Humberto Saabedra is the Editor-in-Chief of and an occasional columnist for He can also be found musing on things at @AnimeNewsdotbiz

6 responses to “Supreme Court Sides With AT&T on Arbitration Clauses”

  1. F1


  2. JJ

    My goodness, att is the most anti consumer company around. Now they are making it so that if they treat you wrong you have to defend yourself on your own. unbelievable.

  3. JailBird

    Seriously though, this is probably the correct decision. A customer signs a contract that states that they agree to arbitration. If they don’t like it, then they shouldn’t sign the contract. Nobody is forcing you to sign it. There’s always prepaid or other companies.

  4. F1

    “There’s always prepaid or other companies”

    I invite you to take look at the history of AT&T and Tele-com in the U.S. circa 1960’s

    The US Supreme Court has in fact in most recent decision rendering times, taken steps in creating “a Super Psudo-Citizen”, giving it rights, equal if not more powerful than that of any individual citizen.

    Whether it is regarding influencing the election process and policies via lobbying agents and funding, or providing it with unique powers of enforcement, such as in the above “arbitration clauses’.

    I believe, that since the judicial branch, the highest court in the United States, i.e.
    “the Supreme Court”, is the facto, ” the ultimate arbiter”, it has excercised it’s bias and confused it’s function with that which was to take place with AT&T and others.

    Arbitration, in such cases can & will not be anymore “fair & balanced”, than “David & Goliath” were in their battles.

    AT&T is an entitity which arguably has the sole function of creating maximum profit for it’s shareholders, as such it is obligated to protect it’s assets, hence it has an experienced legal team in place, prepared for potentialy most legal battles, while the typical consumer has a limited choice if any options, to begin with.

    Say all entities in AT&T’s industry adopt the same policy, what would be the consumer’s choice at that point?
    Not to utilize any services in that industry?

    Furthemore, the tool of “Class Action “,
    is meant to act as a powerful deterrent of gross abuse, however minute in appearance and on the surface, quantified in large numbers of violations, it can & will become a monstrous source of income and by default social influence, if left unchecked, by “making it go away” silently, with the least, if any repercussion, it clearly sends the wrong message to other potential violators.

    By eliminating, this tool & forcing acceptance of arbitration, the Supreme Court has over reacted to the problem of “frivolous Class Action lawsuits taxing up the over burdend judicial system”,
    in effect,
    it has provided the “Super Psudo-Citizen”, with another “Cart Blanche” tool, with no meaningful recourse in place, it probably goes a long way in explaining the 5-4 vote in this cases rendering.

    Thank You

  5. F1
  6. F1

    More evidence of the U.S. Supreme Court’s continued crusade, in support of the above sited theory, of
    “The Anti Consumers, Pro Corp. Bias”

    Leaving a link, has been the described as “the cause” of post eliminations by Phonenews, hence my following submission, of the article in it’s entirety.

    Thank You

    Consumers beware : Incomplete generic-drug warnings OK

    Saturday , June 25 , 2011 03 : 05 AM BY LAUREN HEPLER THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

    Edit by Please link to articles and not copy them. It’s plagiarism to copy an entire article and can hurt in search engine rankings.