The National Consumer Law Center (“NCLC”) filed an amicus brief in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.  As mentioned earlier in this blog, the Concepcion case involves the issue of whether states retain authority to apply general principles of contract interpretation to class action waivers found in arbitration agreements. Continue reading “NCLC files amicus brief in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion”

As mentioned in an earlier post on this blog, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon consider whether companies can ban class action lawsuits in the fine print of their contracts with consumers when it hears argument in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.  In its briefs, AT&T Mobility (“AT&T”) asks the Supreme Court to, in effect, create a federal law to gut state consumer protection laws.

AT&T knows that there have been many times over the years where it, and other cell phone and long distance phone companies, have been caught overcharging or otherwise cheating large numbers of consumers in ways that only involve a small amount of money for the individual consumer but which add up to many millions of dollars for the consumers combined.  In lots of cases in the past, consumers have filed class actions against AT&T and other phone companies under state consumer protection acts that stopped the illegal behavior for all of the customers, and won refunds for all of the customers. Continue reading “Will the Supreme Court invent a federal law to gut state consumer protection laws?”

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in November in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.  The court will consider the extent to which companies can ban class-action lawsuits in the fine print of their contracts with consumers and employees.  AT&T Mobility’s Wireless Service Agreement includes an arbitration clause, which requires any disputes to be submitted to arbitration, and a class action waiver clause, which requires any dispute to be brought in an individual capacity.  The district court and the Ninth Circuit, following a long line of precedent, held that a class action waiver was unconscionable under California law, and, thus, unenforceable.  The Ninth Circuit opinion is found at 584 F.3d 849.  Class action waivers are also unenforceable under Oregon law. Continue reading “Pro-Corporate Interest U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Class Action Waivers”

US District Court Judge James Ware sitting in the Northern District of California (San Jose Division) certified a class action asserting monopolization in violation of the Sherman Act against Apple and AT&T.  The plaintiffs allege that although they were required to purchase a two-year service agreement with AT&T Mobility when they purchased their iPhones, Apple and AT&T Mobility had secretly agreed to technologically restrict voice and data service in the aftermarket for continued voice and data services for five years. Continue reading “Antitrust class action against Apple and AT&T certified”

A class action lawsuit complaint was filed against Apple, Inc., AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility, LLC (collectively “Defendants”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (captioned Adam Weisblatt v. Apple, Inc., AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility, LLC, Case No. 5:10-cv-02553-PVT) alleging that Apple and AT&T sold the 3G-enabled iPads with promises that “unlimited data” service plans would always be available at the customers’ option, but that as of June 7, 2010, Apple and AT&T discontinued providing the “unlimited data” plan, according to class action lawsuit news reports. Continue reading “iPad Users file class action lawsuit over alleged discontinuance of AT&T’s unlimited data plan”