![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1161-100x100.png\")
My post was just a quick announcement. Meg is going into more depth.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-244548-100x100.png\")
@Ben Popken: And Meg is linking to a story posted Monday, after your post. Groklaw provides a point-by-point discussion of the ruling from a legal perspective.
I'm happy to have this 'repost' today.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-179301-100x100.png\")
To AT&T: \"Neener Neener\".
There. I feel so much better.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
They cover the same topic, yes, but beyond that they are different. Ben's article says THAT arbitration clauses are unconscionable, this explains WHY they made that ruling.
From what I get, they didn't necessarily ban arbitration clauses, they just ruled that, when going to arbitration, your contract can not be used to deny you the rights you would have in court. Mandatory arbitration may or may not still be legal, but this sets a nice precedent against it. Also remember that this ruling only applies to Washington State, but it still has far reaching effects regarding precedent, or AT&T could appeal it all the way to the Supreme Court, and they could make it apply nationally.
This is just my opinion, and I'm not a lawyer.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-169827-100x100.png\")
I still don't^H^H^H^H^H can't understand why mandatory arbitration hasn't been completely outlawed. The ability to bring suit to right wrongs is something that is guaranteed to every citizen. Whether that's right or not is another matter, but it's still a right that's provided. Signing a contract with somebody should NOT be able to limit that right.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-297205-100x100.png\")
@AndrewJC: Because in its intent arbitration is actually beneficial to the consumer. Namely, it should have a more rapid resolution than a court case, and the costs must be footed by the company. The problem is that because the company is paying for it, they get to pick the private firm that does the arbitration, and like all service industries, arbitration companies like repeat business.
What it really needs is to be court lite. Neither party should have any say in who hears the arguments. The problem is the abuses that occur.
@valarmorghulis: Judge Judy, here we come! Non-binding arbitration is all those court shows really are anyway, aren't they?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-140626-100x100.png\")
@valarmorghulis: Great idea! If anyone here gets CEO-rich, put your dirty, scheming lawyers to the task of wreaking havoc on companies with annoying contracts like this, then blog about all of it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21984-100x100.png\")
So can we still print up checks with the endorsement line containing micro print saying that by cashing this check the company removes any current and future requirement for binding arbitration much like the cashing those checks enrolls us in some travel program???
Would some kind act of Congress please make this illegal. Thank you.
Suck it, AT&T!
Groklaw's PJ usually provides in-depth analysis. Groklaw is just starting to cover Psystar v. Apple (do the EULAs that say by clicking \"I Agree\", RumplestiltskinwareCo can take your firstborn enforcable...) and that could get interesting.
I think I saw the original arbitration article, but the analysis is meaningful.
And yes, AT&T could rewrite it, but note how much junk that says \"You give up your right to...\" has been declared void. If you are ever stuck, you might have to push it, but here is a guide to what might or might not be valid.
Now, if consumerist could just send to each of the fortune 500, or perhaps the biggest shrinkrap sofware companies, \"By opening this envelope, you agree you owe us $1M...\".
A very shady tactic by AT&T indeed. The right / ability to bring about a suit against individuals of wrongdoings is something that is guaranteed to every citizen... So why is mandatory arbitration still around? Let me guess.. To protect the Corporation. Like we are doing now on Wall Street. Air Force Ones, Air Jordans / Jordan Shoes, Jordan Release Dates, Nike Dunks and Nike SB Shoes.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-219805-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-15106-100x100.png\")
As I first read this I cheered, thinking that perhaps the days of companies proactively stripping consumers of any rights via mandatory binding arbitration are finally numbered.
Sadly, this ruling will simply help companies rewrite their binding arbitration agreements to may them more ironclad and less subject to future court rulings like this one.
@SkokieGuy: Hopefully customers keep fighting back hard against them. If mandatory arbitration was *GASP!* made illegal then no company could come up with any work around.
I've noticed a few contracts that have still have an arbitration clause but it's now non-binding, in other words if you go to arbitration and aren't happy with the results, you can take it to court.
Not a perfect solution, but it's progress.