GNG News Guy
05-27-2008, 12:20 PM
http://i.dslr.net/urls/78/4678.gif (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Providers-Cant-Use-Mouse-Print-To-Ban-Class-Actions-94757)
Over the past year or two I've been discussing how a number of companies (AT&T (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/86793), Comcast (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/87357), Verizon (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/92782) and T-Mobile (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/91285) come to mind) have been trying to erode your legal rights via fine print. By burying legalese in your contract, carriers attempt to prevent you from participating in class action lawsuits. Instead of allowing you your day in court, the companies required that customers participate in mandatory binding arbitration (an outside the court settlement system where you lose most of the time).
The courts so far have ruled against such fine print trickery. Kind of. Last October, a Federal appeals court ruled that courts can refuse to enforce arbitration clauses if they include bans on class actions. As part of an effort to scrap a California class action, T-Mobile appealed, but the Supreme Court today rejected the attempt (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ih_L6YAKjwX5iJROJvJWX7gcmmPQD90U1SE80). In short, such fine print bans on class action participation remain intact if your state laws prohibit them.
In other states, the arbitration game will continue. Obviously arbitration companies will be more loyal to their clients than to you, but a recent report by Public Citizen (http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2519) showed just how loyal. The report stated that one arbitration outfit frequently used by credit card companies ruled in favor of its corporate clients 95% of the time, if not more:Between Jan. 1, 2003, and March 31, 2007, arbitrators working for the Minneapolis-based NAF ruled for businesses in 95 percent of the California cases examined. In fact, 90 percent of the NAF cases were handled by just 28 arbitrators, who awarded businesses $185 million. One arbitrator handled 68 cases in a single day - an average of one every seven minutes, assuming an eight-hour day - and ruled for the business in every case, awarding 100 percent of the money requested.
Of course, that's not what the National Arbitration Forum website (http://www.arb-forum.com/default.aspx) tells consumers who are trying to understand the process. The site soothes consumers by noting that "a 2003 American Bar Association study of employment arbitration found that claimants prevailed more often and received larger awards in arbitration than in litigation."
Personally I'm torn between disliking the sleazy lawyers at telecom carriers who love to "service" (in the George Carlin sense of the word) consumers with fine print, and the class action process that delivers millions to lawyers but a pittance to actual consumers. Still, keeping the class action system alive keeps companies more accountable than letting them have an easy and inexpensive win in dog & pony arbitration.
read comment(s) (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Providers-Cant-Use-Mouse-Print-To-Ban-Class-Actions-94757)
Over the past year or two I've been discussing how a number of companies (AT&T (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/86793), Comcast (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/87357), Verizon (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/92782) and T-Mobile (http://www.thegng.org/shownews/91285) come to mind) have been trying to erode your legal rights via fine print. By burying legalese in your contract, carriers attempt to prevent you from participating in class action lawsuits. Instead of allowing you your day in court, the companies required that customers participate in mandatory binding arbitration (an outside the court settlement system where you lose most of the time).
The courts so far have ruled against such fine print trickery. Kind of. Last October, a Federal appeals court ruled that courts can refuse to enforce arbitration clauses if they include bans on class actions. As part of an effort to scrap a California class action, T-Mobile appealed, but the Supreme Court today rejected the attempt (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ih_L6YAKjwX5iJROJvJWX7gcmmPQD90U1SE80). In short, such fine print bans on class action participation remain intact if your state laws prohibit them.
In other states, the arbitration game will continue. Obviously arbitration companies will be more loyal to their clients than to you, but a recent report by Public Citizen (http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2519) showed just how loyal. The report stated that one arbitration outfit frequently used by credit card companies ruled in favor of its corporate clients 95% of the time, if not more:Between Jan. 1, 2003, and March 31, 2007, arbitrators working for the Minneapolis-based NAF ruled for businesses in 95 percent of the California cases examined. In fact, 90 percent of the NAF cases were handled by just 28 arbitrators, who awarded businesses $185 million. One arbitrator handled 68 cases in a single day - an average of one every seven minutes, assuming an eight-hour day - and ruled for the business in every case, awarding 100 percent of the money requested.
Of course, that's not what the National Arbitration Forum website (http://www.arb-forum.com/default.aspx) tells consumers who are trying to understand the process. The site soothes consumers by noting that "a 2003 American Bar Association study of employment arbitration found that claimants prevailed more often and received larger awards in arbitration than in litigation."
Personally I'm torn between disliking the sleazy lawyers at telecom carriers who love to "service" (in the George Carlin sense of the word) consumers with fine print, and the class action process that delivers millions to lawyers but a pittance to actual consumers. Still, keeping the class action system alive keeps companies more accountable than letting them have an easy and inexpensive win in dog & pony arbitration.
read comment(s) (http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Providers-Cant-Use-Mouse-Print-To-Ban-Class-Actions-94757)