Supreme Court: AT&T Can Force Arbitration 415
suraj.sun writes with this unhappy news, as reported by Ars Technica: "The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that AT&T — and indeed, any company — could block class-action suits arising from disputes with customers and instead force those customers into binding arbitration. The ruling reverses previous lower-court decisions that classified stipulations in AT&T's service contract which barred class arbitration as 'unconscionable.' ... In cases where an unfair practice affects large numbers of customers, AT&T or other companies could quietly settle a few individual claims instead of being faced with larger class-action settlements which might include punitive awards designed to discourage future bad practices."
Oohh.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely nothing, pretty much guaranteed.
...If you're a corporation.
I think that was the whole point over fighting such a silly case all the way up to the Supreme Court--to virtually guarantee that you can never be subject to a class action case again. Let's not kid ourselves, who here thinks that any company will ever again sell any service again without a clause in it forcing arbitration and disallowing class action lawsuits?
Re:Absolutely nothing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely nothing, pretty much guaranteed.
...If you're a corporation.
I think that was the whole point over fighting such a silly case all the way up to the Supreme Court--to virtually guarantee that you can never be subject to a class action case again. Let's not kid ourselves, who here thinks that any company will ever again sell any service again without a clause in it forcing arbitration and disallowing class action lawsuits?
Note that arbitrators are notorious for overwhelmingly favoring the party which hires them. In this case, that'd be the company. This is part of a much larger and utterly foolish trend: the systematic dismantling of each available "working through the system" method of either getting justice or effecting change.
Social unrest is like any other kind of energy. It can be neither created nor destroyed; it only changes form. It does not go away merely because you start removing the legitimate means of acting on it. Quite predictably, this is only going to lead to the exact kind of vendettas and feuds that the justice system was specifically put in place to avoid. We're already beginning to see this with groups like Anonymous.
In fact I can sum up Anonymous quite easily. Right or wrong, I believe the reasoning goes like this: "I don't have the millions of dollars and years of my life that it takes to bring a lawsuit against a multinational corporation and actually prevail, but what I do have is some skill with computers and a lot of outrage with no approved outlet." Anonymous should be completely redundant. Instead, they are a blatantly obvious sign that the justice system is failing.
When the authoritarian types witness this, do they feel an immediate need to reform the system? No, they don't. They haven't the wisdom. Instead, they feel a need to "crack down" on computer crimes, as though they were random events happening in a vacuum, as if that does anything to address why they are happening. Where are the leaders who actually understand how to deal with human beings? Are they extinct? Are they the ones who never desired power in the first place?
Re: (Score:3)
In a class action lawsuit, if I'm the lucky first guy to file, I might get a couple G's to serve as lead plaintiff, the lawyers make tens of millions of dollars, and everyone else gets a coupon for $10 off their next phone.
It's the punitive aspect of it that's important. Sure, you may get a check for $0.83, but if you multiply that by millions, plus tack on legal fees, it ends up putting a serious dent in the company's profits. That's the main point of class action lawsuits. Not so much to make you rich, but to make sure the company doesn't do whatever boneheaded thing they did again, to teach them a lesson.
Of course, now, companies are free to put arbitration/non-class action clauses in every damn contract they write, and
Re:I'm not sure I see the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, so in arbitration, I get my sales tax back.
In a class action lawsuit, if I'm the lucky first guy to file, I might get a couple G's to serve as lead plaintiff, the lawyers make tens of millions of dollars, and everyone else gets a coupon for $10 off their next phone.
How much did I really lose here?
The question you pose is valid only if you believe the entire affair is all about your personal financial gain and how to maximize it.
Re:Absolutely nothing. (Score:4, Insightful)
The point was about who is paying the bill. The things you mention don't address this point. I don't know how to make that less ambiguous.
Research the tendency yourself. Arbitration generally and overwhelmingly favors the party that's actually paying the arbitrators. I'm not talking about just a little bit, either. That's generally how business works -- the one paying the bill has the most say. It's just that in this particular business that tendency is undesirable.
Did you ever wonder why it is AT&T that wants the ability to force arbitration and not a dissatisfied customer? To the point they went through the expense of paying attorneys to pursue the case through multiple appeals all the way to the Supreme Court? Does that tell you something?
Did you suppose it was because AT&T is a charitable organization that wants the expenses of claims from as many little guys as possible? Or maybe in the back of your mind someplace did you consider that there might be another reason they want it so badly?
I'm not trying to insult you but what you're saying is just naive.
You're behind the times. (Score:5, Informative)
You're thinking of the way things use to be. Arbiters are currently chosen by the corporation. You have no say in who hears your case. The Christian Science Monitor reports that the arbitration firms find in favor of the corporation against the consumer 98.4% of the time [csmonitor.com] and the remaining 1.6% offer consumers laughably small compensation that does not even come close to making them whole.
Let me put it bluntly to be clear. No consumer has ever won in arbitration. Under the current regime, none of them ever will.
Re:Absolutely nothing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Arbitration seems to be a way to guarantee that whoever has the deepest pockets will win. A long time ago I even gave up some stock options because I had to sign an arbitration agreement first with a clause that essentially said that if either party was unhappy with the solution they could demand a new arbitration with cost to be paid "equally". That is, the company with all the money keeps asking for new arbitration until I run out of money.
An arbitration agreement is about giving up your legal rights in return for some minor momentary benefit.
Re: (Score:3)
The United Corporations of America don't appreciate you talking down to their cronies on the Supreme Corporate Court.
Re: (Score:3)
Just what corporations needed. License to rip us off. But only for amounts that are too small for an individual to suffer the costs of arbitration. Just think how much fun it will be when every corporation that we do business with regularly screws us out of a couple hundred bucks.
Impeach Roberts and Alito for lying to Congress during their confirmation hearings. And impeach Thomas for accepting bribes. But I forgot, the GOP only impeaches for blow jobs, or possibly presiding while black.
Re:Oohh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You really deserve to live in the (business friendly) USofA!
Does anybody still buy into the big lie (land of the free) free what? for who?
Next election day just stand outside the polling place and laugh!
I'm even more disgusted than usual
Re: (Score:3)
You really deserve to live in the (business friendly) USofA!
Does anybody still buy into the big lie (land of the free) free what? for who?
Next election day just stand outside the polling place and laugh!
I'm even more disgusted than usual
Actually, the purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act, that the Supreme Court based it's decision on is not necessarily business friendly. Binding arbitration does not always go in favor of big business. Hower the Federal Arbitration Act is definitely not lawyer friendly. They loose out on the big fees from the big frivolous class action suits.
All the the Federal Arbitration Act says is that businesses have the right to try and settle disputes through arbitration instead of having to go through the court
Re: (Score:3)
Not always, but close enough.
It's a stacked game -- the corporations know which arbitrators have ruled for and against them, but an individual has no such knowledge. Those arbitrators who tend to find in favor of consumers tend not to be rehired [businessweek.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Sue them for what, exactly? Arbitration companies advertise themselves to corporate clients as a highly effective form of debt collection. You think they'd be quite that shameless if they didn't have carte blanche to do as they please once someone is foolish enough to sign a contract waiving their ability to use the courts?
To quote Public Citizen [citizen.org]:
Re:Oohh.. (Score:5, Informative)
It is the land of laws indeed, except the court in this case ruled against those laws, not in favor or "according" to them. Had you actually RTFA'd, you'd have seen that California has consumer protection laws that ban this sort of practice. All the lower court rulings upheld California's state laws. AT&T continued to push it higher and higher to get their favored ruling. The Supreme Court most certainly did have plenty of latitude in the law's interpretation, as their ruling was that the Federal Arbitration Act takes precedence over California's own state laws.
Yes, this is yet another ruling that very explicitly overrides the sovereignty of states' rights in favor of federal. In fact, quoted right there in TFA, is Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion that, quote "[R]ecognition of that federalist ideal, embodied in specific language in this particular statute, should lead us to uphold California's law, not to strike it down."
But the erosion of states' rights and sovereignty is certainly nothing new, particularly to California itself. The application of federal interstate trafficking laws to medicinal marijuana grown and sold entirely within the state of California was another huge example of the Supreme Court's willingness to trample state sovereignty.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually no - Contract Law is almost exclusively the realm of the UCC law, adopted at the state level.
What the States Rights arm of the Supreme Court ruled is that state courts can't rule on what is defined as an unconscionable contract clause under state law. This in spite of the fact that UCC expressly allows for exactly this.
We know the GOP and conservatives are in favor of states rights of course. Because they tell us so all the time.
Pug
Re: (Score:3)
"WRONG. This "judicial activism" stuff is crap. The courts are not suppose to blindly obey the laws congress passes. Haven't you heard of "checks and balances"? They, along with the president, are suppose to keep congress in check. Congress giving the courts "latitude" is irrelevant. The courts are suppose to strike down unjust laws (you know, things that violate the constitution)."
Where did the law validated violate the Constitution?
While I do NOT like this decision, it does seem Constitutional. Bad laws
Re:Oohh.. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I do NOT like this decision, it does seem Constitutional.
May I refer you to the Seventh Amendment [usconstitution.net]?
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
(Emphasis mine).
Re:Oohh.. (Score:4, Insightful)
South Park (Score:3, Funny)
Basically, the Supreme Court saw last night's South Park [southparkstudios.com] and said "Yeah, that's exactly how the legal system should work!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:South Park (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not the broadest definition that could be unreasonably imagined, we have a regime in the White House who thinks having some limited powers to regulate interstate commerce means they can force everyone to buy health insurance, as a cost of being alive.
Yeah, shame on Obama for including the Bush proposal in his health care plan. In the US, anybody at any time can go to the hospital, whether they can pay or not. Not every place in the world allows that and many people die in the streets. However, somebody has to pay for all of those provided services and they are passed on to those who already have insurance.
I find it odd that people don't complain about the government saying you must have auto insurance if you want to drive a car, but they do complain if the government says you must have health insurance if you want medical treatment. In either case, if you are uninsured, your actions have an impact on the rest of those who are insured.
Re: (Score:3)
The definition being used in the current healthcare debate rests entirely on the precedent of Raich. Where the court found that non-commerce (not buying or selling) a substance that is not legal to buy or sell across state lines (pot) falls under the heading of "interstate commerce".
In his dissent in the Gonzales v. Raich case, Justice Thomas warned that this precedent would allow the federal government unlimited powers of regulation. So yeah, FFF was right in his analysis.
Even without Raich, healthcare falls under interstate commerce, unless you are paying your bills out of pocket without insurance or subsidy. Since nobody does that, they either use insurance, for which the underwriters cross state lines or government subsidy, which being a government service falls under the commerce clause.
Of course a simple solution to all of this would be to go to a single payer plan. That's what the Obama Administration wanted originally, before they adopted the Bush Administration's p
Re:South Park (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! The democrats had unassailable majorities in both houses of congress, but it was the republicans who did it! And they were the ones who prevented the democrat supermajority from passing (or even writing) a budget. They have magical powers, those republicans....
They turned me into a Newt Gingrich!
In Canada... (Score:5, Interesting)
*shrug*
Re:In Canada... (Score:4, Interesting)
We also have pretty good labour laws. Non compete clauses are difficult to enforce as no contract can cause a person undue hardship when seeking gainful employment. So if you're only recourse is to leave the city to find work or take a significant pay cut, that non compete clause essentially evaporates.
Yay for common sense.
Re:In Canada... (Score:4, Informative)
Several provinces also have legislation protecting the right to pursue remedy by Courts (effectively allowing class proceedings).
This sort of legislation arose in response to arbitration clauses such as the one in AT&T, and in particular one in an agreement with Dell Computer (see Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs, 2007 SCC 34, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801 [canlii.org]), that prevented class proceedings. See e.g. paragraph 64 of Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc., 2010 ONCA 29 (CanLII) [canlii.org].
An example of the legislation in question is in section 7 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 [gov.on.ca] in Ontario.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm slightly torn on this. On the one side, this means that there won't be ridiculous class action settlements where the class members get a $5 coupon towards future purchases while the lawyers get millions of dollars. On the other side, it effectively removes the only real consumer protection from wide spread practices.
I'd have to say, I'm leaning more towards it being a bad thing.
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure -- if you remove the risk of disbarment. (Score:2)
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Insightful)
Class actions aren't intended to bring restitution to the victims of corporate malfeasance. They're intended to apply enough leverage to significantly punish the corporations. If you want restitution, file your own lawsuit. If you want to teach the corporation never to do that again, join the class action.
Basically, in a class action, you've already been screwed, and there's no way to get unscrewed, but at least you can take down the SOB who screwed you.
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that the contract prohibits private lawsuits. So, if AT&T "forces" you to go the individual route, they are then entitled to have the case thrown out as a contract violation. The supreme court only ruled that AT&T could force individual arbitration, it said nothing about AT&T then having to allow said arbitration to proceed.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the contract prohibits private lawsuits. So, if AT&T "forces" you to go the individual route, they are then entitled to have the case thrown out as a contract violation. The supreme court only ruled that AT&T could force individual arbitration, it said nothing about AT&T then having to allow said arbitration to proceed.
Actually, AT&T could not use your suing them as a means to cancel the court proceedings you brought. They could, however, use it to hold you in breach of contract, which at most would be the cost of the remainder of the contract fee. The question is would AT&T spend thousands on attorney fees to take you to court over breach of contract when the remedy would be a couple of thousand dollars? Plus, if you won in your suit, then you would have further grounds to show that you did not breach the cont
Re:Lawyers (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That's great, but individually, consumers do not generally have the financial clout to take on a massive corporation. Bill Gates might be able to pull it off, but the average Joe who thinks dropping $30,000 on a car is a lot of money, will be outspent before the first day of trial prep is over.
I seem to remember some small guy named Raph Nader who did a real job against the auto companies in the 60s and 70s, anybody remember "Unsafe at Any Speed"?
With today's internet, the average Joe has more power than at any time in history. Look at how the average Joe in Egypt faired recently. All without lawyers or class action suits. The court of public opinion is a much stronger motivator than people give it credit for.
Re:Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that you can "agree" to waive your right to legal recourse in a contract is a bit interesting, especially if you are required to do so as a condition of doing business with the other party. Is a contract really a contract if only one side is entitled to enforce it?
Re: (Score:3)
The only reason those suits are ridiculous are because the corporations have come to expect that they can get away with screwing all their customers by a little bit. This just makes it so they will always get away with it. Basically, we're fucked.
Let's say that your phone carrier charges you a little extra one time, and pay it not knowing the bill was willfully misrepresented. You call the company and ask for a credit of the $2 you lost, and they say there was no overcharge, or they just say no. What are yo
Now imagine that... (Score:5, Informative)
Add in Walmart and all the other chain stores and shady dealers. This ruling was NOT limited to consumer cases.
-GiH
(Yes, IAAL)
Wonderful, just wonderful (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wonderful, just wonderful (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what 8 years of Bush bought us folks, a Supreme Court on the take (look it up, it's a fact that Clarance Thomas took bribes). Hopefully a few of 'em 'll retire while the Dems are in and Obama'll man up and put some liberals in.
Which will go stunningly well I'm sure. The courts will run like a well oiled machine then.
Call me jaded, but when I choose between modern liberals and modern conservatives I'm really choosing which set of rights I want them to try and take.
Re:Wonderful, just wonderful (Score:4, Insightful)
Comparing "modern" Liberals or Conservatives, I find little different...
Re:Wonderful, just wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)
It was the same 5:4 for the money=free speech fuck up and you can bet your ass that corporations are gonna use billions of free speech to convince you that there's no difference between Libs and Cons.
Roberts+Alito always rule corporations>government>people, Thomas votes for whatever he thinks will piss off Democrats and Scalia goes by his conscience and strictly texturalist world view which, funny thing, just about always is the reactionary side. Kennedy is the "swing vote" but the swing is broken.
Re: (Score:3)
Try taking a look at the last 10 5-4 court decisions if you're curious.
So we just give up and die in a gutter than? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Clarence Thomas took office under the other Bush. The mistake was saying eight years of Bush rather than twelve. Between Reagan and the two Bush administrations, Republican presidents have placed five of the nine sitting justices, and I think that's what the original poster was getting at.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wonderful, just wonderful (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we even have any real Liberals left anywhere? Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, and their ilk are basically so centrist they're "Republican Lite". Surely I'm not the only left-leaning person who feels unrepresented. As far as that goes, the Republicans don't do a particularly good job at representing conservatives, either.
Re: (Score:3)
Centrist? I don't think that's a good description. They are all conservatives, with a few notable exceptions on specific policies (namely, health care). But even then, they ushered in a healthcare reform that other developed nations laugh at -- even if it is better than nothing.
I think we need to come up with another, better, descriptive axis on the US political viewpoint chart that reflects what I think frustrates
Re:Wonderful, just wonderful (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you just noticing this? There hasn't been a serious leftist or even progressive candidate in my lifetime.
Re:Wonderful, just wonderful (Score:4, Interesting)
Do we even have any real Liberals left anywhere? Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, and their ilk are basically so centrist they're "Republican Lite". Surely I'm not the only left-leaning person who feels unrepresented. As far as that goes, the Republicans don't do a particularly good job at representing conservatives, either.
Actually, since the right has moved so far to the right, today's liberal is yesterday's conservative. A lot of Reagan's proposals would be shot down as liberal sh*t today.
Re: (Score:3)
Dennis Kucinich
Ralph Nader
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck every getting a cellphone or cable or Internet service again.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Mark out the parts of your phone contract that you don't like? You just don't get a phone, then. AT&T absolutely, positively, will not budge on this.
I assume you mean that if everyone did it, the phone companies would have to play ball. So instead of having a justice system that makes just decisions, you merely propose enacting a significant change in the lifestyle of every person within the United States? This won't happen. I'm truly sorry; it would be wonderful if it did, but it is an unrea
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there's a single EULA out there that I agree with, and I'd argue they shouldn't be binding as a rule since you can't even read them in many cases until AFTER yo
Re:Wonderful, just wonderful (Score:5, Informative)
I have trouble understanding how a black man can support the Party that opposed the abolition of slavery and created the Ku Klux Klan.
You might want to crack open a history book sometime. Lincoln was a Republican. The Republican party was founded as an abolitionist party. At the founding of the KKK the south was nigh universally Democratic (because the Republicans had abolished slavery).
Sure, the Republican party has radically changed in the last seventy years so that it's senseless to say it's the party of Lincoln or the party of Teddy Roosevelt, but that doesn't change the fact that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, are you saying that a black man in 2011 should vote against his beliefs and interests by voting for Republicans, because that black man should be more concerned about the policies of the Democratic party 150 years ago? That would be amazing, if that's what you meant. Do you always make decisions based on deep history? That's odd. I think most of us make decisions based on the actual reality of the current time. I sure do.
Class actions lawsuits are ridiculous anyway. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Class actions lawsuits are ridiculous anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
Class action suits are good for one thing, though. Class action suits means that a firm doing something wrong will get punished with a hefty fine, especially if punitive damages are added in, which discourages them from continuing their wrongdoing.
By contrast, arbitration claim means that individual claimants must make individual claims which is harder and results in fewer claims against the company, and thus a much lower payout.
A company would much rather get 1000 people making individual arbitration claims and pay them 100 bucks each instead of a 10,000 people class action suit and pay out $5 million at once.
Re: (Score:2)
Shame that they can't just not be assholes, and not have to pay at all (because they didn't fuck everyone)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they would be forced into binding arbitration. Since AT&T hires the arbitrator you can be sure the waiting list is years long and the outcomes vastly in their favor.
Re: (Score:3)
Arbitration clauses means that you can be prevented from suing someone. That's the whole point of arbitration clauses - that a company can force you into binding arbitration instead allowing you to take them to court. Essentially, you have agreed to not sue them and that contractual clause will be binding on you.
Re: (Score:3)
eliminate legal recognition of corporations
the effect would be drastic and, IMO, very positive.
most real innovation occurs either in small start-up teams and in university or government labs anyways, business doesn't want to take risks, they want to develop something that already exists into profit for themselves, like charging thousands for $15 med
... if you agreed to it (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T can only force arbitration if you agreed to it in your contract. Which you did. All major companies make it a condition of the sale.
What the court decided is that you can't get out of your contractual agreement with a class-action suit.
The unconscionable part here is the law that they're upholding, the Federal Arbitration Act [wikipedia.org], which basically lets you give up your right to sue. You don't have to, but they don't have to give you the service, unless you agree to meet in a court of their choosing. Which, of course, they'll always require, as long as the law allows them to.
That's been upheld before. This case is just deciding that the federal law trumps state anti-arbitration laws. I find it unconscionable in both cases, and "unconscionable" is supposed to be a way out of contracts, but the existence of the federal law and 5 Republican appointees on the Supreme Court says I'm wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, of course, they'll always require, as long as the law allows them to.
It's bigger than just the Federal Arbitration Act law. Cell phone companies enjoy a natural N-opoly (where N is a small integer) because it's hard to set nationwide coverage, and the FCC doesn't just let anyone use the airwaves.
There's no market incentive to offer a service where you don't have to sue, since all the other players put these clauses into their contracts. The cell phone providers don't actually collude on this, they just have to see what the others use in their contracts. (Anyone know w
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that AT&T is a regulated monopoly. If the only companies that offer the service are monopolies, and they all force you to sign a contract that denies your right to sue, then the government has effectively taken away your right to sue. They just did it indirectly. Ex: There are two phone carriers that operate in my area: AT&T and Verizon. If both of them have contracts that deny my right to sue, then my only option is to forego service. That isn't reasonable.
What is arbitration? (Score:5, Interesting)
Arbitration = "impartial" non-accredited non-monitored unaccountable random person bought and paid for, who if he decides for the customer more than once in a great while is fired in favor of another "impartial" random person. Alternate definition: how to bribe a civil court judge legally.
No arbiter can be impartial. Their livelihood depends upon bias and outright prejudice (as in "pre-judging"). It is not an honorable profession.
Re:What is arbitration? (Score:5, Insightful)
No arbiter can be impartial. Their livelihood depends upon bias and outright prejudice (as in "pre-judging"). It is not an honorable profession.
Like a judge appointed for life?
Anyway, the state could set up their own arbitration board, and when a case comes up, they assign someone from the board. The companies would pay for the board, but they wouldn't have hiring and firing decisions. That would make it more impartial.
Re: (Score:3)
That would be worse. With private arbiters there are records and standards of conduct and a very obvious financial link between the arbiter and one of the parties in the case.
With a board appointed by the state you'd either have another minor election the voters don't understand or a backdoor system of favor and connections to be appointed to it. It would also eliminate a very obvious link and replace it with one of political donations and favor that makes it easier to obscure the source of money.
Furthermor
Re: (Score:3)
Finally, arbiters are usually paid either 50/50 by both parties or by the 'loser' of a decision rather than 100% by one party.
If an arbiter finds against the corporation enough times, they get paid $0 when the company stops using him or her.
A Supreme Court No More (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SCOTUS didn't say you have to submit to arbitration in all cases, just in dumb suits like this one.
most states have a law where you pay the sales tax on the full pre-coupon price. AT&T had a special on a phone where they gave it away for "free". idiot couple paid the tax. instead of giving back the phone they sued. this should have been kicked back to small claims court not a class action lawsuit that will cost millions of $$$ to fight
Re: (Score:3)
It started well before that ruling. Ever since Roberts and Alito came in, the court seems to be overwhelmingly favoring the powerful over the powerless, usually in a 5 to 4 decision.
This country is well along its path to becoming a banana republic, and the supreme court is actively participating in this transformation.
Wow. So its official ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the absense of justice (Score:2)
In the absence of real justice, vigilantism will inevitable fill the vacuum. The SCOTUS should have considered that...
Time to hack AT&T into the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to hack AT&T into the ground.
Yes! Everybody go out and buy some more iPhones! [tomsguide.com]
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
they abuse the public land they where entrusted - lets pull their wires out and get rid of
This is the end of class action lawsuits (Score:2)
Which is probably the goal of the five conservatives on the court.
Perhaps Congress will change the statute.
What should be illegal (Score:3)
What should be illegal is a company's contract blocking your legal recourse if they screw you over. This is what Paypal did too and pretty much robbing their own customers who could not sue them in return because of the same type of garbage.
Wrong attitude. (Score:2)
"larger class-action settlements which might include punitive awards designed to discourage future bad practices"
I hear this line often, and it is wrong. Big corporations have no memory, and these "crimes" are hardly ever done on purpose. You cannot adjust your intentions if the outcome that needs correcting was never intended in the first place. Before getting into any details at all, it is blatantly obvious that any corporation would try to avoid a class action lawsuit of any kind. Same with recalls. The damage is done and the outcome is already secondary.
Of course, if it was done on purpose, then the outcome is alr
Do They Know The Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't Supreme Court justices know the law anymore? This decision is so out in right field that it doesn't even pretend to be supported by law passed by Congress. Contracts used to be invalid if:
1) They are so one-side as to be entirely unfair.
2) They force one party into a position because there is no alternative (the offer you can't refuse).
Carrier-forced arbitration meets both these points. Carriers, by the nature of their enormous power relative to consumers, will always win arbitration because the arbitrators are, for all practical purposes, on the carriers' payrolls. This is because carriers are repeat customers, whereas carrier customers are not. This severely biases the arbitrator in favor of the carriers. There is no easy way to make this even remotely fair to carrier customers. This, by itself, would be enough to nullify arbitration clauses in any sane country.
Carrier customers have no choice but to have a phone of some sort. You just can't exist in most modern markets without the ability to communicate with other people. And all carriers have the same arbitration clause in their contract, so customers have no alternative. This should also, all by itself, be enough to nullify arbitration clauses in contracts in any sane country.
Put these two things together, and it's clear that the Surpeme Court has no intention of applying the law. It seems that they don't even bother reading it anymore. They just want to apply their own sense of right and wrong as it aligns with their political philosophies. If we had a Constitutional Supreme Court, meaning a Supreme Court defined and authorized by our Constitution, prior to this ruling, it just evaporated.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress is on the payroll of lots of companies too... including carriers.
I'm just hoping to survive the rest of my life with as little trouble as possible and if a revolution breaks out, I hope I have some ability to protect myself remaining.
Conservative Jurisprudence In A Nutshell (Score:4, Insightful)
Per Jeffrey Toobin, “in every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.” That’s conservative jurisprudence in a nutshell.
As has become abundantly clear, "activist judges" are only a problem when their rulings don't fit the conservative POV.
Re: (Score:3)
This ruling not only screws the little guy, it supports federal authority trampling state law, and seems to me to directly contradict the Seventh Amendment [constitution.org] (IANAL). My mind boggles that the justices who wrote it are considered "conservative". The word has lost its meaning.
American Reversal..... (Score:3)
As patently stupid as this is, the court forgot one detail:
There is nothing that says customers can't band together and force AT&T to arbitrate with a large group of people at the same time. Or drag out the arbitration proceedings until they are no longer profitable.
It would be nice to see some states force companies to give up the right to forced arbitration as a condition of doing business in their state! No state is obligated to permit a business to operate, especially if they deny a permit to operate as a means of protecting their citizens from unfair practices.
Re:Common?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They can. And I would recommend you read fuzzyfuzzyfungus' link. Al Franken proposed a bill placing limits on what companies could arbitrate, which did pass, with GOP opposition. The bill stated that the Government cannot hire contractors that require arbitration in cases of rape, sexual harassment, discrimination, etc.
Re:It's not "forced" if you agree to it in a contr (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, just pick one of the zero phone companies that have no arbitration clause. What the heck do you need phone service for? Or natural gas, or electricity!
Yeah, sure. (Score:4, Insightful)
So next time you'll have a choice between two operators. Both of them will have 'mandatory arbitration' clause.
Sure, no pressure. You can always move to another country, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, "supposedly" you can negotiate your contract.
Nevermind that the squibs in the stores (or on the phone, whatever) would look at you like you're insane if you even tried to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens when Binding Arbitration Clause is in every EULA and Service Agreement available?
What now David? And here I thought you might have more sympathy for taking down giants.
Re: (Score:2)
Within a couple of months, ALL the companies will have this provision in their contracts. Then there is no choice if you want the service.
Some "free" market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you really mean Kleptocracy?
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the /s at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the congress that passed the law to begin with?
Or the democratic congress that did nothing to change it?
By the letter of the law, I'm having a hard time seeing the unconstitutionality. Federal law generally trumps state, and free association is protected. It's an awful law, but bad law doesn't make it unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:3)
Is binding arbitration actually in the contract people sign when they sign up for the service?
It is. It is also in your contract for your loans, your contract for your bank accounts, your contract for your HOA, your employment contract, your insurance policy, your airplane ticket, your computer purchase, and probably even in real fine print at the bottom of your menu when you go out to eat.
Don't worry though, it's only binding to you. If you don't like the outcome the company bought from the arbiter of th