Why You Should Care: AT&T v. Concepcion

November 24, 2010 -

The California Violent Video Game law is not the only important case before the supreme court affecting consumers. Earlier this month the highest court in the land heard oral arguments in AT&T v. Concepcion, a case that could remove the right for consumers to band together as a class action against corporations. Here is more from the Consumer Federation of America:

"The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this month in the case of AT&T v. Concepcion, in which the right to hold corporations responsible for wrong-doing through consumer class action lawsuits is at stake. In a statement on the case issued earlier this month, CFA Senior Counsel Rachel Weintraub said: “A ruling by the Supreme Court in AT&T’s favor would have dire consequences for the rights of consumers to obtain redress. Without access to class actions, consumers will be boxed into mandatory arbitration proceedings, which are held by arbiters often handpicked by the corporation and most often side with corporation.” CFA is among numerous consumer groups, civil rights organizations, state attorneys general, and law professors who have joined in an amicus brief 'requesting that the Supreme Court preserve this important legal right to organize in class actions.'"

ECA is a member of the Consumer Federation of America (which was also a co-signatory on our amicus brief).

[Games Politics is an ECA publication.]

Source: consumerfed.org

Posted in

Comments

Re: Why You Should Care: AT&T v. Concepcion

I've read some on this case elsewhere, and what's at stake isn't at all what you describe (as I hear, at least.) The ability to file class-action suits shouldn't be dramatically affected by this outcome. For those who don't know the background: AT&T had a line in their cell phone contract that certain disputes go to arbitration instead of court. Presumably this is because arbitration is quicker and cheaper than court. (It's also said that the consumers do just as well under arbitration, and that AT&T can as a result provide cheaper plans because they're somewhat insulated from the threat of jackpot lawsuits, but I can't definitively prove this.) AT&T customers agreed to this contract, had some dispute, and sued anyway. Customers say that CA law forbids contracts that would forbid lawsuits; AT&T says federal law which allows for contractual arbitration trumps state laws. The lawsuit deals more with contractual issues; meritorious class-action and fraud suits aren't really at stake.

Re: Why You Should Care: AT&T v. Concepcion

I understand what you are saying but the harm this will cause to consumers is not really off set by any imaginary savings or cheaper prices. Market forces set pricing and if people are willing to pay current prices the phone companies costs to become zero and still they wouldn't lower prices. In a truly competitive market they would, but we don't really have that. It all boils down to values and in my opinion we should not allow ANY person to sign away their rights. Especially with something as flimsy as an EULA that most people don't read and don't actually sign to.

Re: Why You Should Care: AT&T v. Concepcion

Mind you that another contract that included an arbitration-clause was the cause of a severe debate because a woman that got raped was not allowed to go to court according to her contract. Companies already hide massive crimes behind arbitration, what's to prevent them from simply hiding financial scams behind them?

Re: Why You Should Care: AT&T v. Concepcion

It does seem to pave the way though. A lot of precedent these days is built on prior precedent. Keep that in mind while justifying this. AT&T is about as far from a company with good intentions as you can get. If this passes, software and game EULAs could perhaps be modified in the future such that you can't sue the company that published the game or software - including the government. The EULA is a contract after all. This should fail to pass unscathed on the premise that such precedent WILL be used later by large companies as an immunity card to get away with anything. - Left4Dead Why are zombies always eating brains? I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.
- Left4Dead Why are zombies always eating brains? I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
PHX Corphttp://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/801575-sony-refuses-offer-refund-playstation-game-fraudulently-purchased-hacker Sony Refuses to Offer Refund for PlayStation Game Fraudulently Purchased by Hacker12/18/2014 - 1:43pm
NeenekoMakes sense to me, and sounds kinda cool. One cool thing about Minecraft is the meta game, you can implement other game types within its mechanics. There are servers out there with plots, an episodic single player one sound kinda cool12/18/2014 - 11:07am
MaskedPixelantehttps://mojang.com/announcing-minecraft-story-mode/ Umm... what?12/18/2014 - 10:24am
NeenekoThat would make sense. Theaters probably can not afford the liability worry or a drop in ticket sales from worried people. Sony on the other hand can take a massive writeoff, and might even be able to bypass distribution contracts for greater profit.12/18/2014 - 10:03am
ConsterNeeneko: I thought they cancelled it because the major cinema franchises were too scared of terrorist attacks to show the film?12/18/2014 - 9:55am
Neeneko@Wonderkarp - there is still a lot of debate regarding if the movie was a motive or not. Unnamed officials say yes, the timeline says no.12/18/2014 - 9:10am
NeenekoSomething does not smell right though, Sony is no stranger to being hacked, so why cancel this film? For that matter, they are still not giving in to hacker's original demands as far as I know.12/18/2014 - 9:06am
PHX Corp@prh99 Not to mention the Dangerous Precedent that sony's hacking scandal just set http://mashable.com/2014/12/17/sony-hackers-precedent/12/18/2014 - 8:25am
Matthew WilsonI hope its released to netflix or amazon12/18/2014 - 12:11am
prh99Basically they've given every tin pot dictator and repressive regime a blue print how to conduct censorship abroad. The hecklers veto wins again. At least when it comes to Sony and the four major theater chains.12/17/2014 - 11:55pm
MaskedPixelante"It's not OUR fault that our game doesn't work, it's YOUR fault for having so many friends."12/17/2014 - 9:48pm
Matthew Wilsonapparently tetris did not work because he has a full friends list12/17/2014 - 9:21pm
WonderkarpSo Sony cancelled the release of the Interview. was it ever confirmed that the Sony hacking was done because of that specific movie?12/17/2014 - 8:54pm
MaskedPixelanteWow, Ubisoft went four for four, I didn't think it was actually possible.12/17/2014 - 8:37pm
MechaTama31Oh, ok, I was mixing up "on Greenlight" and "Greenlit".12/17/2014 - 8:23pm
Matthew Wilson@phx you beat me to it. how do you screw up tetris?! my ubisoft this is just stupid. no one should ever preorder a ubisoft game again! ps people should never preorder any game regardles of dev.12/17/2014 - 6:28pm
PHX Corphttp://www.ign.com/videos/2014/12/17/what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-tetris-ps4 I give up on ubisoft12/17/2014 - 6:01pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://comicbook.com/blog/2014/08/16/exclusive-original-unaltered-cut-of-star-wars-trilogy-to-be-rele/ Yeah, this'll never happen.12/17/2014 - 5:03pm
NeenekoThey have and exercise control over which games are allowed on their privately controlled 'open forum'. Their endorsement is fairly minimal since it is only 'we do not reject this', but it is still an endorsement of sorts.12/17/2014 - 3:58pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician