SCOTUS: Binding Arbitration is Binding.

[fskimospy]

I haven't read the case (and don't intend to), but am wondering if this the problem many here claim could Congress fix it with legislation. (This doesn't strike me as a Constitutional issue, neccesarily)

What do you think?

Fern

Yes, Congress could fix it with legislation. In fact they were talking about it during the last Congress but it was derailed for whatever reason. The new consumer financial protection agency has powers to regulate it though I think.

 

[Lemon law]

There may be two such ways to stop this type of consumer abuse.

When we finally get of even one of the so called gang of four in terms Thomas, Scalia, Alito , and Roberts, SCOTUS itself may reverse many of its stinking 5-4 rulings such as the thread title turd.

We the people through the US congress may outlaw many of the arbitration language in contracts regarding large organizations. Or reform the current rigged arbitration process to force fairness.

 

[Atreus21]

The problem with controversial SC decisions is that I rarely have the patience to read them, or the necessary intellect to properly comprehend them.

 

[Patranus]

The problem with controversial SC decisions is that I rarely have the patience to read them, or the necessary intellect to properly comprehend them.

How is this in any way "controversial"?

Voluntarily entering into a contract and having the terms of the contract enforced is no somehow considered "controversial"?

Laughable.

 

[werepossum]

No Class Action Suits are a blow to consumer rights?

Fook. Class action suits are BS, just a way for lawyers to scam the heck out of people/companies. In every one I've ever seen the consumers get something like a coupon for their next purchase from the company and lawyers get $millions. Utter BS, IMO.

Otherwise, I don't really know what effect this ruling may have, or if I support it or oppose it.

Fern

This is indeed the problem with class action lawsuits, which by and large enrich lawyers, so I support the decision. However - as you say, this needs to be addressed with legislation allowing the state or the federal government to go to bat for the consumer similar to class-action lawsuits, in cases where real problems exist. This may exist now and merely be swamped by the much more profitable (to lawyers anyway) class action suit, I don't know. But I can certainly see the potential for abuse, so if it's not there it should be added.

 

[fskimospy]

How is this in any way "controversial"?

Voluntarily entering into a contract and having the terms of the contract enforced is no somehow considered "controversial"?

Laughable.

You realize that there are tons of terms in contracts that you sign all the time that are not legally enforceable, right?

It's quite common for terms of a contract not to be enforced for various reasons. The only thing laughable here is that you didn't appear to know that. (we'll add that to the list)

 

[hal2kilo]

You realize that there are tons of terms in contracts that you sign all the time that are not legally enforceable, right?

It's quite common for terms of a contract not to be enforced for various reasons. The only thing laughable here is that you didn't appear to know that. (we'll add that to the list)

Better use the single sheet toilet paper so it will all fit.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm no expert on the law, but it seems clear the supreme court merely ruled if it was in a contract it had to be upheld. States are free to demand that companies like AT&T not have such things in their contracts. If so then the real problem is that the laws will vary from state to state and from administration to administration. Scalia is merely forcing the states to take the letter of law more seriously and do a better job.

In other words, he is continuing the republican tradition of forcing more responsibility on the states, while expanding the powers of the federal government. The result will be an even greater division between the rich and the poor states and more radical swings in policies and exploitation. Definitely a win for big business who are masters of adapting to local conditions and, when it benefits them, changing those conditions. However, it will come back to haunt them eventually as the American public demands more uniformity in business practices.

 

[jonks]

This is indeed the problem with class action lawsuits, which by and large enrich lawyers, so I support the decision. However - as you say, this needs to be addressed with legislation allowing the state or the federal government to go to bat for the consumer similar to class-action lawsuits, in cases where real problems exist. This may exist now and merely be swamped by the much more profitable (to lawyers anyway) class action suit, I don't know. But I can certainly see the potential for abuse, so if it's not there it should be added.

We've seen what corporations do in a society where they CAN be held accountable in a class action suit. How do you think they'll behave when no such monetary pain looms as a threat? You would have the gov't prosecute cases of product liability? On whose dime? That shit lasts years and the only way it makes any fiscal sense is because the lawyers risk tens of millions in the pursuit of compensation. Now, nobody is claiming they do it out of the goodness of their heart, but it's sure as shit is necessary. The gov't doesn't have enough lawyers to handle current SEC violations, there's no way they'd be able to handle all the shit corporations do. They'd have to grow a new dept or something, and we all know how much govt growth is loved by the right.

As a side note, I'd like to see a camera crew follow a conservative midwestern family through a "speedy and efficient" arbitration proceeding against a corporation they contract with. When they get fucked I guarantee they'd blame the libruls and lawyers who set such a system up and not their rep who voted against protecting their rights.

 

[werepossum]

I've been involved in perhaps six class action lawsuits, including two with Verizon, none of which I signed up for. Every one was something of which I was unaware and really had no complaints. Every one ended in me either being mailed a coupon, or being sent instructions on how to obtain my coupon, none of which I used, all of which were for inconsequential amounts.

I agree with wuliheron, if it's in the contract it needs to be followed. If there is a real grievance, take it up with the government. If the contract should not have binding arbitration or should have limits on binding arbitration, write that into law.

 

[cubby1223]

The right to take dispute to court, instead you go to an arbitrator.

The details of course vary from contract to contract, but in many of the cases the site of arbitration is selected at the company's convenience (ie: doesn't even have to be in the state you live in, could be across the country), there are no rules of discovery so it's extremely difficult for the consumer to gather evidence, you have no recourse from an adverse judgment, etc. I mean there's a reason why results from binding arbitration favor corporations far more often than actual litigation.

Then fucking argue that the rules of arbitration need to be fixed.

Instead of making the argument that two people who agree to use arbitration, should be allowed to not use arbitration if one disagrees after the fact.


The article says the case in hand is that someone decided to sue AT&T over sales tax and that AT&T was committing fraud.

It's like all those ads on TV - "get a second set FREE, just pay shipping and handling". If some moron doesn't have the sense to ask how much shipping and handling is, he doesn't get to take the corporation to court. That is, if I were King.

It's like, why do toilet brushes come with a warning against using them for personal hygiene? Because some consumer and some lawyer took them to court! Fuck that!

The world ain't perfect, and never will be. And it's damn tough as it is to run a business. And for so long as someone like yourself feels all businesses purpose is to screw consumers, or something along those lines, I mean if that is your attitude, government is not going to protect you. Have a little faith in the human race.

And people who don't read fine print that says sales tax will be charged, do not get to sue in court.

 

[theeedude]

Was there any doubt that this Supreme Court would rule any other way?
Only way to restore consumer rights is to keep electing Democrat presidents until there is a vacancy on the bench on one of the 5 corporatist occupied seats.

 

[fskimospy]

Then fucking argue that the rules of arbitration need to be fixed.

Instead of making the argument that two people who agree to use arbitration, should be allowed to not use arbitration if one disagrees after the fact.


The article says the case in hand is that someone decided to sue AT&T over sales tax and that AT&T was committing fraud.

It's like all those ads on TV - "get a second set FREE, just pay shipping and handling". If some moron doesn't have the sense to ask how much shipping and handling is, he doesn't get to take the corporation to court. That is, if I were King.

It's like, why do toilet brushes come with a warning against using them for personal hygiene? Because some consumer and some lawyer took them to court! Fuck that!

The world ain't perfect, and never will be. And it's damn tough as it is to run a business. And for so long as someone like yourself feels all businesses purpose is to screw consumers, or something along those lines, I mean if that is your attitude, government is not going to protect you. Have a little faith in the human race.

And people who don't read fine print that says sales tax will be charged, do not get to sue in court.

I have no idea what you're babbling about. Seems like some bizarre stream of consciousness insane projection. I don't hold almost any of the views you ascribed to me in your long, incoherent post.

Somebody's mad at the legal system though, hahaha.

 

[Patranus]

Was there any doubt that this Supreme Court would rule any other way?
Only way to restore consumer rights is to keep electing Democrat presidents until there is a vacancy on the bench on one of the 5 corporatist occupied seats.

Typical liberal using liberal buzzwords like "consumer" or "workers" rights.

The federal government should be a neutral party.

You enter into a contract, you are bound by its terms.

You have the "right" as a consumer not to enter into that contract.

 

[fskimospy]

Typical liberal using liberal buzzwords like "consumer" or "workers" rights.

The federal government should be a neutral party.

You enter into a contract, you are bound by its terms.

You have the "right" as a consumer not to enter into that contract.

You are not bound by all the terms of a contract, depending on how those terms were arrived at. Contracts and provisions of them are voided all the time.

I'm not sure how you don't understand this.

 

[waggy]

my big issue with this is you have no choice (in some areas) on electricity, heating, water, phone service. With monopoly's they shouldn't have the right to force arbitration.

 

[OutHouse]

It isn't about cost. Think about this quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/28bizcourt.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

I
The hospital my son was born in sicc'ed a collections company after me for 5 fricken dollars. The hospital sent me a bill for the 5 bucks but would not tell me what it was for so I refused to pay it. So a few months go by and a collector calls me at work demanding I pay it. Lol lol lol.

He had all kinds of threats, called me all sorts of names... When he was done I asked him how much was he going to get out of the 5 bucks??? So more threats of credit reporting . I told him to fuck off and report it I dont give a shit. a 5 dollar hit is not going to hurt me.

 

[wuliheron]

I agree with wuliheron, if it's in the contract it needs to be followed. If there is a real grievance, take it up with the government. If the contract should not have binding arbitration or should have limits on binding arbitration, write that into law.

That's not exactly what I said.

This ruling means that either states spend more money on updating the letter of their laws or they allow businesses to walk all over them at every opportunity. Precedents are no longer enough, and it must all be written down in triplicate and ratified by the legislators who will then spend more time fighting over such issues. If you like big government, this is definitely the way to go. If you like the federal government having more power over how the states run their business, this is the way to go. If you like poor states getting trampled by big business, this is the way to go.

If you prefer people to use common sense and spend as little time as possible splitting legal hairs, this is not the way to go. The real question as far as I am concerned is do we really need to be this explicit and is this really to our overall advantage? At this point I'd have to guess no, it isn't to our advantage. In the long run it might be advantageous, but in the short run it just puts a further burden on the states in a time of economic crisis when flexibility is important.

 

[theeedude]

Typical liberal using liberal buzzwords like "consumer" or "workers" rights.

The federal government should be a neutral party.

You enter into a contract, you are bound by its terms.

You have the "right" as a consumer not to enter into that contract.

Yes, it's a typically liberal assumption that anyone other than corporations has rights. Or that people have a right to their day in court should there be a disagreement on contract terms.

 

[werepossum]

That's not exactly what I said.

This ruling means that either states spend more money on updating the letter of their laws or they allow businesses to walk all over them at every opportunity. Precedents are no longer enough, and it must all be written down in triplicate and ratified by the legislators who will then spend more time fighting over such issues. If you like big government, this is definitely the way to go. If you like the federal government having more power over how the states run their business, this is the way to go. If you like poor states getting trampled by big business, this is the way to go.

If you prefer people to use common sense and spend as little time as possible splitting legal hairs, this is not the way to go. The real question as far as I am concerned is do we really need to be this explicit and is this really to our overall advantage? At this point I'd have to guess no, it isn't to our advantage. In the long run it might be advantageous, but in the short run it just puts a further burden on the states in a time of economic crisis when flexibility is important.

Seems to me that this actually gives states more power over their own business climate, although granted they may have to make alterations in state law.

 

[Wreckem]

How is this in any way "controversial"?

Voluntarily entering into a contract and having the terms of the contract enforced is no somehow considered "controversial"?

Laughable.

The true legislative intent behind the Federal Arbitration Act is not in line with what is currently happening. Arbitration is being abused and Congress will eventually get around to fixing it.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'd like to see the law changed to require that all arbitration agreements be part of separate contracts that need to be signed in person by principals from both parties and notarized and that arbitration agreements be forbidden in cases of employment.

This would end most of the problem. So, when you go to purchase your cruise ticket, in order for you to end up with an arbitration agreement a cruise ship vice president would need to come sign the agreement in person (not gonna happen). In cases of employment the arbitration agreements were never really voluntary anyway since people have to work.

 

[wuliheron]

Seems to me that this actually gives states more power over their own business climate, although granted they may have to make alterations in state law.

Annnnkkkk. Sorry, wrong answer. States can write their own laws anytime they want. More federal laws restricting what the states can do only forces the states to comply by federal laws. Got it? Fewer federal laws mean states are free to do as they please. More federal laws, means states have no choice.

I know, its all so complicated and hard to follow. This person tells that person what they can and can't do. Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it.

 

[wuliheron]

I'd like to see the law changed to require that all arbitration agreements be part of separate contracts that need to be signed in person by principals from both parties and notarized and that arbitration agreements be forbidden in cases of employment.

This would end most of the problem. So, when you go to purchase your cruise ticket, in order for you to end up with an arbitration agreement a cruise ship vice president would need to come sign the agreement in person (not gonna happen). In cases of employment the arbitration agreements were never really voluntary anyway since people have to work.

Screw that. I'd like to see the supreme court apply some real muscle directly to corporations. I'd like to see board members held accountable for fraud among other things. All the rest of this shit is just so much haggling over wages while they bend you over and grease your ass.

 

[Imp]

Ummm... some of you missed the major point here: a consumer and a corporation do not have equal bargaining power.

A corporation has a pool of millions of dollars to create contracts and go to court over anything. Not that many consumers do considering a week in court may take a full year's salary.