![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-190983-100x100.png\")
Not really sure what is going on here; it's really confusing and poorly written. In Illinois at least small claims is limited to actual damages only, so this tactic won't work everywhere.
Not really sure what is going on here; it's really confusing and poorly written. In Illinois at least small claims is limited to actual damages only, so this tactic won't work everywhere.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-134275-100x100.png\")
It looks to me like it was an honest mistake by Sprint and not only did they correct it, but they sent the letter to inform the customer.
I think the customer was a little overly litigious IMO.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
The summary and the FA are both kind of disjointed. What was the loss here? Why triple the price of the PGP package? PGP won't help this guy. Was damage done? Heck, the guy that could have stolen the \"personal information\" let Wells-Fargo know there was a problem.
A librarian that also works for Customs and Immigration sounds like some underemployed dude that's just hunting for money.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-71694-100x100.png\")
A librarian who worked for, not also works for....
And all guybrarians are as hott as the pic. Really.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-18968-100x100.png\")
hey that's the most inspiring story i've heard all week. Companies need to be held accountable. There's nothing wrong with using the courts that we the people pay for with our own tax money.
@deweydecimated: Liberador. Not guybrarian.
And...I'm REALLY confusd as to what they story is. Someone got his invoice and their bank sent it to sprint and sprint did the right thing by telling him about it?
I can guess that the problem might be the error that both companies made in allowing his personal information to get to another customer. That's understandable, but it took a few reads. The summary should really be clearer.
All in all....ummmmm...ok. People go to small claims all the time. This site has posted plenty of how-to's on it, but that doesn't mean that it is a good idea for people to forsake class action lawsuits for small claims actions.
Class actions are great vehicles to lower transaction costs for large numbers of plaintiffs. If we all faced <10 dollars worth of harm (or say <25, which is ~ the filing or serving fee for a class action suit ), why would we file suit? We wouldn't. But if a company fucked thousands of people over to the tune of 24.99, they could make lots of money. The solution to that? Class action law suits. My transaction cost is low, I just need to send some forms or something, but the suit gets filed and people get protected.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21970-100x100.png\")
One more time, though if you're confused you may just want to skip this whole post: Karantsalis is a Sprint customer. He's not a Wells-Fargo customer. Some stranger--we'll call him X--who IS a Wells-Fargo customer logged into X's own Checkfree account on the Wells-Fargo site to pay his own Sprint bill. Sprint somehow served X Karantsalis' Sprint invoice via the Wells-Fargo site. Do you see why it's confusing? Because it makes no sense! Sprint had a glitch of some sort and gave out Karantsalis' personal information on a totally unrelated (to Karantsalis) bank website to a total stranger--and Sprint wouldn't have caught it if X hadn't told them. It doesn't matter whether or not any \"harm\" was done -- Sprint had a data breach and opened Karantsalis up to possible risk of ID theft and loss of privacy.
Just read the links if you're still confused. There's even a PDF of the original Sprint letter in the second \"related\" article. Some summaries defy skimming or easy A-B-C narratives.
*grumble* poorly written my ass *grumble*
The problem with class actions, as we note here frequently, is they often do little to penalize the company and sometimes do almost nothing to compensate the participants. Too often--Netflix and TJX come to mind--the final settlement is offensive in the degree to which is screws over the consumer while netting the lawyers a tidy sum and only slapping the hands of the offending corporation.
@humphrmi: I've only done small claims once, but the fact that the other party didn't show resulted in one bang of the gavel and a check for me from the third party rep they sent. No default judgement. No appeal. Sounds like this guy had the same experience.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-101046-100x100.png\")
@Chris Walters: Thanks for clearing that up.
And +100 on the class action comments. These do nothing for the members of the class but must certainly be rewarding for the legal team.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25844-100x100.png\")
@brennie: A default judgement is when the defendant doesn't show. They are easy to appeal in some jurisdictions.
Good luck collecting! Winning in small claims court is often no great challenge. Collecting from a company this size is going to prove nearly impossible.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159178-100x100.png\")
What damages did he say he incurred? Are we able to sue for potential damage?
I could see him being awarded a lifetime subscription to a credit monitoring service of some sort.
How important is it to shred cell phone bills?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-7884-100x100.png\")
I think the customer was a little overly litigious IMO.
Companies need to be held accountable -- and the only way they can be is in the only way it hurts: financially. I think the customer was fanastic.
Who cares if people dont know by now that Sprint sucks major Ass then its their fault that they are still a customer.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-114567-100x100.png\")
@humphrmi:
A default judgement is when the defendant doesn't show. They are easy to appeal in some jurisdictions.
That's a key point. When it comes to many (if not most) consumer issues, the rules vary wildly from state to state. I don't know about Florida, but in New Jersey, Small Claims verdicts can only be appealed on the basis of disputes of law, not fact. Given proper service I suspect that a no-show is not enough for an appeal here. Then again, IANAL.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-76142-100x100.png\")
The writing might not have been spectacular overall, but \"Sprint easily spends 50 times that every day giving lobotomies and tongue-bobs to Customer Service new hires\" was worth a chuckle. So, there's that.
This guy is not your typical librarian. Has anyone read the article in the Washington Post about him suing the government to locate his friend's body overseas? [www.washingtonpost.com]
WTF is this encryption service damages BS? What good does it do to encrypt data that was already leaked? In what way is a subscription to an encryption service compensation for the identity theft risk he was exposed to and the violation of his privacy?
This is stupid in so many ways I don't even know where to start. This is \"hero consumer\" clearly has no idea WTF he's talking about.
The end result is the key here. The guy won. And I'ne never read a story like this where the little guy wins against two big companies by using his brains. Delphi, why don't you continue on with class-actions and wait a few years for your $5.00 coupon. I'm betting with the librarian and will roll my dice in small claims court. THE BEST ARTICLE I'VE READ IN A LONG TIME!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-88841-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-337767-100x100.png\")
The article isn't fully clear, but I think he has won a default judgment. Which is usually good enough, except that most companies usually appeal default judgments (I know, I've been through it). It's not that he'll lose, but he might have to spend more time in court. Worst case, they throw out the judgment and make him go to trial again. Actually, that's not the worst case. The worst case is, they get a biz-friendly judge to throw out the default judgment, then they demand a jury trial, and before he goes back into court he has to learn how to write jury instructions.
But hey, if it holds, good for him! :)