Dauoa_Static t1_j8y56jg wrote
Man, only $74 for court costs. I think it probably cost a lot more to get there, but I do hope this creates precedent for ISP's.
turkeyburpin t1_j8yj6dg wrote
They'll run this all the way up to SCOTUS if they have to. There is no way any of these companies are going to allow a "contract" to be deemed unenforceable by a judge and not fight it tooth and nail.
zoobrix t1_j8zeofd wrote
A contract is not allowed to violate the law but companies have you sign illegal contracts all the time, they are counting on you not calling them on it.
If you read the article it just said the type of contract was a "clickwrap" and that the judge said it was "unenforceable" but it never says for what reason. I would wager the contract had an illegal clause in it and that's what the judge took issue with, not that it was a click to agree style contract in of itself. For instance if the contract essentially says we can charge you for a service we never provide that could violate consumer protection laws or just be considered outright fraud.
the_simurgh t1_j8zfxw2 wrote
technically the never never provided the internet so there was no contract
Dauoa_Static t1_j8ynt49 wrote
Well then either this will get overturned, or these contracts will need to be altered in the future, hopefully giving the ISP's more accountability for the quality of their services.
zoobrix t1_j8zdqf5 wrote
The $74 was probably the fee to file and in small claims court you don't need a lawyer and judges generally give you pretty wide latitude. Show up on time, be polite and bring your evidence and you're pretty much good to go and have a good shot of winning if someone ripped you off. So it could be that was all they were out for court costs.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments