Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits

[Bones]

Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits | The Raw Story

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed businesses such as AT&T Inc a major victory by upholding the use of arbitration for customer disputes rather than allowing claims to be brought together as a group.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that an AT&T unit could enforce a provision in its customer contracts requiring individual arbitration and preventing the pooling together of claims into a class-action lawsuit or class-wide arbitration.

Congratulations, America. You're lurking ever so closer to fascism.

 

[TheBrain]

Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits | The Raw Story

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed businesses such as AT&T Inc a major victory by upholding the use of arbitration for customer disputes rather than allowing claims to be brought together as a group.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that an AT&T unit could enforce a provision in its customer contracts requiring individual arbitration and preventing the pooling together of claims into a class-action lawsuit or class-wide arbitration.

Congratulations, America. You're lurking ever so closer to fascism.

Fascism? Surely you jest, the VERY worst AT&T , or whatever company , can do to you if you just decide to tell them to shove their contract up their ass is charge you whatever fee the contract specifies. They can't take your life, or even injure you. Oh, and of course you have the option of not signing the contract in the first place.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Interesting. From the link:

The court's four liberal justices dissented. "The Court is wrong to hold that the federal act preempts the rule of state law," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent.

Good to see that some Justices care about State Law, when it matters to them.

You know, there are more than a few Liberals here who like to spout off against Conservatives without really understanding the issue or situation. They just "copy/paste" what ever the Liberal site they saw was spouting off about without ever reading it or even trying to understanding it. Then they come here and post the same B.S. to try to sound intelligent.

Bones is one of them.

From the Supreme Court website, the decision itself. Did you look at the actual decision handed down Bones? No, of course you didn't:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Notice:

In February 2002, Vincent and Liza Concepcion entered
into an agreement for the sale and servicing of cellular
telephones with AT&T Mobility LCC (AT&T).1 The con-
tract provided for arbitration of all disputes between the
parties, but required that claims be brought in the parties’
“individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member
in any purported class or representative proceeding.”

You see, when you buy a product you've also made an agreement with that company as to the maintenance, refund, repair or return of that product. Don't you guys ever read the insert? The small print? I always do, I aint lyin' I read em all. (most of the inserts are basically the same AND they usually have the warranty card in it that you fill out and send in.)
Most stuff I buy from table routers to lawn mowers and common house hold tools have an agreement written like that.

But if you read further, you'll see the real reason for the outrage!

The Concepcions purchased AT&T service, which was advertised as including the provision of free phones; they were not charged for the phones, but they were charged $30.22 in sales tax based on the phones’ retail value. (Gasp!) In March 2006, the Concepcions filed a complaint against AT&T in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint was later consolidated with a putative class action alleging, among other things, that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax on phones it advertised as free (Oh the Horror!)

Now how many of us have watched the game show where someone wins a new car? Did you know that the winner is responsible for all licensing, registration and TAXES on that vehicle? Sounds reasonable to me, free car just pay the tax. I aint heard anyone complain about that.

It's the same here. Free phone, just pay the tax. Oh but that was just TOO MUCH INDIGNATION for the Concepcion family! Oh no! They weren't gonna just sit there and fork over 30$ for a free phone. No they have pride and dignity! They MUST take it all the way to the Supreme Court! What a couple of cheap assholes!

They deserved their Supreme Court dick down!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits | The Raw Story

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed businesses such as AT&T Inc a major victory by upholding the use of arbitration for customer disputes rather than allowing claims to be brought together as a group.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that an AT&T unit could enforce a provision in its customer contracts requiring individual arbitration and preventing the pooling together of claims into a class-action lawsuit or class-wide arbitration.

Congratulations, America. You're lurking ever so closer to fascism.

Wow.

Can you explain how this has anything to do with fascism?

 

[TheBrain]

Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits | The Raw Story

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed businesses such as AT&T Inc a major victory by upholding the use of arbitration for customer disputes rather than allowing claims to be brought together as a group.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that an AT&T unit could enforce a provision in its customer contracts requiring individual arbitration and preventing the pooling together of claims into a class-action lawsuit or class-wide arbitration.

Congratulations, America. You're lurking ever so closer to fascism.

Wow.

Can you explain how this has anything to do with fascism?

I doubt the OP can even define fascism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting. From the link:

The court's four liberal justices dissented. "The Court is wrong to hold that the federal act preempts the rule of state law," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent.

Good to see that some Justices care about State Law, when it matters to them.

You know, there are more than a few Liberals here who like to spout off against Conservatives without really understanding the issue or situation. They just "copy/paste" what ever the Liberal site they saw was spouting off about without ever reading it or even trying to understanding it. Then they come here and post the same B.S. to try to sound intelligent.

Bones is one of them.

From the Supreme Court website, the decision itself. Did you look at the actual decision handed down Bones? No, of course you didn't:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf
Notice:

In February 2002, Vincent and Liza Concepcion entered
into an agreement for the sale and servicing of cellular
telephones with AT&T Mobility LCC (AT&T).1 The con-
tract provided for arbitration of all disputes between the
parties, but required that claims be brought in the parties’
“individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member
in any purported class or representative proceeding.”

You see, when you buy a product you've also made an agreement with that company as to the maintenance, refund, repair or return of that product. Don't you guys ever read the insert? The small print? I always do, I aint lyin' I read em all. (most of the inserts are basically the same AND they usually have the warranty card in it that you fill out and send in.)
Most stuff I buy from table routers to lawn mowers and common house hold tools have an agreement written like that.

But if you read further, you'll see the real reason for the outrage!

The Concepcions purchased AT&T service, which was advertised as including the provision of free phones; they were not charged for the phones, but they were charged $30.22 in sales tax based on the phones’ retail value. (Gasp!) In March 2006, the Concepcions filed a complaint against AT&T in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint was later consolidated with a putative class action alleging, among other things, that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax on phones it advertised as free (Oh the Horror!)

Now how many of us have watched the game show where someone wins a new car? Did you know that the winner is responsible for all licensing, registration and TAXES on that vehicle? Sounds reasonable to me, free car just pay the tax. I aint heard anyone complain about that.

It's the same here. Free phone, just pay the tax. Oh but that was just TOO MUCH INDIGNATION for the Concepcion family! Oh no! They weren't gonna just sit there and fork over 30$ for a free phone. No they have pride and dignity! They MUST take it all the way to the Supreme Court! What a couple of cheap assholes!

They deserved their Supreme Court dick down!

I actually think they got this wrong, even if the result was correct. California state law should have applied in this instance.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I actually think they got this wrong, even if the result was correct. California state law should have applied in this instance.

How do you figure?

 

[TheBrain]

I actually think they got this wrong, even if the result was correct. California state law should have applied in this instance.

How do you figure?

Well, it could be argued that you can't sign away your rights in any contract, even if you agree to sign voluntarily any segments which violate the law are null and void.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Good to see that some Justices care about State Law, when it matters to them.

And conversely you have four conservative justices ruling that Federal law trumps state, when it matters to them. The sword of hypocrisy cuts both ways.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I actually think they got this wrong, even if the result was correct. California state law should have applied in this instance.

How do you figure?

Gut feeling that, upon further reflection, is quite possibly wrong. I want to think about this before I actually answer, I seem to have the facts of the case wrong from something I read somewhere.

 

[Vast LWC]

Fascism? Surely you jest, the VERY worst AT&T , or whatever company , can do to you if you just decide to tell them to shove their contract up their ass is charge you whatever fee the contract specifies. They can't take your life, or even injure you. Oh, and of course you have the option of not signing the contract in the first place.

Most class action lawsuits of that nature deal with either breaches of contract by the corporation, or cases where the consumer clearly could not have known they would be incurring charges even if they had read the contract.

For instance, to use your example, AT&T:

Hepting v. AT&T is a United States class action lawsuit filed in January 2006 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against the telecommunications company AT&T, in which the EFF alleges that AT&T permitted and assisted the National Security Agency (NSA) in unlawfully monitoring the communications of the United States, including AT&T customers, businesses and third parties whose communications were routed through AT&T's network, as well as Voice over IP telephone calls routed via the Internet.

Clearly it was nowhere in the standard AT&T contract at the time that the company would be providing the NSA with all the communications made by the user through their service, without a warrant.

Therefore, just as clearly, AT&T committed breach of contract.

Now, if each individual person affected took this case to court, it would glut the civil court system with thousands of small cases, and because damages in the case would probably not equal monetary rewards, no-one would be able to sue.

 

[Vast LWC]

Now, let's say AT&T was randomly applying charges to your phone bill, which was the subject of another class action suit against them rather recently.

Let's say, hypothetically, that AT&T charged each customer $100.00 in charges that were not part of the original contract.

There would be only 2 ways the customers of AT&T could now get their money back:

1. Take AT&T to court. To do this individually would probably require thousands in legal fees, and thus if someone were to attempt it, they would probably end up losing much more than they might gain.

2. Ask the government to step in and force AT&T to refund the money. We know that all a corporation has to do is hand over some campaign cash, and the government case against them will simply dissappear.

So, basically, this ruling gives corporations the right to rip us all off, anytime they want, without fear of reprisal.

I really can't see how any citizen of the United States would be in favor of this ruling. Unless of course they happen to be on the board of a corporation.

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow.

Can you explain how this has anything to do with fascism?

And I can certainly explain what this has to do with fascism.

As explained by Benito Mussolini, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

In fact, Italian Fascism began with corporatism, and then became a state ruled by the corporations through a single dictator.

Thus, increases in corporate power of this nature, are indeed milestones on the road to fascism.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Now, let's say AT&T was randomly applying charges to your phone bill, which was the subject of another class action suit against them rather recently.

Let's say, hypothetically, that AT&T charged each customer $100.00 in charges that were not part of the original contract.

There would be only 2 ways the customers of AT&T could now get their money back:

1. Take AT&T to court. To do this individually would probably require thousands in legal fees, and thus if someone were to attempt it, they would probably end up losing much more than they might gain.

Why don't you just discuss the facts of the case at hand? Because you don't understand it that's why. If you want to change the facts of the case, I reserve the right to change my answer.

2. Ask the government to step in and force AT&T to refund the money. We know that all a corporation has to do is hand over some campaign cash, and the government case against them will simply dissappear.

Typical Liberal: "Let's use the power of government to compel people, like ObamaCare. But we all know the Government's corrupt".

So, basically, this ruling gives corporations the right to rip us all off, anytime they want, without fear of reprisal.

I really can't see how any citizen of the United States would be in favor of this ruling. Unless of course they happen to be on the board of a corporation.

You obviously didn't read the case either. Idiot.

 

[MikeK]

Fascism? Surely you jest, the VERY worst AT&T , or whatever company , can do to you if you just decide to tell them to shove their contract up their ass is charge you whatever fee the contract specifies. They can't take your life, or even injure you. Oh, and of course you have the option of not signing the contract in the first place.

This ruling, per se, does not reflect a fascistic premise. But I believe Bones is referring to the trend toward corporate empowerment and immunity which has been taking place incrementally since the Reagan Administration commenced to disassemble the middle class and enhance corporate advantage.

The transition is taking place in very small steps, each of which by itself is seemingly benign. But connecting the dots brings out an increasingly clear picture.

For the benefit of those who don't know, the fundamental definition of fascism is corporate dominance of government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wow.

Can you explain how this has anything to do with fascism?

And I can certainly explain what this has to do with fascism.

As explained by Benito Mussolini, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”

In fact, Italian Fascism began with corporatism, and then became a state ruled by the corporations through a single dictator.

Thus, increases in corporate power of this nature, are indeed milestones on the road to fascism.

Exactly. Fascism is the state taking over corporations and businesses, abolishing unions, and eliminating opposing political parties. That hs obviously not happened here.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The transition is taking place in very small steps, each of which by itself is seemingly benign. But connecting the dots brings out an increasingly clear picture.

For the benefit of those who don't know, the fundamental definition of fascism is corporate dominance of government.

They gave away free phones and expected the people to just pay the taxes on it as most people who win things do. If I win a large amount of money in a casino or in the lottery I have to pay taxes on it.

How the fcuk is that fascism or "corporate dominance" of government?

 

[del]

Supreme Court rules that companies can block class-action lawsuits | The Raw Story

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed businesses such as AT&T Inc a major victory by upholding the use of arbitration for customer disputes rather than allowing claims to be brought together as a group.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that an AT&T unit could enforce a provision in its customer contracts requiring individual arbitration and preventing the pooling together of claims into a class-action lawsuit or class-wide arbitration.

Congratulations, America. You're lurking ever so closer to fascism.

i mean this in the nicest possible way; you're a dope.

 

[MikeK]

The transition is taking place in very small steps, each of which by itself is seemingly benign. But connecting the dots brings out an increasingly clear picture.

For the benefit of those who don't know, the fundamental definition of fascism is corporate dominance of government.

They gave away free phones and expected the people to just pay the taxes on it as most people who win things do. If I win a large amount of money in a casino or in the lottery I have to pay taxes on it.

How the fcuk is that fascism or "corporate dominance" of government?

The issue is not the individual case. The issue is the Supreme Court ruling that puts an end to class action litigation against corporations. By itself it might seem a minor factor but following on the heels of the Citizens United ruling the direction we are moving in, and why, becomes rather apparent.

One little step at a time.

 

[TheBrain]

The transition is taking place in very small steps, each of which by itself is seemingly benign. But connecting the dots brings out an increasingly clear picture.

For the benefit of those who don't know, the fundamental definition of fascism is corporate dominance of government.

They gave away free phones and expected the people to just pay the taxes on it as most people who win things do. If I win a large amount of money in a casino or in the lottery I have to pay taxes on it.

How the fcuk is that fascism or "corporate dominance" of government?

The issue is not the individual case. The issue is the Supreme Court ruling that puts an end to class action litigation against corporations. By itself it might seem a minor factor but following on the heels of the Citizens United ruling the direction we are moving in, and why, becomes rather apparent.

One little step at a time.

The Court did not put an end to class action lawsuits against corporations. Good grief. They merely ruled that when you sign a contract agreeing to certain obligations, you are in fact agreeing to abide by those obligations unless they are illegal. Paying taxes on something you won is not illegal.