Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Communications America Online News Technology Your Rights Online

Courts Reject Tech Corporation Bans on Class Action Suits 102

Frosty Piss writes "Class action waivers included in cell phone companies' contracts with customers are invalid in Washington State because they violate the state's Consumer Protection Act, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday. Five plaintiffs accused Cingular of overcharging customers between $1 and $40 per month in roaming and hidden charges. Cingular had an arbitration clause that required individual arbitration and prohibited class action litigation or class action arbitration. From the article: 'In another class action-related ruling issued Thursday, the high court unanimously ruled in favor of a couple that filed a class action suit against America Online, Inc., claiming the Internet provider created and charged them for secondary membership accounts that they didn't want.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Courts Reject Tech Corporation Bans on Class Action Suits

Comments Filter:
  • by shutupkevin ( 1127139 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @12:00PM (#19849721)
    Too many companies nowadays are taking advantage of the vast amount of population that pay money for a service that they don't completely understand. How many people actually know what all of those surcharges on their cellular/telephone/isp bills are for? I hope this ruling occurs eventually in New York as well.
  • Just a reminder... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @12:02PM (#19849749)
    Just a reminder, kids. Just because you put something in a "contract" doesn't make it legal or enforceable. No need to get your panties in a bunch over the fine print in cell phone contracts, EULA's, etc.
  • by Gman14msu ( 993012 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @12:04PM (#19849775)
    Well while class action suits are about benefiting the customers who were wronged, it`s also about punishing the companies that are misbehaving. While each individual consumer may not gain a great sum of money, the sum for the whole group may make the company change policies.

    This is not to mention the bad publicity that comes from losing a major class action suit. That's probably where the most harm comes to a company in the long run. In this case the adage that "Any publicity is good publicity" is probably wrong as these are already well known entities. Of course the only "public" that hears about this may only be slashdot, which has the numbers to take down a server, but probably not a Fortune 500.

  • by camperslo ( 704715 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @12:07PM (#19849817)
    When the class gets paid in vouchers, the lawyers should be paid in vouchers.
  • by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @12:07PM (#19849825)
    Many contracts limit your ability to sue in a real court. They exist in everything from vehicle purchase contracts to fitness club contracts. The best thing consumers can do is to read the contracts, know their rights, reject contracts where such provisions can't be removed and tell the salespeople why this isn't acceptable.

    Any business that forces a customer into binding arbitration in a contract can't be trusted.
  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @12:11PM (#19849881) Journal

    Is either a fool or a coward.

    So, if you sign a cell phone contract, with a 14 day return policy, and on day 20 you get your bill and discover that they've overcharged you, you are a coward? Your options are basically:

    1. Cancel and pay the $175-$200 fee. Pay the overcharges or dispute them.
    2. Cancel and refuse to pay the $175-$200 fee. Buckle down for a fight over your credit report that you will probably lose and higher interest rates for the next seven years.
    3. Sue them.

    The game is tilted against the consumer in these scenarios. And I'm glad this ruling came down the way it did. It's not right that a contract can force you to give up your legal right to seek relief in court. And before any wise-ass comes back with "then don't sign it", try living with a cell phone, credit card, phone service, bank account, etc, etc, etc. They are all doing it!

  • by megaditto ( 982598 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @12:12PM (#19849903)
    Class action lawsuits is one way to level the playing field and make companies care about their consumers by going after the only thing they understand: their bottom lines.

    After all, the companies have massive legal departments, paid 24/7 access to the Congress with the ability to (re)write the laws, they can drag out even the most solidly grounded lawsuits forever through the appeals process and wait for the victim to go bankrupt with all those legal and court fees. Any individual claims that do get through all the way are likely to be small, and will not impact the profit margins at all.

    Consequently, limiting class-action suits, along with court-awarded damages and restitution is a horrible idea; corporations would be able to literally kill thousands and still turn a profit!
  • by Kelbear ( 870538 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @12:14PM (#19849927)
    If I'm screwed out of a lot of money, I'd want compensation, but if I only have a small loss, I'm mostly interested in the company not benefitting from screwing me over. Having them stop is more important to me for those situations. But the time and cost to myself is too high for an individual.

    If the lawyer can shoulder the time and cost, I don't mind them getting a big payout, I wouldn't hope to get much back if I only lost like 50 bucks to the corporation. Hopefully they'll change their policy and that would still help me at least.
  • by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @12:29PM (#19850099) Homepage Journal
    Too many companies nowadays are taking advantage of the vast amount of population that pay money for a service that they don't completely understand. How many people actually know what all of those surcharges on their cellular/telephone/isp bills are for? I hope this ruling occurs eventually in New York as well.

    This is why I believe companies should be required to show 'total costs' in any marketing and documentation. Total costs would be described as what the customer pays at the end of the month if they don't knowingly opt-in to extras or stay within the bounds of the base package. Extras whether they are roaming, extra functionality and on should also be described in a manner where the customer does not need a degree to understand. For example:
        - base fee, including 200 minutes: $20 (all taxes, and made up taxes are included in this figure)
        - additional per minutes charge $0.10, I used 10 extra
        - roaming charge per minute $0.20, for area X, I used 0
        - total fee would be $21.00
    Easy to calculate, easy to discuss. If the companies billing systems are so complicated that even your support can't understand, then there is an issue.
       
  • by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @01:05PM (#19850521) Journal

    Getting a cell phone without signing anything is trivial. I have had prepaid service for a year now

    Cool, I want to be cell-phone only so I don't have to deal with two numbers. Since it's my primary line, find me a pre-paid plan that's competitive. Counting nights and weekends I use about 2,500 - 3,000 minutes a month. On a post-paid plan of $39.99 (1k peak minutes/unlim n&w on T-Mobile) that's $0.013 a min for 3,000 minutes. Find me a pre-paid plan that's competitive with that.

    Oh, that's right, you can't, because the pre-paid offerings are purposefully crippled to make them useless for anything but light use.

  • by Nimey ( 114278 ) on Friday July 13, 2007 @03:49PM (#19852401) Homepage Journal

    I tend to sign those things because I've never seen that stuff enforced. If they don't agree to do something, and back it up with "the contract says so", I explain that they're going to ignore the contract, or not do business with me.


    Let us know how that works when you get sued for breach of contract. kthxbye.
  • by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@@@gmail...com> on Friday July 13, 2007 @03:54PM (#19852461) Homepage
    The credit department (I don't want credit) had denied my application, not because of all the stuff in the contract that I'd marked up, but because I hadn't signed the personal guarantee.

    They also probably decided that someone who was going to bother them over every single little aspect of a contract was probably more trouble than they were worth as a customer.

2.4 statute miles of surgical tubing at Yale U. = 1 I.V.League

Working...