While the USA was busy determining Obamas citizenship...again, the Supreme Court was busy robbing the people in an effort to protect those poor defense massive corporations. The court ruled in the favor of AT&T in the case of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.
In a nutshell Vincent and Liza Concepcion were bilked out of $30.22 when they were charged sales tax for free phones. The Concepcions essentially sued AT&T in a class action law suite.
Here’s where things get silly. For Vincent and Liza to sue AT&T for $30.22 is down right crazy talk. Court filing fees are generally triple that, not to mention the costs of hiring a lawyer. Imagine going into a lawyer’s office and telling him you want to sue someone for $30.22, even if they take 90% of the winnings it’s not all that hot of a deal for the lawyer. No lawyer in their right mind is going to pick that case up, as was the comment from dissenting judge Breyer, “What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?”
Instead of taking on one of the largest telecom companies in the world for $30.22 a class action lawsuit was filed. Wait because the plot thickens right here.
When you sign one of those god forsaken phone contracts somewhere down in small letters you agree to handle all issues via arbitration, giving up your right to take matters to the courts. The idea is semi-sound in that it appears to have the best interests of all parties involved, what’s often left out is who is going to arbitrate, typically someone AT&T gets. When the Concepcions filed, AT&T responded by saying the Vincent and Liza had given up their right to class action lawsuit. The long and short of it all is that in the end the Supreme Court said AT&T could require people to give up their right to sue in a class action case.
Well what does this all mean then?
Well let’s take this $30.22 dollars for instance. Let’s assume for a second AT&T did this to 1 million people, basically stole $30.22 from them. That’s roughly 30 million dollars of stolen money. With this new ruling there is no real way for the people to go after that money from AT&T. Quit literally AT&T could completely ignore people complaining about the $30.22 and say, “so sue me.” Which again is NOT going to happen because no lawyer in their right mind is going to fight for $30.22. Even if you found 1 lawyer to do this, or 10 or 1000 or 10,000 the benefit for AT&T to rip off millions far outweighs the cost of paying 10000 court cases.
Well what about arbitration then? Sounds good still right? No actually, “In 34,000 California arbitration cases filed with the National Arbitration Forum between 2003 and 2007 and studied by Public Citizen, consumers prevailed only 4 percent of the time.” (http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/27/6544896-advocates-consumers-betrayed-by-high-court-ruling-on-class-action-suits)
Yeah 4% of the time in arbitration the consumer wins. See where big business really is winning now.
One only really needs to ask the following question, “When is it ever a good idea to give up your rights?” or even better yet, “When is it a good idea to be FORCED into giving up your rights”
I say forced because now that companies know they have a 96% chance of getting away if they screw you over you can bet your bottom that damn near EVERYTHING that doesn’t already have clauses like these in contracts soon will. Want to rent a car, gotta give up your rights. Get a Phone, wash with water, use electricity, loans, AC repair men how about getting a job, etc, etc, etc, be prepared to toss your rights in the trash in order to protect the pockets of the newest citizens—corporations.
Some argue that tort lawyers were making money off of this so it was bad. “Those sleezy lawyers” you know, the ones who help hold accountable corporations who dump poison into water supplies (A La Erin Brockovich), whether we like it or not, are the reason companies stay at least somewhat honest. To be fair someone spilling coffee on themselves and getting millions doesn’t help paint lawyers in a good light but neither does your kid getting cancer because some company wanted to cut corners. We have the choice then, Some lawyers bilking the system and companies having to pay a little while treating consumers as humans; or some corporations treating people like humans while many take advantage with no repercussions. I know which I’d prefer.
The big issue here is that once again our current supreme court has ruled in a massive way In favor of corporations, such as when they turned corporations into people by giving them the same rights as real flesh and blood humans. There’s hope on the horizon as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd-Frank act, which was designed to regulate the financial industry, has recently been tasked with reviewing arbitration clauses and there’s a strong possibility the CFPB will ban such clauses. Hold the phones just a minute though. Now that corporations are PEOPLE and PEOPLE can donate to politicians and lobby politicians guess who is most likely going to be shoving crap loads of money down congresses throat to keep things in their favor. (Hint: It’s not the Concepcions with their $30.22)
In a nutshell Vincent and Liza Concepcion were bilked out of $30.22 when they were charged sales tax for free phones. The Concepcions essentially sued AT&T in a class action law suite.
Here’s where things get silly. For Vincent and Liza to sue AT&T for $30.22 is down right crazy talk. Court filing fees are generally triple that, not to mention the costs of hiring a lawyer. Imagine going into a lawyer’s office and telling him you want to sue someone for $30.22, even if they take 90% of the winnings it’s not all that hot of a deal for the lawyer. No lawyer in their right mind is going to pick that case up, as was the comment from dissenting judge Breyer, “What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?”
Instead of taking on one of the largest telecom companies in the world for $30.22 a class action lawsuit was filed. Wait because the plot thickens right here.
When you sign one of those god forsaken phone contracts somewhere down in small letters you agree to handle all issues via arbitration, giving up your right to take matters to the courts. The idea is semi-sound in that it appears to have the best interests of all parties involved, what’s often left out is who is going to arbitrate, typically someone AT&T gets. When the Concepcions filed, AT&T responded by saying the Vincent and Liza had given up their right to class action lawsuit. The long and short of it all is that in the end the Supreme Court said AT&T could require people to give up their right to sue in a class action case.
Well what does this all mean then?
Well let’s take this $30.22 dollars for instance. Let’s assume for a second AT&T did this to 1 million people, basically stole $30.22 from them. That’s roughly 30 million dollars of stolen money. With this new ruling there is no real way for the people to go after that money from AT&T. Quit literally AT&T could completely ignore people complaining about the $30.22 and say, “so sue me.” Which again is NOT going to happen because no lawyer in their right mind is going to fight for $30.22. Even if you found 1 lawyer to do this, or 10 or 1000 or 10,000 the benefit for AT&T to rip off millions far outweighs the cost of paying 10000 court cases.
Well what about arbitration then? Sounds good still right? No actually, “In 34,000 California arbitration cases filed with the National Arbitration Forum between 2003 and 2007 and studied by Public Citizen, consumers prevailed only 4 percent of the time.” (http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/27/6544896-advocates-consumers-betrayed-by-high-court-ruling-on-class-action-suits)
Yeah 4% of the time in arbitration the consumer wins. See where big business really is winning now.
One only really needs to ask the following question, “When is it ever a good idea to give up your rights?” or even better yet, “When is it a good idea to be FORCED into giving up your rights”
I say forced because now that companies know they have a 96% chance of getting away if they screw you over you can bet your bottom that damn near EVERYTHING that doesn’t already have clauses like these in contracts soon will. Want to rent a car, gotta give up your rights. Get a Phone, wash with water, use electricity, loans, AC repair men how about getting a job, etc, etc, etc, be prepared to toss your rights in the trash in order to protect the pockets of the newest citizens—corporations.
Some argue that tort lawyers were making money off of this so it was bad. “Those sleezy lawyers” you know, the ones who help hold accountable corporations who dump poison into water supplies (A La Erin Brockovich), whether we like it or not, are the reason companies stay at least somewhat honest. To be fair someone spilling coffee on themselves and getting millions doesn’t help paint lawyers in a good light but neither does your kid getting cancer because some company wanted to cut corners. We have the choice then, Some lawyers bilking the system and companies having to pay a little while treating consumers as humans; or some corporations treating people like humans while many take advantage with no repercussions. I know which I’d prefer.
The big issue here is that once again our current supreme court has ruled in a massive way In favor of corporations, such as when they turned corporations into people by giving them the same rights as real flesh and blood humans. There’s hope on the horizon as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by the Dodd-Frank act, which was designed to regulate the financial industry, has recently been tasked with reviewing arbitration clauses and there’s a strong possibility the CFPB will ban such clauses. Hold the phones just a minute though. Now that corporations are PEOPLE and PEOPLE can donate to politicians and lobby politicians guess who is most likely going to be shoving crap loads of money down congresses throat to keep things in their favor. (Hint: It’s not the Concepcions with their $30.22)
