[Boatgearguy]

This guy took them to court & won

http://www.azcentral.com/business/ar...-use-case.html

[Dysdiadochodokanestic]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Judge-...67019.html?x=0

So its not just Sprint that inhibits its customers from bringing a Class-Action lawsuit - ATT does the same, but it just blew up in their face. I have a feeling that there are going to be alot more of these cases and it will start to create a bigger problem for these network giants.

Sure, the networks are being overloaded - but I feel that the solution should NOT be throttling, putting on bogus fees, etc while offering Unlimited data and others. I feel that we have started to live BEYOND our means. I did not have data when I went to high school on my phone, heck did not even have phone till the senior year. I lived without data for the most of my college years.

Costs are getting up, so the plan prices should go up - I dont disagree with that. BUT it needs to be reasonable and fair, I dont need/want data for anyone on my family plan under age of, say 16- I shouldnt be forced to ! Please dont reply "so go to the other carrier , bla blah" - If not one particular thing, all carriers have some downs, some ups. The point of this thread is to have a commodity like Wireless Service somewhat regulated in terms of "fair marketing" - again, too much govt. intervention is bad, but there needs to be a specific guildelines/criteria how companies charge state/federal fees, and provide services under fair marketing.

P.S.
It wont be long before the very clause of "cannot bring Class-Action" gets challenged, thrown out and these giants face Class-Action lawsuits. The companies are relying too much on piece of paper and contract verbiage. If that was to hold true, there would never be a legal case/action, since many contracts/policies are laid out in black and white. The very definition of fraud (e.g. money laundering) is based on intent. Its always done in a legally permitting manner, but with bad intentions. (not saying wireless companies are doing fraud)

[monkeyboy]

mmm except that the Supremes recently reviewed the forced arbitration, no class action clauses and found them to be ok... and consistent with Federal law to reduce litigation.

[Dysdiadochodokanestic]

Originally Posted by monkeyboy

mmm except that the Supremes recently reviewed the forced arbitration, no class action clauses and found them to be ok... and consistent with Federal law to reduce litigation.

The way economy is doing, a Class-Action in lieu of potentially several hundred/thousand/(maybe million) small action suits may turn things around - They are trying to channel things to small claim courts more, hence the recent change in the max ceiling limit increase to $7.5K in small claims court - But way too many small claims about same issue....

I have repeated said it before and still stand by it, that we live in a sue-happy society. If I wanted to Sue sprint for using Yellow colors in its logo, there is no stopping me, and history shows many lawsuits of such nature/along same lines actually ended up in the favor of plaintiff.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Dysdiadochodokanestic

The way economy is doing, a Class-Action in lieu of potentially several hundred/thousand/(maybe million) small action suits may turn things around - They are trying to channel things to small claim courts more, hence the recent change in the max ceiling limit increase to $7.5K in small claims court - But way too many small claims about same issue....

I have repeated said it before and still stand by it, that we live in a sue-happy society. If I wanted to Sue sprint for using Yellow colors in its logo, there is no stopping me, and history shows many lawsuits of such nature/along same lines actually ended up in the favor of plaintiff.

You have to take into account how many "small claims" cases are won by the plaintiff because the other party just doesn't show up. Sprint may choose not to defend certain cases if the dollar amount is under $XXXX because sending in a representative (lawyer) is simply more money than winning the case is worth.

[Boatgearguy]

Originally Posted by Dan

You have to take into account how many "small claims" cases are won by the plaintiff because the other party just doesn't show up. Sprint may choose not to defend certain cases if the dollar amount is under $XXXX because sending in a representative (lawyer) is simply more money than winning the case is worth.

This has got nothing to do with a sue happy society, these providers have many millions of customers & they fear them getting together just like so many businesses fear unions. The power of the many scares the hell out of them. Dictatorships have used these same tactics.

[BZap49]

Good for him. I still say throttling is completely fair, but the way AT&T is doing it is wrong. Nobody should get throttled at less than the limit of a tiered plan.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Boatgearguy

This has got nothing to do with a sue happy society, these providers have many millions of customers & they fear them getting together just like so many businesses fear unions. The power of the many scares the hell out of them. Dictatorships have used these same tactics.

I didn't say anything about a sue happy society. Just so you know

[Boatgearguy]

Originally Posted by Dan

I didn't say anything about a sue happy society. Just so you know

Sorry, that was someone elses quote.

[FrankPCS]

Originally Posted by Dan

You have to take into account how many "small claims" cases are won by the plaintiff because the other party just doesn't show up. Sprint may choose not to defend certain cases if the dollar amount is under $XXXX because sending in a representative (lawyer) is simply more money than winning the case is worth.

I believe initially you can sue up to the max amount allowed, in this case it's $10k, so I'm sure Sprint would show up. It is the judgement of the court to determine how much is actually owed, if anything. What the ATT case and even the Honda Civic Hybrid case show, is that if your well versed in small claims, in the short term, it is more advantageous to consumers. In California lawyers aren't allowed in small claims and you are bound to earn more than you would in a class action. I believe the statement should read, Sprint may choose to appeal a small claims case if the judgement is over $XXXX which would allow its lawyers to prolong the case causing more $$$ out of your pocket.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by FrankPCS

I believe initially you can sue up to the max amount allowed, in this case it's $10k, so I'm sure Sprint would show up. It is the judgement of the court to determine how much is actually owed, if anything. What the ATT case and even the Honda Civic Hybrid case show, is that if your well versed in small claims, in the short term, it is more advantageous to consumers. In California lawyers aren't allowed in small claims and you are bound to earn more than you would in a class action. I believe the statement should read, Sprint may choose to appeal a small claims case if the judgement is over $XXXX which would allow its lawyers to prolong the case causing more $$$ out of your pocket.

I've never heard of a small claims court decision being appealed. This is not to say its never been tried, but most times its not worth it.

I think he limit here in NY for it to be "small claims" was $5,000. If a person were to sue Sprint for providing substandard service and looking to recover the retail they paid for their iPhone as well as any ETF they paid, Sprint may not show up. For a suit over say $700 it may simply not be worth their contesting the claim.

I'm sure they have some equation they work with, where they offer to settle the case out of court if they feel you have a decent chance of winning, offering what they figure the case is worth or whatever it will cost them to defend the case.

[variablebinary]

Subject AT&T to a litigation bomb.

Death by a thousand cuts might even worse than a flat out class action.

This whole throttling affair is shady because people are getting slapped after very low usage of a gig or two.

It's clear the whole point is to get into a battle of attrition where customers will be forced to embrace tiered usage to get stable, usable speed.

In all my time of sucking down 4G data with Sprint, I never once got throttled.

[EliteABombAZ]

I just came to say that it is called an iPhone not Iphone.