AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for Future Class Actions

April 28, 2011 -

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on AT&T v. Concepcion, a case that dealt with class action lawsuits. In light of the PlayStation security breach and the first class action suits being prepared, this decision could be bad news for consumers. To find out what impact this could have on any potential class action suits against Sony, we turn to Jennifer Mercurio, Vice President & General Counsel for the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA). According to Mercurio, the ruling on AT&T v Concepcion is horrible news for consumers in general - and in particular – to PSN users who want to sue Sony as a group:

"AT&T v Concepcion is basically a death knell to class action lawsuits in the US. The 5-4 Supreme Court of the Unites States ruling invalidated a California law that attempted to limit contract arbitration clauses considered unfair to consumers. The decision, however, doesn’t stop disgruntled consumers from 'suing' a company for a real or perceived wrongs – like in the present PSN situation. Basically, the AT&T decision holds consumers to whatever contract they signed. So if there’s an arbitration clause in that contract which says they must arbitrate any issues individually, the AT&T decision holds them to that."

Those interested can read the decision, Justice Thomas' concurrence and the dissent here (PDF).

[Full disclosure: GamePolitics is an ECA publication.]


Comments

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

Just think of all the money that the corporation would have to spend if even 50% of the affected customers decided to sue.  They would then have to deal with all those customers one at a time, and even if they were successful in their arbitration they still have to pay their lawyers and/or representatives for the time & research spent for each and every session.

While this may be bad for class-action law suits, if done properly it could be REALLY bad for a corporation.  (With the PSN issue going on, even if only 25% of the affected people filed and required arbitration, you're still talking about approximately 19,250,000 arbitration hearings/sessions - as opposed to 1 class action law suit.)

--

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

 


Ruger is coming out with a new and intimidating pistol in honor of Senators and Congressmen.  It will be named "The Politician."  It doesn't work and you can't fire it!

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

Unless Sony's EULA had arbitration clauses in them (I'd never own a PS3, for reasons unrelated to PSN, so I don't know what's in their EULA), this case really has nothing to do with them.  Also, those arbitration clauses in the suit make it so you really can't sue.  You have to go to arbitration instead.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

While I knew it was unlikely, I was really hoping there would be some kind of 'arbitration clauses are illegal' decision.   I never liked the idea of being able to sign away legal rights as part of a contract, esp between such massively different bargaining positions.

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

You don't want to sign your rights away in a contract?  Don't sign the contract.

Why is this very simple principle so hard to grasp?

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

Wow, corporate apologist much?

It shouldn't even be possible to sign away basic human rights (like access to the legal system).

However, even if it is, instant contracts (like EULAs) shouldn't be allowed to exist. When I buy a game, by the time I can actually read the contract, I have already opened the game and now I am stuck with it whether or not I agree with the EULA.

But whatever jedi, you're obviously right. I mean Sony clearly is the victim here, they didn't let hundreds of thousands of people's private information get stolen due to shoddy security. Oh, wait...

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

Wait, because I demand some personal responsibility from BOTH parties of a contract, and not saying "well, since you don't like the terms of a contract after you've signed it, we'll just let you get away with breaking it," I'm a corporate apologist?

Do you really suggest that it should be so easy for people to knowingly sign a binding contract and then say afterwards that they just didn't like it?  That's not a contract at all.

If you no longer want contracts to be legally binding for one party, it shouldn't be legally binding for any party.  If that's really what you want, you better not think that corporations are bad now, because they'd only get worse.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

Well, for starters, we have a serious bargaining power difference, esp when competition is low.   When only one side has an input into the contents of a contract (just try rewriting a contract and handing it back to a carrier, it doesn't work) then that alone represents a problem.  There is also the issue of asymmetric knowledge.  A company with dedicated lawyers is going to have a much better idea of exactly what rights someone is signing away then an average person on the street who does not even know what an 'arbitration clause' is until they have a problem and discover that they are not allowed to access the normal legal system.  Half the time even people who 'think' they understand legalize get a good chunk of it wrong.

But more importantly, the thing about legal rights is you should not have the ability to sign them away in the first place.  This is a fundamental protection against things like fraud, otherwise 'they signed the contract' would be a panacea against all sorts of illegal activity.

Normally this has been upheld, which is what made this case rather confusing.   I have known people who actually tried drafting up slavery contracts and it had to be explained to them that even if a person signs it the contract is not enforceable since the power of contracts is not unlimited.

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

I was about to argue with you about contracts that you don't sign, EULA's and such (http://xkcd.com/501/). But then if you don't want to sign those you don't buy the product.

 

So yeah, if you don't like that arbirtation clause, then you don't buy that product. If consumers still buy the products that contain those contracts, then clearly it isn't as bad as we want to make it sound.

-Austin from Oregon

Feel free to check out my blog.

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

hurray for corporatocracy!  /sarcasm

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

We're quickly running out of good news for consumers these days. :(

Re: AT&T v. Concepcion Supreme Court Ruling Bad News for ...

I can see every software and game company adding arbitration clauses to their EULAs just so they can evade class action lawsuits as a direct result of this ruling.

- 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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sleaker@MP - I hope you didn't suffer a loss of your mental faculties attempting that.07/28/2014 - 3:48pm
MaskedPixelanteOK, so my brief research looking at GameFAQs forums (protip, don't do that if you wish to keep your sanity intact.), the 3DS doesn't have the power to run anything more powerful than the NES/GBC/GG AND run the 3DS system in the background.07/28/2014 - 11:01am
ZenMatthew, the 3DS already has GBA games in the form of the ambassador tittles. And I an just as curious about them not releasing them on there like they did the NES ones. I do like them on the Wii U as well, but seems weird. And where are the N64 games?07/28/2014 - 10:40am
james_fudgeNo. They already cut the price. Unless they release a new version that has a higher price point.07/28/2014 - 10:19am
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, It most likely is. The question is whether Nintendo wants to do it.07/28/2014 - 10:12am
Matthew WilsonI am sure the 3ds im more then powerful enough to emulate a GBA game.07/28/2014 - 9:54am
Sleaker@IanC - while the processor is effectively the same or very similar, the issue is how they setup the peripheral hardware. It would probably require creating some kind of emulation for the 3DS to handle interfacing with the audio and input methods for GBA07/28/2014 - 9:30am
Sleaker@EZK - hmmm, that makes sense. I could have sworn I had played GB/GBC games on it too though (emud of course)07/28/2014 - 9:23am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, the DS has a built in GBA chipset in the system. That is why it played GBA games. The GBA had a seperate chipset for GB and GBColor games. The DS did not have that GB/GBC chipset and that is why the DS could not play GB and GBC games.07/28/2014 - 7:25am
IanCI dont think Nintendo ever gave reason why GBA games a reason why GBA games aren't on the 3DS eshop. The 3DS uses chips that are backwards compatable with the GBA ob GBA processor, after all.07/28/2014 - 6:46am
Sleakerhmmm that's odd I could play GBA games natively in my original DS.07/28/2014 - 1:39am
Matthew Wilsonbasically "we do not want to put these games on a system more then 10 people own" just joking07/27/2014 - 8:13pm
MaskedPixelanteSomething, something, the 3DS can't properly emulate GBA games and it was a massive struggle to get the ambassador games running properly.07/27/2014 - 8:06pm
Andrew EisenIdeally, you'd be able to play such games on either platform but until that time, I think Nintendo's using the exclusivity in an attempt to further drive Wii U sales.07/27/2014 - 7:21pm
Matthew WilsonI am kind of surprised games like battle network are not out on the 3ds.07/27/2014 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenWell, Mega Man 1 - 4, X and X2 are already on there and the first Battle Network is due out July 31st.07/27/2014 - 6:16pm
MaskedPixelanteDid Capcom ever give us a timeline for when they planned on putting the Megaman stuff on Wii U?07/27/2014 - 2:23pm
MaskedPixelanteIf by "distance themselves from Google Plus" you mean "forcing Google Plus integration in everything", then yes, they are distancing themselves from Google Plus.07/26/2014 - 12:20pm
MechaTama31I wish they would distance G+ from the Play Store, so I could leave reviews and comments again.07/26/2014 - 11:03am
Matthew Wilson@pm I doubt it. Google seems to be distancing themselves from G+07/25/2014 - 9:31pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician