Cingular cell phone service - Re: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Cingular's Attempt to Force Class Action Lawsuits into Arbitration

Author

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Cingular's Attempt to Force Class Action Lawsuits into Arbitration

dr.news

2006-06-06, 11:48 pm

I don't know about good news for anybody; but it would appear to support
that the carriers do not want you to consider anything but arbitration. On
the other hand, while you get much more leverage with a class action suit:
you will get a $1.00; while the attorneys will get the other $99. dr
--
dr.news //stores.ebay.com/better-price-wireless (not better than you
deserve, just more than you're used to) //free.better-price.biz (for new
lines of wireless service; all carriers; the phones are almost always a
better-price)

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4484b285$0$9699
3$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Good news for Cingular customers, see
> "http://www.cellular-news.com/story/17675.php".

RobR

2006-06-07, 2:48 am

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:44860d5f$0$9699
3$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> dr.news wrote:
>
> Actually it's usually more like 65%/35% with the 35% going to the attorneys. Of course without a class action lawsuit you will
> generally get nothing.

that may very well be, but once you divide up the 65% among the people
involved in the suit, each person usually gets a coupon or a couple dollars
while the law firms 35% is hundreds of thousands if not millions.

William Ahern

2006-06-09, 2:48 am

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:48:33 +0000, RobR wrote:

>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:44860d5f$0$9699
3$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> that may very well be, but once you divide up the 65% among the people
> involved in the suit, each person usually gets a coupon or a couple
> dollars while the law firms 35% is hundreds of thousands if not millions.

That's not true. The real value derived by the consumer from class
actions is cessation of being screwed. At least, until somebody else in
the company gets another bright idea.

Without class actions many of these scams and borderline fraud will simply
go without retribution. The DoJ and SEC don't have the resources, and
while a class action might cost a company millions, an individual suit
might hardly net enough compensation for someone's court costs.

And while each person might only lose a few bucks when these companies
play tricks, broadly speaking these practices suck millions
and billions of dollars out of the economy, hindering its efficiency and
the well being of the nation. Free markets rely on transparency and the
ability of consumers to make as informed economic decisions as possible.

That said, I heard recently that some Nevada surgeons pay upwards of
$500,000/year in insurance!

RobR

2006-06-09, 5:48 pm

"William Ahern" < william@25thandCleme
nt.com> wrote in message news:pan.2006.06.09.04.27.43. 67187@25thandClement
.com...
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:48:33 +0000, RobR wrote:
>
>
> That's not true. The real value derived by the consumer from class
> actions is cessation of being screwed. At least, until somebody else in
> the company gets another bright idea.
>
> Without class actions many of these scams and borderline fraud will simply
> go without retribution. The DoJ and SEC don't have the resources, and
> while a class action might cost a company millions, an individual suit
> might hardly net enough compensation for someone's court costs.
>
> And while each person might only lose a few bucks when these companies
> play tricks, broadly speaking these practices suck millions
> and billions of dollars out of the economy, hindering its efficiency and
> the well being of the nation. Free markets rely on transparency and the
> ability of consumers to make as informed economic decisions as possible.
>
> That said, I heard recently that some Nevada surgeons pay upwards of
> $500,000/year in insurance!
>
>

The day after I posted this, I received in the mail the resolution of the
Time Warner/AOL class action suit. I get to know that there will be better
management oversight and the attornies that filed suit get almost $10million.

RobR

2006-06-09, 5:48 pm

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message news:44895e82$0$9692
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> William Ahern wrote:
>
>
> In the case of Verizon, and the Bluetooth on the V710 class action, the result is that now Verizon explicitly states on their
> website that Bluetooth functionality is limited to less that what the handset is actually capable of. While most people would have
> preferred that they stop decontenting the handsets, I guess that was too much to hope for.

So basically the people that bought the crippled phones are SOL, their
attorneys made millions and now Verizon has to post a disclaimer. Nice
solution.

Thomas T. Veldhouse

2006-06-09, 5:48 pm

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> RobR wrote:
>
>
> No, the settlement was that the people that bought the crippled phones
> could return the phones and all accessories for a full refund, and
> terminate their contract without a cancellation penalty. Or they could
> take a $25 payment. Or they could exchange the V710 for a different phone.
>
> Without the class action lawsuit, the V710 owners would have got
> nothing. I don't know what you expect that the owners should have
> gotten. Of course the relatively few lawyers are going to make a lot
> more money, per person, than the tens of thousands of members of the
> class. Without that incentive, they would not take class action cases,
> and companies such as Verizon would be able to get away with this sort
> of deception in the future.
>

Class action lawsuite often amount to tens of millions for a legal team and
$10 for individuals. I would prefer to give up $10 then I would to enrich
these snakes (they aren't all snakes, but most are ambulence chasing .... and
the cost of defending against that crap goes into the price of our service).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1

John Navas

2006-06-13, 2:48 am

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:14:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 4489c883$0$96958$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
[color=darkred]

They deserved nothing. It was a bogus cause of action.
[color=darkred]
>The price for service is set by what the market will bear, it has very
>little to do with the price of providing the actual service.

Economists disagree with you. Price for service approaches marginal
cost in a competitive market.

>If the V710 lawsuit hadn't been filed, Verizon would still be out there
>selling Bluetooth capable handsets, without disclosing that they had
>taken out some of Bluetooth capability that the manufacturer of the
>handsets had designed in.

There was no disclosure issue.

>In that sense, the benefits to the consumer
>goes well beyond the settlement to the original purchasers (and getting
>out of a contract without a termination fee, plus a refund for the
>handset and accessories, is worth a lot more than $10).

There was no benefit to the consumer, who will undoubtedly wind up
paying more for service as a result.

>It's very popular to bash these class-action lawyers, and lawyers in
>general, but it's usually done out of ignorance, or because the
>individual has succumbed to the corporate attempts to paint these
>lawyers all as snakes.

It's actually based on research, which shows that class actions in
general tend to be more of a drag than a benefit.

>Look at how many people still don't understand
>the facts behind the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. ...

True, but that was an unusual case.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>

LinkBot