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: phirst post! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Schwartz v. Comcast also found to be invalid in Pennsylvania. And I believe it's also invalid in Washington and California.
Re: phirst post! (Score:4, Funny)
So you're telling me that this [comedycentral.com] might not be legally binding?
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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: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:Monopoly on DSL != monopoly on Internet access (Score:5, Funny)
You have also done a very good job of describing our two party political system. ^_^
"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:"Pray I do not alter it any further ..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Send in a notice with your next payment of your bill, that you've revised the contract additionally, and include provisions that the next time they change the contract, they owe you all payments previously remitted on your part, or something equally absurd. Make sure that you include that acceptance of payment constitutes agreement to the new terms and conditions. If they would like to cancel your account that they have 15 days to notify you of that cancelation of the account, and you are not liable for the terms of the previous contract, since they started renegotiations of the terms of the contract.
ALL it takes is being able to play the same stupid games they play, only play them better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's easy. You call them and say "I never agreed to these terms. Tear up my contract." After you're discharged from the contract you pay your bill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, just cancel. It's not a catch 22, there's a very simple out for you. They can't even charge you an ETF if they change the contract midway through its term.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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: (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 in
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the alternative? To let companies get away with violations of the law until the DOJ gets around to prosecuting them?
We all benefit when antisocial corporate actions are discouraged, even if we're not all made whole. Your argument is actually a reason for better class-action procedures, not a reason to dismiss the entire concept.
Re: (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: