Posted on 04/28/2011 1:41:05 PM PDT by Nachum
San Francisco - The US Supreme Court has granted a whopping victory to AT&T, the US Chamber of Commerce, and supportive corporations, by reversing previous court decisions that had prevented corporations from requiring individual arbitration of customers' complaint. By issuing its 5-4 decision on Wednesday, the Court has essentially stripped away individuals' rights to band together in class-action lawsuits should a corporation choose to include an arbitration requirement in its contracts or
(Excerpt) Read more at theregister.co.uk ...
About the only ones to profit from class action lawsuits are the attorneys. Anything that will stymie them is fine with me.
Almost every Class Action I’ve been included in has ended up offering me coupons to buy more of that company’s stuff. Why I’d want to buy more of something that was less than satisfactory in the first place is beyond me.
The Supreme Court made a bad judgement here. AT&T being one of the biggest crooks ever should never be allowed to do this as well as other phone companies. It deprives the citizens and rights.
Yes sir, the settlement is usually in the Billions, with lawyers taking in 65% or more, then dispensing $75 per person in the group.
You sure the USSC hasn't "gone over"?
Well, you might have gotten coupons, but somewhere there are some very happy—and rich—lawyers.
I got a check once for $0.97.
That should have been the other half of my post. Well said.
In other news, many Mississippi lawyers are filing for bankruptcy.
Anything which makes ambulance chasers unhappy is OK by me.
Lucky you.
Did you spend it all in one place?
LOL.
Every “class action” settlement check I’ve ever gotten has been just a couple of bucks.
arbitration clauses and jury waiver clauses have been successfully used to ELIMINATE any jury trial rights of an individual or class.
This is going to be particularly hard on drug manuracture malpractice.
You mean no more lawsuits where each “consumer” is awarded 40 cents and the lawyers get $35 million? What an injustice!
IOW somebody stole your .97 and you were able to get it back.
Remember the monitor cases where they were advertising 15” screens but the tube would only show 14” of image?
This only applies if you sign a contract that explicitly says that you will accept arbitration in the event of a dispute. Sheeesh.
“The Supreme Court made a bad judgement here. AT&T being one of the biggest crooks ever should never be allowed to do this as well as other phone companies. It deprives the citizens and rights.”
Your comment seems to belong on a different forum. I have no connection to ATT or any other mobile carrier. This court case did not involve a general assessment of consumer attitudes towards ATT. Your post has a very populist ring often reflected in the left’s view of the law. The court case involves a legal determination, not a popularity contest.
I applaud this decision. The Federal Arbitrtation Act has been in existence for a long time. California state law had effectively overridden the federal law by declaring that class action lawsuits must be permitted under the unconscionability or duress clause of the FAA. The USSC ruled that class action lawsuits do not override the FAA.
The particular case (sales tax on free phone) was utterly baseless. It is the government that acted in bad faith on taxes imposed on free phones, not ATT. The plaintiff should sue the government for imposing taxes on free phones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.