Kia Franklin

Cell Phone Co.s—Your Days of Shafting Customers are Numbered!

This summer has been good to cell phone customers wanting to take service providers to court over misleading ads, inappropriate fees, and other dubious devices that have duped consumers. Previously discussed on TortDeform were a California court’s decision that T-Mobile can’t prevent customers from filing class actions; a Washington court’s decision that neither can Cingular; and another California court decision that consumers can sue Cingular for misleading ads about a rebate.

Well, it seems that this trend continues. Along with increased public discussion about the numerous ways in which consumers are left out in the cold, and out of the courthouse, due to mandatory arbitration clauses, comes an increasing sensitivity to the legal implications of the common yet costly practice. As this article notes, on Friday the 9th Circuit told AT&T that its arbitration clause is unconscionable, or in other words, shocks the conscience in terms fo fairness to consumers. Here’s the opinion. This precedent could help to reshape the way companies design their consumer contracts. The decision recognizes the limited choice consumers have in picking a cell phone provider and sends the message to cell phone companies that they can no longer take advantage of that.

Posted at 1:28 PM, Aug 20, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)