StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 28, 2011 -> 09:08 AM) So these people didn't notice that they were charged $30 bucks in tax for a free phone? Seems to me they were average people who didn't think that was right, so they made a claim. My personal assumption would be that there's nothing wrong with me having to pay taxes on me free phone. This could be wrong, legally, but will I ever bother to spend tens or hundreds of hours in arbitration to challenge AT&T and find out? No, I wont. From the dissent: I don't and haven't said that, though the law does provide for treble damages in some circumstances if deliberate, wide-spread fraud is found, at least in judicial class suits. I also don't think AT&T is entitled to $30 times 1,000,000 customers through fraudulent practices, though, and if class arbitration is banned in the agreements, they'll easily get away with it. Which that right there illustrates the absurdity of the majority's argument. How on earth is a class arbitration so contrary to the idea and goals of arbitration (quick and fair resolution) but having to deal with 1,000,000 individual arbitrations now isn't?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 28, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) Go read what I posted from the opinion where it summarizes the agreement. You can choose to sue in court before going to arbitration. It's not mandatory. I've read that, and it doesn't seem to support what you're saying there. Regardless of the specifics of this AT&T contract, since this ruling has broad reach, many of these agreements have mandatory binding arbitration, which means you must go through arbitration first, the arbitration is binding, and only then can you bring a suit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_arbitration

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 28, 2011 -> 08:33 AM) Once you agree to that and once you've decided that you'd rather not go to court, yes. But it's not like companies force arbitration on you in lieu of other alternatives. Yes, they do. That's the whole issue with forced or mandatory arbitration. And many companies are forcing employees into the same situations as well now.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 28, 2011 -> 08:36 AM) What? No it's not. Warranty provisions are about the most complex agreements that exist. None of the terms are clearly defined and a company can make any number of arguments to say "no this is not covered." If something is broken, I know it's broken. If some company is engaging in deceptive advertising, billing, etc. practices, it is much less noticeable and most people aren't going to know that they've been defrauded and deserve compensation. Would I ever think to sue AT&T over $30 in taxes on my free phone? No, and maybe the Concepions would have lost the case anyway, but with the system we have after this court ruling, at most AT&T is out $30 + some legal fees for arbitration vs. having to defend a multi-million dollar class-action suit because most people who would be party to the class-action will be unaware of the fraud or not feel it's worth the individual effort. that's my (Byers', really) whole point! As long as your systematic practice to f*** people over isn't enough for them to individually arbitrate it, you'll escape liability now. Not so with a class action, but these mandatory binding arbitration clauses present in just about every consumer end-user agreement/contract will almost assuredly ban any class-action arbitration. You don't have a choice to file suit. When you sign that contract, you're agreeing to bring any disputes before an arbitrator.

QUOTE (lord chas @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:33 PM) how important is to have things done like a transmission flush or spark plugs replaced when your car passes that recommended mileage point? for newer cars, you could do both around 100k miles. I just changed the spark plugs on my fiance's car that has about 103k miles and they still looked like new. You'll only prolong the life of the car.

the root of the problem is that people have a hard time admitting that I'm right on every single subject.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 06:00 PM) But how do you simultaneously go after the Phoenix's of the world and avoid schools in low income areas? How the DOE outlined it above? How various other agencies/groups go after people who are exploiting the poor and don't go after people who are actually helping the poor?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:27 PM) Have you ever demanded a refund at a restaurant? Have you ever submitted a defective/broken product under a warranty provision? I mean all you gotta do is say what happened and provide some evidence about what you're claiming. It can't be that difficult. That's a little more clear than what many class actions are about, which is the point. A defective product is pretty obvious, unfair advertising practices and monopolistic control or wide-spread gender discrimination are not such "duh, they owe me something here" issues. That doesn't answer the problem of the likelihood of discovering the fraud, especially if its a complex legal claim. That doesn't really work as an argument against this ruling heavily favoring large corporations over consumers and small businesses. Again, recognition and knowledge of the fraud is much less likely.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:13 PM) Lol, ah, so your argument is that you don't want to do any work to try and prove your claim. I get it. You should be a juror in Cook County. There's a gazillion people like you here. Nope, the argument is that this decision makes it significantly less likely that corporations will be held accountable when they defraud consumers because the hurdle is that much higher. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:19 PM) We're talking about two things here. Arbitration decisions are legally binding yes, that's true. But in most case arbitration decisions are not the final resolution of the matter. They're more, hey lets talk with this guy and see what he thinks and maybe he'll help us reach a fair settlement. It's more of a neutral parties' recommendation for a resolution of the matter. My point was that these arbitration systems are probably not binding on either party unless they've agreed to that arrangement beforehand. That might well be in the agreement you sign with these companies, I dunno. But they have to leave you the option of also filing a suit in court (before deciding to go to arbitration). My understanding was that a company can't force you to ONLY go through arbitration, with no other recourse. Most consumer agreements include mandatory/forced arbitration that's legally binding as your only option. And now, you're forced to do it as an individual instead of as a class.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:05 PM) Eh. Maybe. There's no class action suit against Sony but I know they f***ed up royally and gave hackers all my information. Will you bother pursuing arbitration against them? Do you have the legal expertise (ok, ok, you're a bad person to ask this sort of hypothetical to, but pretend you're not a lawyer like 99% of people) to determine you've been wronged and present a strong case? Or will you go about your business, even if Sony has f***ed you over? How much more difficult is that for each individual than to simply be party to a class action?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 05:03 PM) I don't know for sure, but I would highly doubt it given the requirements the company has to go through to have the arbitration system. That would effectively be circumventing your right to file suit in a court. Now maybe at some point you sign that agreement...but then you still have the option of filing your claim in court. Which again, in these types of cases, forces at&t to pay what you want because of the cost of defending itself in court. (i.e., they're going to pay out the 30.22 instead of paying the hundreds just for their attorneys to appear in the case) It appears the arbitration is legally binding. http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=21931

Expanded version of Byers' comment explaining why limiting class-actions is pro-big business: Am I going to go through all of the trouble of arbitration for $30? Probably not. Will I sign onto a class action suit I believe is legitimate that might get me $10 after lawyers' fees? Absolutely. And AT&T's going to pay a lot more if they settle that suit or if they're ruled against than a handful of $30 claims. Class actions can also be subject to having damages tripled if I'm remembering a story I heard on the Walmart discrimination case recently.

Class action suits automatically raise consumer awareness that they may have been defrauded. That alone is a substantial impact.

Also, sorry for the frantic posting, but I wanted to add that the whole basis for this suit sounds pretty ridiculous, suing AT&T because you had to pay taxes on your free phone?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 03:43 PM) I should add too that the blogs reading of the arbitration clauses is wrong (mostly). Those arbitration clauses are non-binding arbitration. So yeah, technically you have to go through a process first, but if you're not happy with the result you can still file a suit. Are you sure about that? My understanding is that most if not all of these forced arbitration agreements are binding.

Is Byers' (and the lower court's) argument here wrong: edit: that's more of an ethical/moral argument for the way law ought to be, not necessarily the way law is. Could be Scalia's made the correct interpretation of the law here, it's just that we have a bad law on the books.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:42 PM) Every federal law trumps state law. It's called the Supremacy Clause. Well, should phrased that more partisan, conservatives' interpretation of a federal law trumps state law when a more 'conservative' reading of of FAA may have allowed the state's law to stand.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) If you signed a contract that states you must go to arb before going to court, why would that not be enforceable? Well that was the crux of the case, Cali apparently has had a law that allows such agreements to be declared "unconscionable" if one party is perceived to be at a significant disadvantage.

Also let's not lose the irony of states rights conservatives favoring a decision that has federal law trumping state law and generally more federal-oriented liberals decrying it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:34 PM) Do you really believe that lawsuits and verdicts (or settlements) stop those practices? Stop trying to bait me into "smash the system" cynicism.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) Actually no, that's why they have arbitration. It's a more simple and cost effective way to resolve these small claim issues. Look, class actions are bulls*** inventions of lawyers. You have 10 people with similar claims, you tell them to go out and find other people. Next thing you know you've got 100 people claiming the same thing and the pot of money you can get for representing all those people goes up. It wasn't invented to help consumers fight for scraps. I was party to a class-action suit against United Health Care. Sure, I only got back $150 while the lawfirm took in 8 or 9 figures, but UHC also stopped its fraudulent (maybe not the best word?) practices that were unfairly costing their customers millions of dollars collectively. So even though my dollar compensation was low, the policy change was important.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) As someone who has been on both sides of those cases, it hurts the company more to defend those discrimination suits individually, and it's much more beneficial to the individual to get their own separate day in court. It might be EASIER for them, but in terms of getting some kind of decent compensation, again it's getting that .48 cent recovery for your $50 dollar loss. When you throw people into a class it makes everyone the same, and we all know circumstances are never the same. But what are the odds of individuals pursuing arbitration on their own without a class action lawsuit to follow? Minimal. As Byers put it: While individuals in a class-action suit may see minimal financial compensation, the more important effect is that a fraudulent corporate practice is stopped. Without class action abilities, how will this happen?

The good news is that this can be fixed simply by amending the FAA. The bad news is that it won't happen. Lawyers in this thread, please correct me on any misconceptions I might have regarding the process people will have to go through now in order to bring a class-action suit.

Walmart's facing a huge gender discrimination class action suit right now. What's the odds of that happening again if all of their employees are forced to go through individual arbitration to prove their case first?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 27, 2011 -> 04:07 PM) Did you not read the part where this doesn't stop class action lawsuits? It adds a hurdle, yes, which in some ways may even be good for consumers because it should help root out some frivilous attempts and therefore keep costs down. But this ruling doesn't stop class action lawsuits as Balta claimed. It doesn't legally prevent class action lawsuits, but it makes you take it before arbitration as an individual first. No one is going to take EA to arbitration over $10 or whatever they'll eventually settle the Madden monopoly for, and even if individuals do, now you have to wait for enough people to individually get through arbitration before they can be a party to the class action. Tell me how that doesn't heavily favor large corporations (since this applies to business-to-business transactions as well). Basically it makes it very easy for companies to screw over thousands/millions for pennies at a time instead of larger, more damaging fraud. It's the plot of Superman 3.