AT&T Says Customers Can't Sue the Company For Selling Location Data To Bounty Hunters (vice.com) 94
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: AT&T is arguing that its customers can't sue the company for selling location data to bounty hunters, according to recently filed court records. AT&T says the customers signed contracts that force them into arbitration, meaning consumers have to settle complaints privately with the company rather than in court. The filing is in response to a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The issue circles around mandatory arbitration; that is, forcing consumers to settle complaints privately with the company rather than in court.
"Each time they entered into a new Wireless Customer Agreement with AT&T, they [the plaintiffs] not only agreed to AT&T's Privacy Policy but also agreed to resolve their disputes with AT&T -- including the claims asserted in this action -- in arbitration on an individual basis," AT&T's filing from last week reads. When the plaintiffs, who are AT&T customers, accepted AT&T's terms and conditions when, say, purchasing a new phone, they also agreed specifically to the arbitration clause, AT&T argues. The Arbitration Agreement on AT&T's website reads, "AT&T and you agree to arbitrate all disputes and claims between us. This agreement to arbitrate is intended to be broadly interpreted." The class-action lawsuit comes after multiple investigations found that T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T were selling access to their customers' location data to bounty hunters and others not authorized to possess it. All of the telecom giants have since stopped selling the data, but that hasn't stopped lawyers from filing class-action lawsuits.
"Each time they entered into a new Wireless Customer Agreement with AT&T, they [the plaintiffs] not only agreed to AT&T's Privacy Policy but also agreed to resolve their disputes with AT&T -- including the claims asserted in this action -- in arbitration on an individual basis," AT&T's filing from last week reads. When the plaintiffs, who are AT&T customers, accepted AT&T's terms and conditions when, say, purchasing a new phone, they also agreed specifically to the arbitration clause, AT&T argues. The Arbitration Agreement on AT&T's website reads, "AT&T and you agree to arbitrate all disputes and claims between us. This agreement to arbitrate is intended to be broadly interpreted." The class-action lawsuit comes after multiple investigations found that T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T were selling access to their customers' location data to bounty hunters and others not authorized to possess it. All of the telecom giants have since stopped selling the data, but that hasn't stopped lawyers from filing class-action lawsuits.
Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitration (Score:5, Insightful)
I could honestly care about the selling of data. They will never stop that crap until there are laws. The forced arbitration in forced contracts is more damaging to society. I hope EFF challenges that BS all the way to the supreme court.
Re:Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitratio (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really when that is a standard for service providers the choices become do or don't have the service.
Re: (Score:2)
as long as the carriers know you can't do without they know they have you owned.
On the bright side you can vote in a politician and pray (a thing religious people do for their religion) that the politician fights big business for you instead of just taking a bribe and screwing you. It's not like politicians don't know that you have a short memory and will vote for them again.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really when that is a standard for service providers the choices become do or don't have the service.
Outside this being true. Why would a law stating that phone companies or any companies for that matter can't sell your data without your express consent. And that said consent is detached from use of service?
If you want to sell my data give ME the choice. And if i'm too stupid to choose wisely or i dont give a fuck then fine go ahead, sell it.
If I were ever going to consent to data disclosure under law it'd be contingent on a discount or free phone $$
Re: (Score:2)
This thread was about the forced arbitration being made illegal, not the sale of data.
Re: Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitrati (Score:1)
Mod parent down, reading comprehension -1
Re: (Score:2)
You sure about that? Read upthread again.
Re: (Score:1)
It starts discussing forced arbitration then reintroduces the sale of data alongside that, thus expanding the scope to include both matters.
That the person being told that it applies to only one matter did themselves address only the other matter doesn't mean that it's correct to attempt to focus only on the first topic.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it does mean you can't win the argument by changing the parameters.
Re:Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitratio (Score:5, Insightful)
the free market is going to need to have quite a bit more competition before that becomes a viable approach.
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually people will get fed up with AT&T selling their data and forcing them into private arbitration that always find in favour of AT&T and AT&T will go bankrupt, punished by the free market for its abuse of its customers' good will.
Like, pass the doobie maaan, then tell us another joke, but this time about facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
Eventually people will get fed up with AT&T selling their data and forcing them into private arbitration that always find in favour of AT&T and AT&T will go bankrupt, punished by the free market for its abuse of its customers' good will.
Like, pass the doobie maaan, then tell us another joke, but this time about facebook.
Fuck the Zuck?
Re: (Score:1)
Eventually people will get fed up with AT&T selling their data and forcing them into private arbitration that always find in favour of AT&T and AT&T will go bankrupt, punished by the free market for its abuse of its customers' good will.
Like, pass the doobie maaan, then tell us another joke, but this time about facebook.
Facebook is a liberal conspiracy to censor and silence conservatives.
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually people will get fed up with AT&T selling their data and forcing them into private arbitration that always find in favour of AT&T and AT&T will go bankrupt, punished by the free market for its abuse of its customers' good will.
Like, pass the doobie maaan, then tell us another joke, but this time about facebook.
Facebook is a liberal conspiracy to censor and silence conservatives.
And twitter is a Republican conspiracy to expose and identify dangerous political wrong think Libs, Dems and Criminals like Hillary! All the while presenting the truth from the biggest non disclosure arbitrated litigation specialist on the planet. [buzzfeednews.com]
AT$T doing the same bullshit with customers is nothing special in a society that thrives on corrupting social morals with legal trickery. Don't like what they are doing well too bad, if you accept our services you will just have to supply the vaseline when it co
Re:Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitratio (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T will go bankrupt, punished by the free market for its abuse of its customers' good will
You are off in the weeds.
No one wants to do business with AT&T and it has been that way for years. I have a friend who works for them and even she hates the place. AT&T has been consistently rated one of the worst companies to do business with for years.
Yet they still exist. This is because they are in an industry with significant barriers to entry, some natural and some contrived, and what little competition they have is as bad or nearly so. The only option to not have to deal with idiocy is to not have a cell phone at all and right now there aren't a lot of people who are willing to do that, certainly not enough to bankrupt ATT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The free will of the market requires an informed consumer. That won't happen, not in enough volume to make a difference.
Re: (Score:3)
If we had a healthy market, perhaps. But when we have a market where the seller has a million times more economic power than the buyer, and only 4-ish actual sellers, the market is far too broken to work as you expect.
If you think the market will prevent harmful practices, look no further than Victorian England where due to a lack of food safety laws, bakers routinely added alum, plaster of paris, and even more harmful ingredients to their bread to give it a higher apparent value while slowly poisoning the
Re:Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitratio (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, there can be a free market when these companies stop using the spectrum that the citizens own. Wait, this would make them non-viable you say? Well, then it seems the citizens should also be able to force certain stipulations with access to that spectrum. I tend to favor the free market, but there is no such thing when a company gets a government granted monopoly on something that is owned by the citizens.
Re:Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitratio (Score:5, Interesting)
Not just limited to cellphone companies. I signed forced arbitration buying a car, listing a house for sale, opening an account with the cable company, and a few times when accepting jobs. It's everywhere and is a concern... but what am -I- gonna do? Not buy a car, abandon my home, and not work?
Re: (Score:2)
Well that would be Ok, if the customers got fed up were allowed kill the directors, (the directors families could go into arbitration) I think there should be a law against that. Oh wait, we can't have that law because someone thinks there should be one.
Arbitration clauses in contract (which are governed by laws, someone at some point must have thought that would be a good idea) are a way to take away rights of the people signing them. If the company is breaking a law it should not be possible to sign a con
Re: (Score:2)
I hope EFF challenges that BS all the way to the supreme court.
The supreme court has almost always ruled in favor of forced arbitration.
Re: (Score:1)
As they should though. "Forced" is also a misnomer. Binding is is the right word. AT&T is saying "For X dollars / month, we will give you service, but you can't sue us in open court, because it is too expensive at the rates you want to pay. So, we will go to the AAA (American Association of Arbiters) and argue there.". Seems reasonable. No one forces you to accept those terms. You could refuse outright to agree to their terms, hold out your business, or take it elsewhere.
Has anyone actually been through
Re:Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitratio (Score:5, Insightful)
No one forces you to accept those terms. You could refuse outright to agree to their terms, hold out your business, or take it elsewhere.
Sure. And all other big wireless providers have the same binding arbitration. Yay for free market.
Disclaimer: AT&T Wireless customer.
You misspelt the word "bitch".
Re: Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitrati (Score:1)
Don't like what the industry offers? Make a competitor? It IS a free market.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.fcc.gov/auctions [fcc.gov]
It might be spendy, but you can start here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitratio (Score:5, Insightful)
The arbiters are neutral third parties
No, the arbiters very livelihoods are only made possible by corporations that force their customers to use binding arbitration.
They wouldn't have jobs if they weren't giving those corporations a good ROI.
Re: Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitrati (Score:1)
That's not the way the AAA works. The arbiters are mutually agreed upon by both sides, and try to resolve the dispute. If you find the process flawed, you can then go to court.
Re: (Score:2)
All arbiters make their living providing value to corporations with binding arbitration agreements. You cannot agree to an arbiter who does not provide value to these corporations, as they don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.adr.org/sites/defa... [adr.org]
Page 7:
Arbitrators are neutral and independent decision makers who are not employees
of the AAA. Once appointed to a case, an arbitrator may not be removed by one
party without the other party’s consent or unless the Administrator determines an
arbitrator should be removed and replaced by another arbitrator chosen by the
Administrator in a manner described in these Rules.
The AAA’s Consumer Arbitration Rules
The AAA has developed the Consumer Arbitration Rules for cons
Re: (Score:3)
You don't seem to be able to get it through your thick skull that no consumers would ever give up their rights to go to court unless forced by the terms of a corporate contract.
That means that there is no consumer-driven market for arbitration. The entire industry is driven solely by the corporations and their contracts.
So this bullshit line of "But the corporations don't directly pay us" is irrelevant. These so-called "independent decision makers" know exactly who they're really working for.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think you can waltz into a court room, and sue AT&T without having a law firm shore up $100,000 just to file the damn suit, you haven't been involved in trial litigation.
I can in fact do just that via the small claims process, for which the vast majority of suits against AT&T would likely qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
In my most recent small claims court experience the other party requested pre-hearing arbitration. The court appointed an arbiter, and we successfully settled the matter without requiring court attendance.
Had the arbitration been funded by the other party there's no fucking way in hell I'd have agreed to it.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they should not. The courts are the authority that is meant to resolve disputes peacefully.
Arbitration can never be free of conflicts of interest. If you go into arbitration with (for example) AT&T, one party will likely require the arbitration services many more times and wiil hire that arbitrator again if they are pleased with the results. The other is unlikely to need them again.
Re: Good. Let's support EFF fight forced arbitrati (Score:2)
If they have arbitrated for AT&T prior, they would have to disclose that, and you could opt not to agree to that arbiter, that's how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and the next one will face exactly the same conflict of interest. Soon enough, you run out of strikes.
Re: (Score:1)
"As they should though."
As they should not. Legal remedy is EXCLUSIVELY a court power, as granted by the constitution. That's literally why they exist.
Re: (Score:2)
but you can't sue us in open court, because it is too expensive at the rates you want to pay
The corporation could solve that problem by just not being so sue-worthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No kidding? (Score:3)
All of the telecom giants have since stopped selling the data, but that hasn't stopped lawyers from filing class-action lawsuits.
I am pretty sure nothing short of blowing up the planet could stop lawyers from filing lawsuits. And soon even that won't be enough. space law!
Forced "extortion" clauses (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Forced "extortion" clauses (Score:4)
...and age where we have to sign a million forms for everything,
The thing is, most of the things companies want you to agree to aren't ever even signed by a person. It's usually 'click here to accept' or 'visit our website to read through 100 pages of what we want you to do'. Courts need to throw out any 'contract' that isn't actually signed by a person (no more 'terms of service' crap). If ATT wants a court to enforce something, they need to bring in a signed document of what was agreed to at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
UK law addresses this through use of legislation on consumer rights: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... [legislation.gov.uk]
See also page 73 of https://assets.publishing.serv... [service.gov.uk]
Compulsory arbitration clauses
Original term
If we cannot resolve any disputes about Ford Extra Cover you will accept reference to an agreed arbitrator or to one appointed by the President of the Law Society for the time being.
Action taken
Term deleted.
Re:Forced "extortion" clauses (Score:4, Interesting)
Why does a civil court need a jury for instance?
Because the 7th amendment says it's your constitutional to a trial by jury in all matters over 20 dollars. The founders knew the abuse of 'arbiters' that are not the defendants peers can cause, that's why it's in there. I don't understand where a corporation can attempt to force you to relinquish one (or more) inalienable constitutional rights by way of a contract. I think the courts forget what inalienable means.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole system is broken. The UK actually has a half decent one, maybe you should copy it.
There is no need to sue in most cases in the UK. We have a telecoms regulator. It's not perfect but it mostly works. First you complain to the telecom company, and if you aren't happy with their response you can escalate to the telecom regulator. The company pays a fee if you do that, but it's free for you, so there is an incentive for them to resolve it to your satisfaction before it gets that far.
The regulator will
Ok, perfect! (Score:3)
they [the plaintiffs] not only agreed to AT&T's Privacy Policy but also agreed to resolve their disputes with AT&T -- including the claims asserted in this action -- in arbitration on an individual basis
Ok, fine, if that's the way you want it AT&T, fine.
Now what every customer of AT&T has to do if file a individual complaint to AT&T to be resolved by arbitration.
Let's see how quickly they'll get backlogged and bogged down with all these cases they insisted must be handled individually, and see they how like them apples!
Re:Ok, perfect! (Score:5, Interesting)
Arbitration is pricey. (Score:2)
Forced Arbitration DDOS, I like it.
I don't. As I hear it, (not having participated in one) arbitration is pricey. Thousands of bux for the arbitrator and venu. Not the sort of thing you want to be paying for a small dispute.
That's why there ARE class-action suits in the courts: So you can lump a batch of identical little disputes, where one party did small damage to many people, into one big enough to have SOME more settlement money than cost.
Forcing the customers to sue individually and go to individua
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: Sue AT&T
Step 2: AT&T demand arbitration
Step 3: Accept arbitration only at no personal cost, as otherwise AT&T are forcing unwanted and unneeded expense on you
Step 4: Sue AT&T for that, because that's not covered by your agreement
Worse case you win step 4 and get the cash to pay for arbitration.
Re: (Score:2)
Forced Arbitration DDOS, I like it.
I don't. As I hear it, (not having participated in one) arbitration is pricey. Thousands of bux for the arbitrator and venu. Not the sort of thing you want to be paying for a small dispute.
In most arbitration agreements, the company agrees to pay for the arbitration no matter the outcome.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for being abused by AT&T!
Re: (Score:3)
Dear AT&T customer, due to our unusually high volume of consumer complaints, your arbitration is scheduled for June 14, 2038.
That would be very clever of them, pushing the date just past the Unix timestamp rollover and betting that the world will come to an end before they have to deal with the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If each customer would put forth the effort to call their 1-800# for a 15-20 minute call, their systems would be overwhelmed and at least cost them enough pain to rethink strategies like this in the future. And there would be that 1% who are diligent and burn hours of AT&T's time and literally cost a year's+ revenues from that customer.
The real problem is EVERY carrier has requirements like this in their contracts. You can't change your phone company to the "no arbitration" one. And the government makes
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, fine, if that's the way you want it AT&T, fine.
Now what every customer of AT&T has to do if file a individual complaint to AT&T to be resolved by arbitration.
Let's see how quickly they'll get backlogged and bogged down with all these cases they insisted must be handled individually, and see they how like them apples!
No way, they'll just put minimal resources to handling it. Each individual will just have to wait 10 years until they get their chance at arbitration.
Shrink Wrap and Click Through (Score:3)
I think it may have been Microsoft that started the "Shrink Wrapped License" and somehow got a judge to agree that its a valid "contract" or "license". This needs to be revisited! This has spread, how often are we expected to Just Sign a Standard 3 page contract? Recently when I decided to read a contract while at a service window I was asked if I thought I was a lawyer or something. I don't have a license to buy or use a light bulb or a hamburger WHAT makes a phone from AT&T any different. Oh, money spent on lobbyists - yea that makes it OK. Not.
Re: (Score:2)
By opening this package, you agree (Score:2)
No! I did not agree. Some judge may SAY I agreed, but really I just opened a package. We need clear laws that judges really don't need to say much about, and those clear laws should support people, not money. Chances? Small.
They're right (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to change that you're going to have vote pro consumer politicians in office. That's people like Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Ro Kanna and AOC.
Re: (Score:1)
-1 troll, and an embarassing failure of a troll at that.
If you want to change that you're going to have vote pro consumer politicians in office.
Done. It's been done for decades. What is step two?
You NEVER answer that, and despite being proven wrong time and time again, you keep saying the same thing with no explanation why it never works and why you keep saying it.
At least good trolls know when to give it up because it isn't funny anymore.
See you in another article where once again you'll lie about voting yet again!
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much (Score:2)
The decision to uphold Binding Arbitration was along party lines. Let that sink in. To be blunt we've let the SCOTUS get packed with partisan nominations. Thomas, Garland and now Kavanaugh are all deeply troubling appointees.
And to be blunt again, I'd like to see Bernie Sanders get in office with a left wing Congress and just do another round of
Re: (Score:2)
Binding Arbitration is a clear violation of due process.
Surely denying binding arbitration is removing the right of people to freely enter into contracts of their own choosing?
The question can not be whether Binding Arbitration is a violation of due process, it must be whether a person can contractually choose to abrogate their own rights.
In the UK the law allows that where a contract lacks balance between the parties the lesser party can disregard terms that abrogate their rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. What's your point?
In reality, most of these contracts are coercive. Most people need a phone these days. Try getting a phone without accepting a contract that requires binding arbitration. You can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Try getting a phone without accepting a contract that requires binding arbitration. You can't.
Getting a phone is trivial. You can buy them from Amazon, Ebay or other online purveyors of electronic goods.
Getting a telephony service with which to use the phone without accepting a contract is probably not possible. The person providing the service understandably expects payment in return, and a contract establishes the basis for this.
I have however just checked my contract and it doesn't mention the word arbitration. Nowhere. Binding or otherwise.
I guess I can get a contract - with unlimited data usage
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Which phone company?
Did you check the latest version of the contract, after all the changes that you accepted by failing to cancel your service or by failing to reject the arbitration agreement in writing, on paper to an office somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Virgin, and yes.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not be completely bullshitting, but the contract limits you to arbitration or small claims courts, and eliminates class action lawsuits:
https://www.virginmobileusa.co... [virginmobileusa.com]
"DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ARBITRATION PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY; IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS
How Will We Resolve Disputes? Through Mandatory Arbitration and Waiver of Class Action.
If we have a dispute, we agree to resolve it using arbitration or small claims court. We also agree to resolve our issues in a suit with only two parties (you and
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the contract to which I agreed, or the one currently governing the service I receive.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not my point. Try to get new phone service now in the USA without agreeing to arbitration.
Are you perhaps talking about a UK contract? If so, that's completely off topic. If you are talking about the USA, perhaps you could supply a link that shows your contract that doesn't have binding arbitration or a clause allowing Virgin Mobile to modify the contract.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Congress passed a law making Arbitration agreements binding
Congress was Lobbied into (Bribed into?) passing a law making Arbitration...
>> If you want to change that you're going to have vote pro consumer
100% agreement on that! Who?
>> like Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, Ro Kanna and AOC.
Oh, can't we add a bunch to that?
Sure, those are just the ones I know off the top (Score:2)
Let's not forget what bounty hunters do! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No. We should encourage AT&T to protect consumer data. AT&T do not know whether I am a fugitive, whether the bounty hunter has asked for the correct data or whether the use of that data will be lawful. The only thing they know is that they shouldn't be fucking selling it.
Bounty Hunters can find other means of locating and apprehending fugitives.
Re: (Score:2)
No. We should encourage AT&T to protect consumer data. AT&T do not know whether I am a fugitive, whether the bounty hunter has asked for the correct data or whether the use of that data will be lawful. The only thing they know is that they shouldn't be fucking selling it.
Bounty Hunters can find other means of locating and apprehending fugitives.
But realistically, most bounty hunters act lawfully and most of the time they will ask for the correct data. You might as well say car dealerships shouldn't sell cars cause a small fraction of their customers will use them for illegal purposes, or they will drive incorrectly causing injury or death.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I certainly don't support car dealerships selling cars that were brought to them for repair and service.
Which would be the correct car analogy.
I do also dislike bounty hunters on principle. Fix your fucking legal system to negate the need for them.
'THE SPECIAL HELL' for AT&T, too. (Score:2)
Dump AT&T day (Score:2)
See how they react when 10,000+ customers drop their service in ONE DAY. Then 10,000 more in DAY TWO and so on. There is still alternatives - while they last.
Blah Blah (Score:2)
They sure do say a lot of things!
Isn't Court Resolution a Right? (Score:2)
I thought that there was something in the works that was going to make it illegal to strip people of their right to a fair and impartial trial to resolve things.
Making it so that you can't go to court is inherently wrong on so many levels.
I can understand things being limited in sensitive areas, like law enforcement and the intelligence sector, but ISPs? Sorry. I don't buy it.
These companies need to be very careful, or they will get sued themselves for trying to strip people of fair legal proceedings and ot
Arbitration (Score:2)
The clause doesn't appear to limit _where_ the arbitration can occur, or _who_ can be the arbitrator.
So can I choose for the arbitration to occur in court, with a judge as an arbitrator?
Re: (Score:2)
The clause doesn't appear to limit _where_ the arbitration can occur, or _who_ can be the arbitrator.
So can I choose for the arbitration to occur in court, with a judge as an arbitrator?
Good point, but there's still the matter of the 'on an individual basis', which in this case would tie up the courts (I'd really rather not have tax payers footing the bill here).
Consumer protection laws (Score:1)
Arbitration for "Agreed" disputes (Score:1)
The House is debating legislation on this subject (Score:1)