AT&T seeks to settle quietly with iPhone user

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by MTShipp, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. MTShipp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Location:
    Raleigh, North Carolina
  2. outphase macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Location:
    Parts Unknown
    #2
    It's cheaper and easier to settle quietly. The plaintiff is trying to take this as far as he can even though he's in a losing battle (for himself, not generally). By admitting to tethering, he's setting himself up for failure on appeal and remand.
     
  3. unlimitedx macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #3
    i
     
  4. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #4
    There is no breach of contract on AT&T's part.
    He admitted to tethering on a plan that didn't allow it. Which means he violated the terms of the contract.
    AT&T has every legal right to cancel his contract.

    And yes, he HAS to to talk to AT&T at some level. He agreed to it in the contract. All AT&T customers did when they signed the contract.
    It's under the arbitration clause for handling disputes.

    Do you guys even read your own contracts or just make **** up? :rolleyes:

    He can file a complaint with the FTC and the FCC, but he's still bound by the terms and conditions of the contract just as AT&T are.
     
  5. aristobrat macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    #5
    Cheaper than the $850 in damages that they were originally ordered to pay him? From the article in the OP, AT&T has retained a law firm to deal with his case. It seems to me they're going to spend way more on paying that law firm to deal with this case than just paying the guy his $850. :confused:

    Let us know when your court date is approaching.
     
  6. OceanView macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    #6
    Probably a good idea to get the info from his website now before it gets shut down.
    I think that's the main thing AT&T is trying to do.
    Would be too costly to defend all small claims court cases to come as a result of this.
     

Share This Page