Does Supreme Court ruling let you break your iPhone contract without penalty?

[chriskzoo]

Here is the case:

http://www.latimes.com/business/sc-dc-0428-court-class-action-web-20110427,0,1239412.story

Essentially what it says is that companies can put into contracts that all disputes must be settled through binding arbitration and not a class action suit.

This language now appears in the AT&T Customer Agreement (search for "dispute resolution" or "arbitration"):

http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph...msName=Wireless+Customer+Agreement&print=true

I know from the past that "material changes" to the Customer Agreement allow you to get out without paying the termination fee and I would certainly classify this as "matieral."

Can anyone offer any further insight?

 

[maclaptop]

It's still a contract that you signed. It's binding, if you want out early, just pay the ETF which begins at $350. The details are all there for you to read. Any other advice is bogus.

 

[eawmp1]

I know from the past that "material changes" to the Customer Agreement allow you to get out without paying the termination fee and I would certainly classify this as "matieral."

While it is a change, it does not materially affect your service (not a change in minutes, rates, accesibility, etc.). You are still bound by the ETF.

Nice try, buddy, but no cigar.

 

[DeaconGraves]

No. That language was already in the contract you signed. All the Supreme Court did was say that such language was enforceable.

So there hasn't been a material change.