AT&T Loses Key Ruling In Class Action Over Unlimited-Data Throttling (arstechnica.com) 14
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: AT&T's mandatory-arbitration clause is unenforceable in a class-action case over AT&T's throttling of unlimited data, a panel of U.S. appeals court judges ruled this week. The nearly five-year-old case has gone through twists and turns, with AT&T's forced-arbitration clause initially being upheld in March 2016. If that decision had stood, the customers would have been forced to have any complaints heard individually in arbitration. But an April 2017 decision by the California Supreme Court in a different case effectively changed the state's arbitration law, causing a U.S. District Court judge to revive the class action in March 2018.
AT&T appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but a three-judge panel at that court rejected AT&T's appeal in a ruling issued Tuesday. Judges said they must follow the California Supreme Court decision -- known as the McGill rule -- which held that an agreement, like AT&T's, that waives public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public policy and unenforceable." AT&T claimed that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the California law, but the appeals court had already ruled in Blair [another case involving the McGill rule] that this federal law doesn't preempt the McGill rule. The judges were also not persuaded by AT&T's argument that the court "abused its discretion in reconsidering its initial order compelling arbitration."
AT&T appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but a three-judge panel at that court rejected AT&T's appeal in a ruling issued Tuesday. Judges said they must follow the California Supreme Court decision -- known as the McGill rule -- which held that an agreement, like AT&T's, that waives public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public policy and unenforceable." AT&T claimed that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the California law, but the appeals court had already ruled in Blair [another case involving the McGill rule] that this federal law doesn't preempt the McGill rule. The judges were also not persuaded by AT&T's argument that the court "abused its discretion in reconsidering its initial order compelling arbitration."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If these people actually wanted arbitration, they could still agree to it now even though they have a right not to.
That pretty much proves that the provision reduces their legal rights. You can't automatically presume that it supports Freedom or fairness to be able to coerce people into waiving rights. All sorts of rights can't be waived; why not this right?
You can't blather about Wisdom without having done a more complete analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
so i guess you don't think people can legitimately sell themselves into slavery either? that makes you practically a communist nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I do believe in bonding to insure against a person's failure to complete a job.
You could add to the entertainment value (Score:3)
If hundreds of thousands of "customers" submitted complaints at the same time.
I would expect there are some time limitations on how long you have to wait to arbitrate. And hopefully penalties.
In the meantime, break out the popcorn.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't care. Dragging the process out just means they pay later, in future dollars, instead of present dollars. Given that we have inflation, this is cheaper for them.
The longer the better, they say. Bring it on!
Re: You could add to the entertainment value (Score:2)
Heh. Reminds me of job searching. I asked for $X amount and I was offered less, under the promise of a performance raise that "could" surpass my requested salary.
I said no thanks. "Money now" is always better than "money later". And nothing is worse than "potential money later".
Re: (Score:2)
If hundreds of thousands of "customers" submitted complaints at the same time.
But they won't, which is the point.
Individually, it is just not worth it for an individual to arbitrate when the most they have to gain is a few dollars.
So AT&T is using the shield of arbitration to steal just a little bit from each customer.
One solution for this is to allow class action lawsuits regardless of arbitration clauses.
Another solution is for the government to directly sue AT&T for consumer fraud.
In my opinion, the first solution is better, since it allows consumers to take action directl
Re: (Score:3)
I'd still like to see companies who have arbitration clauses get sued more.
I recently bought a shower head. Installed it, everything went fine; so far, it's a nice shower head.
I opened up the little instruction book a couple days later to see how long the warranty was and, right there... "By purchasing or installing this product you ... agree to ... mandatory arbitration."
That just infuriated me. Not just the arbitration clause, but the fact that they included it in a way as to make it entirely unenforcea
Wonit it just go up to the Supreme Court (Score:2)
My interpretation (Score:1)
Meaning:
It gets murky in California which attempts to override federal law:
The Broughton–Cruz rule “prohibits outright, the arbitration of a particular type of claim” - claims for public injunctive relief.
The rule has been tested with the obvious conclusion:
"state public policy cannot trump [regulations by federal departments]".
In the Mcgill versus Citibank ruling, SCOTUS decided that corporations do not have the same power as federal regulations:
"an agreement ... that waives public injunctive relief in any forum is contrary to California public policy and unenforceable."
Meaning, while the Broughton–Cruz rule is the legal precedent, it's really about AT&T being dicks by insisting that it never has t
AT&T (Score:2)