from the pick-a-side-and-hold-your-nose dept
There are times when you hear of lawsuits and you really don't know who to favor. In the latest such case, the Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from T-Mobile on an appeals court decision that said that T-Mobile's contract terms requiring "binding arbitration" are unenforceable if those contracts also ban class action lawsuits against the company. This doesn't mean the Supreme Court totally agrees with it, but it didn't find it worth getting involved at this point (often the Supreme Court will wait for different circuits to disagree on a point of law before weighing in -- but in the meantime, it appears that the Supreme Court is not upset by the lower court ruling).
As you probably know, many of the contracts you sign these days require binding arbitration, rather than the ability to go to court over a dispute. Companies like to claim this is because binding arbitration is faster and simpler, but it's really because arbitrators (who are hired by the company) side with the company over 95% of the time. At the same time, the companies also try to block you from being a part of any class action lawsuit, and it's this combination that the court found problematic.
The real issue here is pretty straightforward: companies are trying to get you to give up most of your rights contractually -- but not through any sort of negotiation. They're basically trying to ram through agreements in the fine print that you'll never read that take away any sort of remedy you might have against the company in case the company does something wrong. While a fair contract is one thing, these contracts are not fair; they are not negotiable, and they're often not at all clear. It seems that companies are taking them too far, often depriving customers of perfectly reasonable rights -- so it seems like a good thing that the courts are pushing back a little.
6 Comments | Leave a Comment..
RSS
Twitter
