Post by jeffolie on Apr 27, 2011 17:13:05 GMT -6
Forget your high school civics lesson that checks and balances from the US Constitution provide 3 branches of the American system: Executive, Legislative, Courts...courts are not available to average Americans anymore. Now, average Americans must go to arbitration and pay the arbitration costs to boot.
No courts for you, eat arbitration
=====================================================================
Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits
In a huge blow to peeved consumers, the Supreme Court ruled earlier today that companies can block customers from joining together in a class-action suit by forcing each complaint into arbitration.
The ruling came about as a result of a lawsuit filed against AT&T by a consumer in California who alleged that the company acted deceptively by advertising discounts on cell phones but charged taxes on the full retail price.
When the suit sought class-action status, AT&T argued that a clause in the company's contract requires that the incident be resolved by arbitration and thus could not move forward as a class-action suit.
A district court and circuit court both sided against AT&T in the matter, but the Supremes decided with a vote of 5-4 that companies can include such mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their contracts.
"Arbitration is poorly suited to the higher stakes of class litigation," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the court's decision.
Arguing for the dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that allowing a company to require arbitration in order to block class-action suits gives that business the ability to insulate itself "from liability for its own frauds by deliberately cheating large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money."
consumerist.com/2011/04/supreme- ... suits.html
AT&T: Mandatory Binding Arbitration Actually Benefits The Consumer
Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled that it's okay for companies to effectively preempt class-action lawsuits by putting mandatory binding arbitration clauses into their contracts with consumers. To most of us, that looks like a slap in the face to the American consumer, but the folks at AT&T want us all to know that the Supreme Court decision is actually going to benefit us all.
In a statement sent to Consumerist, a rep for the Death Star writes:
“The Court recognized that arbitration often benefits consumers. And as noted in the opinion, "...[T]he District Court concluded that the [the plaintiffs] were better off under their arbitration agreement with AT&T than they would have been as participants in a class action, which 'could take months, if not years, and which may merely yield an opportunity to submit a claim for recovery of a small percentage of a few dollars.'" We value our customers, and AT&T's arbitration program is fair, fast, easy to use, and consumer friendly.
”
The Supreme Court decision came about after plaintiffs in California attempted to get class-action status for their suit against AT&T. The telecom titan argued that the customers were contractually obligated to enter into arbitration and thus, could not seek class-action status. A district court and circuit court disagreed, but the Supreme Court ruled with a 5-4 vote in favor of AT&T.
consumerist.com/2011/04/att-mand ... sumer.html
No courts for you, eat arbitration
=====================================================================
Supreme Court Rules That Companies Can Block Customers' Class-Action Suits
In a huge blow to peeved consumers, the Supreme Court ruled earlier today that companies can block customers from joining together in a class-action suit by forcing each complaint into arbitration.
The ruling came about as a result of a lawsuit filed against AT&T by a consumer in California who alleged that the company acted deceptively by advertising discounts on cell phones but charged taxes on the full retail price.
When the suit sought class-action status, AT&T argued that a clause in the company's contract requires that the incident be resolved by arbitration and thus could not move forward as a class-action suit.
A district court and circuit court both sided against AT&T in the matter, but the Supremes decided with a vote of 5-4 that companies can include such mandatory binding arbitration clauses in their contracts.
"Arbitration is poorly suited to the higher stakes of class litigation," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the court's decision.
Arguing for the dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that allowing a company to require arbitration in order to block class-action suits gives that business the ability to insulate itself "from liability for its own frauds by deliberately cheating large numbers of consumers out of individually small sums of money."
consumerist.com/2011/04/supreme- ... suits.html
AT&T: Mandatory Binding Arbitration Actually Benefits The Consumer
Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled that it's okay for companies to effectively preempt class-action lawsuits by putting mandatory binding arbitration clauses into their contracts with consumers. To most of us, that looks like a slap in the face to the American consumer, but the folks at AT&T want us all to know that the Supreme Court decision is actually going to benefit us all.
In a statement sent to Consumerist, a rep for the Death Star writes:
“The Court recognized that arbitration often benefits consumers. And as noted in the opinion, "...[T]he District Court concluded that the [the plaintiffs] were better off under their arbitration agreement with AT&T than they would have been as participants in a class action, which 'could take months, if not years, and which may merely yield an opportunity to submit a claim for recovery of a small percentage of a few dollars.'" We value our customers, and AT&T's arbitration program is fair, fast, easy to use, and consumer friendly.
”
The Supreme Court decision came about after plaintiffs in California attempted to get class-action status for their suit against AT&T. The telecom titan argued that the customers were contractually obligated to enter into arbitration and thus, could not seek class-action status. A district court and circuit court disagreed, but the Supreme Court ruled with a 5-4 vote in favor of AT&T.
consumerist.com/2011/04/att-mand ... sumer.html