TO SUPPORT A MEANINGFUL, LONG TERM SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF THE UNREGULATED HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY.  TO ENCOURAGE  STRICT REGULATION AND STANDARDS ON THE LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL LEVELS.  TO PROMOTE AND SUPPORT CONSUMER PROTECTION AND THE PASSAGE OF THE HOME LEMON LAW THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
Join Our Email List Register Your Builder Complaint Contact Us
Home

COMING SOON!
Press Releases


HUD's Broken System


Archives
 
Binding
Arbitration

Tort
Reform?

Home
Lemon Law

Toxic Mold

Builder
Licensing

Home
Warranties

Editorials

Homeowner
Websites

Construction
Defects

Special
Reports

Donations

Our
Sponsors

Search!

About Us

Links

For New Homebuyers:
New Home Buyers Guide
Protect Your Investment!
Featured Homebuilders:
  
 

CONTINUED

10/06/2003 AT&T's appeal on bill disputes axed
 
Supreme Court says the telephone titan must comply with Calif. law on consumer agreements.
October 6, 2003: 12:12 PM EDT
 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - California consumers can sue telephone carrier AT&T Corp. to resolve billing disputes instead of having it decided by an arbitrator, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to hear the company's appeal.

The justices declined to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that found AT&T's customer service agreements violated California consumer laws by requiring customers to resolve billing or contract disputes through arbitration, rather than before a jury.

At issue was whether AT&T's customer service agreements were covered under federal law or California consumer protection laws.

The decision by a California-based appeals court conflicted with one by a U.S. appeals court in Chicago, which previously ruled that AT&T could require customers to settle disputes through private lawyers in arbitration.

"Review of the ... decision and the resolution of the conflicts that it creates thus has profound importance for the entire long-distance industry and for the federal laws that govern it," AT&T (T: down $0.09 to $20.15, Research, Estimates) said in its appeal to the high court.

When the Federal Communications Commission ended a requirement that long-distance rates and terms of service be set according to certain tariffs, it required companies to enter contracts with their customers.

To comply with that July 31, 2001, requirement, AT&T included consumer services agreements in its bills and other mailings that spelled out various legal remedy provisions.

In addition to the binding arbitration requirement, the customer service agreements also limited the types of damages available in California courts and imposed a confidentiality rule preventing customers from publicly discussing current or completed arbitration cases.

A federal judge and the appeals court agreed that although federal laws cover the rates, terms and conditions of long-distance service, issues of "contract formation and breach" are governed by state law. As a result, California consumer protection laws would cover AT&T customers in that state.  

 
 
 

back


Last Updated 10/10/2003
Disclaimer
The information on this site and all parts of the Homeowners For Better Building site is for information purposes only. By accessing this site you agree to immediately contact Janet Ahmad to report any incorrect data or misrepresentations of facts. Links to other sites are for information purposes only and should not be considered endorsement of the site.

Site Meter