4 ms·

I'm not going to go to small claims court over this or anything Are you surprised that AT&T thinks they can treat their customers like this when almost none of

by bgentry 15y ago

I'm not going to go to small claims court over this or anything Are you surprised that AT&T thinks they can treat their customers like this when almost none of them will do anything about it?

karamazov 15y ago
I think switching providers counts as doing something.
JumpCrisscross 15y ago
In all fairness even the guy who did something got $850 for his months of work. Not exactly bloodying up anyone's nose with that kind of a settlement.
- Aloisius 15y ago
  I'm not sure about that. If AT&T sends a lawyer to every one of these things, it will quickly become very expensive. If they don't, they risk it becoming very easy to get awarded this money. Plus with precedent set, it will be considerably easier for someone else to do this. If the settlement dollar values hold up and this becomes easy enough, it could become far more costly to AT&T than any class action suit would have been.
  - Karunamon 15y ago
    >If AT&T sends a lawyer to every one of these things Large companies have lawyers on permanent retainer - they're getting paid regardless if they're at a case or not.
    - tomflack 15y ago
      They don't have so many lawyers on payroll they can respond to a large increase in small claims court appearances though. They'll have to hire more, or send someone less qualified, or send nobody - all cases in which the consumer has "won". The opportunity cost of spending the lawyer's time on small claims vs something else is not to be underestimated.
    - jules 15y ago
      This is the same fallacy that some people use about planes: "Traveling by plane doesn't result in more fossil fuels burnt because the plane would have flown anyway". The way these things work is that every once in a while companies evaluate whether there were enough lawyers, and based on this they hire or lay off lawyers.
  - Avenger42 15y ago
    It was small claims court, AT&T can't actually send a lawyer there. A lawyer could potentially do all the prep work (and bill for it) but they can't argue in front of the judge.
    - marshray 15y ago
      So who represents AT&T at the hearing? Anyone the company designates as long as they're not a lawyer? I think AT&T should be able to send a lawyer in such a case as long as he is wearing a clown suit including the red rubber nose.
    - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
      > A lawyer ... can't argue in front of the judge. AT&T could simply make the lawyer a corporate officer with just enough authority to handle small-claims court.
    - endianswap 15y ago
      It is my understanding that this is only true in certain states; that in some states corporate lawyers can absolutely argue the proceedings.
  - JumpCrisscross 15y ago
    Perhaps, but if one includes the risk of the lawsuit failing combined with the time to assemble the case, it's a loss for a lot of people. Since you're selecting out people based on income or how much they value their time, you're also selecting out most of the people who would go through with this in the first place. I'm asserting that there won't be that many people willing and able to bring these cases to AT&T, particularly when the payout is so low, and that, in the end, makes the whole deal peanuts for AT&T.

by bgentry 15y ago

I'm not going to go to small claims court over this or anything Are you surprised that AT&T thinks they can treat their customers like this when almost none of them will do anything about it?

karamazov 15y ago

I think switching providers counts as doing something.

JumpCrisscross 15y ago

In all fairness even the guy who did something got $850 for his months of work. Not exactly bloodying up anyone's nose with that kind of a settlement.

Aloisius 15y ago
I'm not sure about that. If AT&T sends a lawyer to every one of these things, it will quickly become very expensive. If they don't, they risk it becoming very easy to get awarded this money. Plus with precedent set, it will be considerably easier for someone else to do this. If the settlement dollar values hold up and this becomes easy enough, it could become far more costly to AT&T than any class action suit would have been.
- Karunamon 15y ago
  >If AT&T sends a lawyer to every one of these things Large companies have lawyers on permanent retainer - they're getting paid regardless if they're at a case or not.
  - tomflack 15y ago
    They don't have so many lawyers on payroll they can respond to a large increase in small claims court appearances though. They'll have to hire more, or send someone less qualified, or send nobody - all cases in which the consumer has "won". The opportunity cost of spending the lawyer's time on small claims vs something else is not to be underestimated.
  - jules 15y ago
    This is the same fallacy that some people use about planes: "Traveling by plane doesn't result in more fossil fuels burnt because the plane would have flown anyway". The way these things work is that every once in a while companies evaluate whether there were enough lawyers, and based on this they hire or lay off lawyers.
- Avenger42 15y ago
  It was small claims court, AT&T can't actually send a lawyer there. A lawyer could potentially do all the prep work (and bill for it) but they can't argue in front of the judge.
  - marshray 15y ago
    So who represents AT&T at the hearing? Anyone the company designates as long as they're not a lawyer? I think AT&T should be able to send a lawyer in such a case as long as he is wearing a clown suit including the red rubber nose.
  - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
    > A lawyer ... can't argue in front of the judge. AT&T could simply make the lawyer a corporate officer with just enough authority to handle small-claims court.
  - endianswap 15y ago
    It is my understanding that this is only true in certain states; that in some states corporate lawyers can absolutely argue the proceedings.
- JumpCrisscross 15y ago
  Perhaps, but if one includes the risk of the lawsuit failing combined with the time to assemble the case, it's a loss for a lot of people. Since you're selecting out people based on income or how much they value their time, you're also selecting out most of the people who would go through with this in the first place. I'm asserting that there won't be that many people willing and able to bring these cases to AT&T, particularly when the payout is so low, and that, in the end, makes the whole deal peanuts for AT&T.