Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court rules against consumers. Again. (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not the plaintiffs' choice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    They won before the district court and the 9th Cir; it was AT&T which had to appeal it up.

    •  Add to that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      that the arbitration clause in AT&T's contract was a more "consumer friendly" arbitration clause specifically designed to challenge California's rule that class action bans in arbitration clauses are unenforceable.  AT&T wanted this arbitration clause in front of the Supreme Court because it at least gives the impression of being less oppressive.  I think the Supreme Court ruling, however, goes even further than AT&T would have expected.  

    •  Adam - I didn't state my point well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B

      The lawyers who picked this as a class action made a bad choice from the beginning.  It was not as though this was a hidden tax. Each consumer knew at the time of entering the contract that they were paying a tax and could have decided at that time to not make a purchase decision. Add to that that all of the out of pocket cost to the consumer was going directly to the state, and that the arbitration clause had been tweaked to challenge California's law. When you add it all up it was a poor choice from the beginning.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 07:21:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site