Did you give up legal rights?

[TechBear_Seattle]

Note: The subject line is the one used in the text edition. The addition of "to get wireless" in the on-line version is irrelevant to the case heard before the Washington Supreme Court, as the scope is a common contract clause and not something specific to Cingular Wireless or any other wireless telecommunications company.

Did you give up legal rights to get wireless?
Fine print in Cingular, AOL contracts at issue

By CANDACE HECKMAN
P-I REPORTER

After signing a one-size-fits-all, prewritten contract to get wireless service, a bank account or even a credit card, consumers are usually signing away their basic right to their day in court. And not many realize it.

Today, nearly every consumer in the country is bound by one of these provisions typically buried in lines of fine print or in the middle of a scrolling computer window. It's a clause requiring mandatory arbitration, one that essentially prohibits taking class action, or one that includes both.

But a couple of cases heard by the state Supreme Court Tuesday could slow that trend, at least in Washington.

In one case, justices could invalidate a contract provision that would ban consumers from filing any lawsuits within the state. In the other, the justices could stop companies from forcing consumers to waive their ability to join a class action.

...

According to Cingular's standard contract, a clause that was circulated as a bill insert a couple of years ago, customers can take on the company individually but not as part of a class-action lawsuit.

It is now up to the state Supreme Court to decide whether Cingular, and consequently other companies, can subject its customers to such a ban, especially given that consumers do not have any say or negotiating power before signing its contracts.

...

In a separate case Tuesday, justices heard arguments from America Online, which has a clause in its contract that would force consumers to only take action in Virginia courts. The state of Virginia does not have a process for which consumers can bring class-action lawsuits to court.

The Washington Court of Appeals struck down that provision, saying the clause violated public policy.

The full article can be read in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/261193_cingular01.html

[KittyWampus]

1. Reminds me of 'Confidentiality' agreements companies make employees

sign. Such agreements mean if employee sees wrongdoing and alerts authorities, they will be subject to lawsuits and can stopped from testifying against company.

[Mithras61]

2. Are you referring to NDAs?

Most of the non-disclosure agreements I've seen are quite specific about what you cannot disclose (strictly limiting it to information on unannounced products, and to post-amnnounce products for 6 months). I haven't seen anything else, but that may be because of what I do (I work with pre-release products).

[kanrok]

3. Read the "fine print" on most consumer contracts nowadys

Not only are you giving up the right to join a class action, but your also giving up the right to sue in a court of law most times. Most boilerplate consumer contracts contain language that prevents dispute resolution in a court of law. When you sign the contract (or click the "I agree" button which is a pre-requisite to completion of the contract) you are typically agreeing to decide disputes solely by "arbitration." Sounds like it might not be a big deal, but the deck is stacked against the plaintiff in arbiration hearings. Plaintiffs are one-time litigants. The companies are in arb all the time. The private companies that provide the "arbitrators" and the arbitration services are beholden to their biggest source of business, and it ain't you or I.

[Mithras61]

5. Exactly... and if I'm not mistaken...

some lawsuits have been thrown out by the courts because of this type of mandatory arbitration clause in such things as credit cards (abusive interest rates), consumer products (like cell phone services) that don't perform as advertised, and so on. I sincerely hope they rule the clauses illegal, but this is the corporations agains us, and I don't believe it's going to happen.

[FlaGranny]

4. Many class action suits

are a scam for lawyers. I've been involved in two of them. In both cases I was owed money by a company. In one case an insurance company went bankrupt right after taking my money for the contract. I was supposed to get some of it back. In the other case a company had overcharged its customers. The settlements never got past the law offices of the lawyers bringing the cases.

These cases involve filling out and signing papers, mailing them in, back and forth, etc., they take your time and effort, and amount to nothing. In both cases I was involved in, I was contacted by the attornies and asked to join the case. The suits might have a small effect in preventing other companies from doing the same thing, but I highly doubt it.

I'm wondering, has anyone ever gotten a settlement from a class action suit, and if so, how much of the actual claim did they wind up getting? I remember a couple of well-publicized cases where the injuried parties did get settlements, like Love Canal, and I believe an entire town that was contaminated with "I forget what". I have a feeling those were exceptions.

[LeftyMom]

8. I have recieved a class action settlement

for my previous employer's habit of underpaying thier employees. I got about $800, which was about what I made for a month's work at that job because it was part time.

[FlaGranny]

9. That's good. My two cases were

for smaller amounts and there probably wasn't much left over after attorney fees. You also probably had labor laws on your side.

[reprobate]

6. A question for attorneys on the board.

If, when signing these contracts thru the mail, like credit card contracts, one were to line out the fine print referring to arbitration and the company were to issue the card based on the contract you signed and lined out, who do you think a court would rule?

Since you signed the contract, but lined out the clause in question, even initialed it,thereby showing you accept the contract in all but the lined out clause, would a court hold you to the entire contract? Or since your expressed intent was to accept the contract, but not the lined out clause, and the company accepted the contract as you modified it,would a court hold that the contract as modified was in force?

Interesting question and I wonder how many would sneak by before the company caught on to the modification.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. It's been tried

Standard in these contracts / terms of use is a clause stating that you hearby accept any and all changes to the agreement that the corporation may make in the future. All the corporation has to do is notify you of periodic "revisions" that include the previous language you had crossed out. On the off chance that you made changes when you applied, your new credit card comes with a complete -- and therefore, under the law, revised and now in force -- copy of the contract / terms of use. By using the card, you agree to abide by these provisions as is.

[reprobate]

10. Thank you TechBear. And here I thought I had an original thought.

Should have known better.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Now, don't sound like that

:hi:

I found out how it worked many years ago in high school, during a required class for graduation called "Free Enterprise" that covered the basics of a market economy and such lifeskills as how to write a check. The teacher was giving was explaining the advantages and problems of having a credit card and mentioned the contracts; someone asked exactly your question. She explained how the contracts were written to prevent such maneuvers.

Obviously, my classmate was not the first to think of the question, as the language was standard in credit card contracts *mumble* years ago.