NEWS: Customers can sue AT&T, after all

<http://www.theregister.com/2007/08/20/court_slames_att_wireless_contract_clause/>

A federal court in San Francisco has decided that AT&T's wireless
contract is "unconscionable".

On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit came out
against AT&T's "arbitration clause," which forbids wireless customers
from bringing class-action suits against the company.

Arbitration clauses are quite common in the US, as companies do their
darndest to bury expensive consumer suits before they even get
started, and the new ruling could go a long way towards curbing the
practice.

"The Ninth Circuit is saying that AT&T - or companies like AT&T - are
not allowed to force consumers to waive what it regards as a
fundamental constitutional right," Jeffery Glassman, a lawyer with
the California firm Moldo, Davidson, Fraioli, Seror & Sestanovich,
told The Reg.

In February of last year, AT&T customer Kenneth Shroyer brought a
class-action suit against the company on behalf of AT&T customers
everywhere, claiming he had "suffered injuries" thanks to the
company's behavior in the wake of its merger with wireless provider
Cingular. His claims include breach of contract and untrue
advertising, among others.

According to Shroyer, his wireless service significantly deteriorated
after the merger. When he complained, the company told him he needed
a new chip for his phone. But it wouldn't let him install the chip
without signing a new agreement with the company, and in doing so, he
unknowingly agreed to the arbitration clause.

Such a clause prevents consumers from exercising various legal
rights, including class actions, forcing them to enter arbitration
with companies outside the courts.

"This is a standard clause that a lot of companies put in their
agreements because they don't want to deal with the hassles and the
expense and the risk of getting sued by their employees and their
customers and their vendors," Glassman said. "In signing it, you
waive your right as a consumer to have a trial by jury or have judge
hear your arguments."

So, when Shroyer's suit landed in federal court, it was dismissed.
But, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit has now ruled that AT&T's
arbitration clause is invalid under California law.

"We hold that the waiver is unconscionable, and, thus, unenforceable,
and that the invalidation of the contract provision is not preempted
by the Federal Arbitration Act," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote.
"Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order compelling
arbitration."

[MORE]

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:f6nkc3pa5ejou7f8vsls6le8ghsr71leap@4ax.com...
> <http://www.theregister.com/2007/08/20/court_slames_att_wireless_contract_clause/>
>
> A federal court in San Francisco has decided that AT&T's wireless
> contract is "unconscionable".
_FAQ>

"The 9th Circuit is the most overturned appeals court in the country " - CNN

In <f6nkc3pa5ejou7f8vsls6le8ghsr71leap@4ax.com> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
[snip]
> So, when Shroyer's suit landed in federal court, it was dismissed.
> But, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit has now ruled that AT&T's
> arbitration clause is invalid under California law.

Why would the Ninth Circuit, a Federal Court, be ruling
based on State law?

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

"danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:fagk6b$t1f$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In <f6nkc3pa5ejou7f8vsls6le8ghsr71leap@4ax.com> John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
> [snip]
>> So, when Shroyer's suit landed in federal court, it was dismissed.
>> But, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit has now ruled that AT&T's
>> arbitration clause is invalid under California law.
>
> Why would the Ninth Circuit, a Federal Court, be ruling
> based on State law?
>
I would take a wild guess and say it's the FCC that issued the lic. And that
makes it Federal.

Kevin Weaver wrote:
> "danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:fagk6b$t1f$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In <f6nkc3pa5ejou7f8vsls6le8ghsr71leap@4ax.com> John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
>> [snip]
>>> So, when Shroyer's suit landed in federal court, it was dismissed.
>>> But, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit has now ruled that AT&T's
>>> arbitration clause is invalid under California law.
>>
>> Why would the Ninth Circuit, a Federal Court, be ruling
>> based on State law?
>>
> I would take a wild guess and say it's the FCC that issued the lic. And
> that makes it Federal.
>
>
>
Does that mean we can also sue John Novice?