# Class Action Against DirecTV for DVD Players Moves Forward



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

St. Clair County Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson gave preliminary approval to a national class action settlement against DirecTV on March 25.

According to the preliminary approval, all people in the United States who entered into a programming commitment with DirecTV who have not yet received a portable DVD player with a value of at least the advertised value are eligible to submit a claim.

http://www.stclairrecord.com/news/2...-gets-preliminary-approval-by-associate-judge


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

While it looks like this case may have some merit, I'm pretty sure there are more pressing matters for our legal system to tackle...


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Hey, this is pretty neat, I'm in this group.

Although I would never have sued and wouldn't have encouraged anyone else to sue, the Sunvale (or whatever) player I got is pretty crappy.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

PoitNarf said:


> While it looks like this case may have some merit, I'm pretty sure there are more pressing matters for our legal system to tackle...


Agreed PointNarf lets focus on things that are a little more important. People never cease to amaze me. :nono: :nono2: :nono:


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

The point is...if people were promised something and it was part of a contractual agreement and D* failed to deliver then, people have every right to litigate.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

PoitNarf said:


> While it looks like this case may have some merit, I'm pretty sure there are more pressing matters for our legal system to tackle...


So...who should decide what civil lawsuits are "important" enough for our court system? There is an easy way to avoid lawsuits like this...DirecTV could deliver what they promise to their customers.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> Hey, this is pretty neat, I'm in this group.
> 
> Although I would never have sued and wouldn't have encouraged anyone else to sue, the Sunvale (or whatever) player I got is pretty crappy.


How many people are in this class action suit? These DVD players could not cost Directv very much. Fighting this suit must be costing Directv millions of dollars. Just give all these people crappy DVD players and move on.


----------



## dms1 (Oct 26, 2007)

I was promised the portable DVD player which I never received. When I called to complain the CSR told me that I should never have been given that offer, even though it was a CSR that gave it to me, and he gave me a $10 a month credit for a year instead. I wonder if I will now get the DVD player too.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Just more proof that we live in a sue-happy country...

Thanks for wasting D*'s money and possibly effecting our rates in the future Christopher T. Kolker!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Just more proof that we live in a sue-happy country...
> 
> Thanks for wasting D*'s money and possibly effecting our rates in the future Christopher T. Kolker!


Seriously, if DirecTV promises something and doesn't deliver should people just forget about it? Do you do the same when you're defrauded?


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I did not consider myself "defrauded," mainly because the portable DVD player was not a factor in my deciding to go with DirecTV. Perhaps they did something more for those who complained, as dms1 posted. It was no big deal to me or to probably most of us who got the home DVD player, poor as it was.

I will be happy if I do get a portable player as the result of this, however.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Seriously, if DirecTV promises something and doesn't deliver should people just forget about it? Do you do the same when you're defrauded?


You are right.. give them credit or a dvd player...this is far more legit than our senators investigating steroids in baseball.... now thats a waste of money. By the way, people do sue to often, but not in this case...


----------



## venisenvy (Nov 1, 2007)

If Directv promises something and it fails to deliver then they have all the right in the world to sue. And that is exactly what our legal system is there for. It is fraud. I signed up with Directv and autopay and I havent gotten my giftcard that I was promised. I havent fought about it either but the thing is that people should not let Directv get away with it.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Ken S said:


> So...who should decide what civil lawsuits are "important" enough for our court system? There is an easy way to avoid lawsuits like this...DirecTV could deliver what they promise to their customers.


No Ken, Directv (and all corps) should be allowed to lie, cheat or committ fraud without fear of reprisal....as long as they do it to alot of people for a little money each.....

All the customers should just suck it up, and maybe send some $$$ to DTV and apologize on behalf of their "class".


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

jodyguercio said:


> Agreed PointNarf lets focus on things that are a little more important. People never cease to amaze me. :nono: :nono2: :nono:


I am sort of curious about this. Who are you or poitnarf to tell anyone what is important and what is not? And your "People never cease to amaze me" is hilarious...


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

In my opinion, this falls under the "panties in a bunch" classification. Nobody was harmed, and if someone made a service decision based solely on the possibility of receiving a free DVD player, well, they have bigger issues.

This is a trivial lawsuit, brought only so that lawyers can make money, I think it is totally ridiculous.


----------



## kevinbuckeye (Sep 9, 2007)

I am rarely for lawsuits, especially class action lawsuits which usually only make money for lawyers, but in this case I hope the people defrauded are sucessful.

I believe directv intentionally has these offers that they don't deliver on. I am still waiting on my $50 VISA card for signing up for auto bill pay. I have talked to retention and they say there is nothing they can do even though I was previously promised it from the CSR when I signed up.

If it wasnt for the 2 year committment and original lease fees I would have quit, but those two things make it very hard to do so. Once they have you they know they have you for at lease your committment.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Seriously, if DirecTV promises something and doesn't deliver should people just forget about it? Do you do the same when you're defrauded?


For something as insignificant as a $50 portable DVD player? Yes!

Seriously, this is so not worth suing over and only hurts the consumer in the end.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

kevinbuckeye said:


> I am rarely for lawsuits, especially class action lawsuits which usually only make money for lawyers, but in this case I hope the people defrauded are sucessful.
> 
> I believe directv intentionally has these offers that they don't deliver on. I am still waiting on my $50 VISA card for signing up for auto bill pay. I have talked to retention and they say there is nothing they can do even though I was previously promised it from the CSR when I signed up.
> 
> If it wasnt for the 2 year committment and original lease fees I would have quit, but those two things make it very hard to do so. Once they have you they know they have you for at lease your committment.


Class action suits are to stop businesses from wrong doing, not to fully compensate the plaintiffs. The reason the lawyers always seem to make the most money is because in such cases they do spend a great deal of time without pay, and risking not getting paid if the outcome is not in the plaintiffs' favor.

But to make light of this thing, let me suggest DirecTV call Toshiba, I am sure Toshiba will be more than happy to pay DirecTV a disposal fee to unload their HD-DVR players, to clear out room for their next generation SD-DVD players, and the claimants will be thrilled DirecTV offers them a DVD player of $499 value

It does everything an SD DVD player can do and more anyway, you just have to wait about one minute for it to load the disk, but that is not in violation of the DVD player descriptions by DirecTV, isn't it?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> In my opinion, this falls under the "panties in a bunch" classification. Nobody was harmed, and if someone made a service decision based solely on the possibility of receiving a free DVD player, well, they have bigger issues.
> 
> This is a trivial lawsuit, brought only so that lawyers can make money, I think it is totally ridiculous.


Well said, I agree completely.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

For the record, we did receive our free portable DVD player. Let me tell you, this thing is the biggest piece of crap ever. I wouldn't even give it as a gift to a friend it's that bad. With that said...

...Directv should be making good on their promises... period.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

kevinbuckeye said:


> I am rarely for lawsuits, especially class action lawsuits which usually only make money for lawyers, but in this case I hope the people defrauded are sucessful.


If you had any idea of the costs and risks a law firm assumes when they decide to take a class action suit, you would realize they are not some sort of get rich quick scheme for lawyers.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

braven said:


> ...Directv should be making good on their promises... period.


You're right, but when that promise is for a POS DVD Player and it's not received one should not sue over it. It only wastes money.

That's like suing Honeycombs when your little license plate isn't in the box.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> In my opinion, this falls under the "panties in a bunch" classification. Nobody was harmed, and if someone made a service decision based solely on the possibility of receiving a free DVD player, well, they have bigger issues.
> 
> This is a trivial lawsuit, brought only so that lawyers can make money, I think it is totally ridiculous.


Note to self: Don't do any sort of business dealing with JeffBowser.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Seriously, if DirecTV promises something and doesn't deliver should people just forget about it? Do you do the same when you're defrauded?





inkahauts said:


> You are right.. give them credit or a dvd player...this is far more legit than our senators investigating steroids in baseball.... now thats a waste of money. By the way, people do sue to often, but not in this case...


I agree - if businesses make promises to lure new customers and then don't deliver, the business benefits by breaking a commitment. After whatever period was promised for delivery, if the player was not delivered, DIRECTV should have given credits on the customers' accounts for the value of the player that wasn't delivered. It's simple - people put their faith in a company, and companies should be held responsible for failing to deliver as promised. This civil suit is one way, but DIRECTV could have avoided it. It's got their attention now.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

gcisko said:


> I am sort of curious about this. Who are you or poitnarf to tell anyone what is important and what is not? And your "People never cease to amaze me" is hilarious...


I'm not anyone important by any means. In my opinion, the court system has better things to do than to hear this case. The govt (both state and federal) has better things to do than hear this case. These are my opinions.

The quote is merely an opinion as well. Personally, if you can afford Directv then you should have no problem affording a $100 portable dvd player (I think that was the price). You would rather waste your time and money to try and get something worth $100 than just suck it up, learn from it and move on. Thats why people amaze me.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Seriously, if DirecTV promises something and doesn't deliver should people just forget about it? Do you do the same when you're defrauded?


It depends on what it is Ken. If its something that is going to harm me in some way if what is promised is not what is delivered, Im going to fight like heck to make it right. If its something like this, no big deal, I'll save some money and go buy one.


----------



## PAJeep (Mar 8, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> For something as insignificant as a $50 portable DVD player? Yes!
> 
> Seriously, this is so not worth suing over and only hurts the consumer in the end.


So its okay for someone to be cheated out of a $50 dvd player but if someone doesnt get their $50 credit its the end of the world (not saying you, but its posted on here all the time). Last time I checked $50 = $50 right?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I hear this all the time. As long as it is someone else that is harmed people will whine that it's a waste of time. As soon as something happens to them or their family they're whining and screaming about the horrid injustice that has been done.

Perhaps we should reserve the legal system just for lawsuits which DirecTV brings.


----------



## jefbal99 (Sep 7, 2007)

I submitted my form for a portable dvd player, got a regular dvd player shipped to me with a note that I was not eligible for a portable with my package, but here is this for sending in a form.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Perhaps we should reserve the legal system just for lawsuits which DirecTV brings.


My guess is that, if you substitute "Comcast" for "DirecTV" in the article and lawsuit - the opinions here would be quite different.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

I can't believe folks are knocking this suit. I don't think I've ever joined one of the class action law suits that have been mailed to me because of something I bought/did, but that's my choice, not the defendants. I usually haven't saved the receipts necessary, anyway.

If DIrecTV promised a portable DVD player and they failed to deliver one, even a POS one, then they were wrong and should be held accountable.

Again, I just can't get it through my brain why this should not be the case.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Perhaps we should reserve the legal system just for lawsuits which DirecTV brings.


Charlie over at Dish would like that, since they are always being sued for something. Lets see, the DNS debacle and the never ending Tivo lawsuit. I can see Charlie ignoring the 24 hour PPV restriction.

In the end I do not see anyone getting a DVD player. Some discounts maybe. After the lawyers get theirs, there is little left for any one else.

Any one know how many have signed on to this suit, or has it gotten that far yet. EDIT (Sorry, it has not gotten that far yet)


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

gcisko said:


> I am sort of curious about this. Who are you or poitnarf to tell anyone what is important and what is not?


You're right, I'm not in that position. That's why I didn't decide to become a lawyer or a judge.  :lol:


----------



## Squid7085 (Mar 26, 2008)

jacmyoung said:


> But to make light of this thing, let me suggest DirecTV call Toshiba, I am sure Toshiba will be more than happy to pay DirecTV a disposal fee to unload their HD-DVR players, to clear out room for their next generation SD-DVD players, and the claimants will be thrilled DirecTV offers them a DVD player of $499 value
> 
> It does everything an SD DVD player can do and more anyway, you just have to wait about one minute for it to load the disk, but that is not in violation of the DVD player descriptions by DirecTV, isn't it?


Thats the greatest idea I have heard all day! Maybe they could even offer a trade in fro people with HD-DVD players! :bang Yes, I am still bitter!


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

jodyguercio said:


> It depends on what it is Ken. If its something that is going to harm me in some way if what is promised is not what is delivered, Im going to fight like heck to make it right. If its something like this, no big deal, I'll save some money and go buy one.


SO if DTV intentionally overbilled everyone for $1/month..it would be no big deal right? i mean no body should sue over that little bit....but hey I am sure DTV could use an extra $180MM in revenue..

Since DTV monitors this, I hope they try it.....


----------



## shendley (Nov 28, 2005)

I think there may be a useful distinction to draw here. If directv failed to deliver on their promise to me and me alone to provide me with a free portable dvd player, I would consider it frivolous to sue them for it even if they never made good on their commitment. But if directv fails to deliver on their promise to an awful lot of people - and I presume that is the case here, otherwise we wouldn't be dealing with a class action suit - it's not frivolous at all. It's a lawsuit designed to discourage any further such practices which could, as others have noted, be plausibly construed as a deliberate attempt to lure new customers to directv with false promises. It's in the interests of everyone in this country, I believe, to try to discourage fraudulent business practices. As for a single POS dvd player, who cares. But this lawsuit isn't over a single POS dvd player, as far as I can see.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

There are still a large number of people for whom $50 is a lot of money. Please let us not dismiss their case as "trivial", "senseless", or "insignificant" simply to us because $50 is something we can part with on a whim.

The argument that "it only costs the customer in end" is a reverse consideration. Companies should honor their commitments. That is the best way to keep their costs down, happiness up, consumers costs contained.

This is not the customers' fault.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Carl Spock said:


> I can't believe folks are knocking this suit. I don't think I've ever joined one of the class action law suits that have been mailed to me because of something I bought/did, but that's my choice, not the defendants. I usually haven't saved the receipts necessary, anyway.
> 
> If DIrecTV promised a portable DVD player and they failed to deliver one, even a POS one, then they were wrong and should be held accountable.
> 
> Again, I just can't get it through my brain why this should not be the case.


Agreed, if a bank decided to cheat its depositors by shorting them $0.01 per day in interest earned per account, the depositor is "only" out $3.65 per account, per year - that's barely a gallon of gasoline or, even, a gallon of milk. One could argue that IF the depostitor couldn't live without that $3.65 per year, then the depositor's got bigger problems.

The "flip side" is that multiplied over hundreds of thousands of depositors and accounts, the Bank can make a substantial amount of money from "stealing" a $0.01 from each depositor/account. That - and if people find out they're being cheated - it causes them to have less confidence in the banking system as a whole.

It's not the LOSS to the individual that makes this an "important" case; it's the "gain" to DirecTV from "lying and cheating." AND the loss in confidence by consumers in the whole system.

IF - from DirecTV's perspective - the promotional offer (no matter how krapy the promotion) doesn't have a material effect on the number of new subscribers it signs up . . . why would DirecTV offer a "promotional offer" at all??

Promotional offers - if they're well planned and executed - work. They generate new customers You get more new customers than if you didn't offer the promotion. That's why companies - like DirecTV - bother to do them.

Of course, if people do not think that a company is going to carry through with THE COMPANY'S part in the promotion, if DirecTV, Sony, Best Buy, etc. consistently renege on their part, then - going forward - consumers are going to stop responding to future promotional offers from ALL sources (not the just the "bad guys" who lie and cheat). That makes future promotions less successful - even for company's that do actually fulfill their end of the deal.

You "punish" DirecTV - even if the loss individual consumers suffered wasn't very much - because what DirecTV is doing is BAD for the other businesses who DO keep their promises.

Remarkable that people don't "get" that.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

I am always amazed that when a corporation defrauds their customers, and people take the only effective action they can to defend themselves, that it's the consumer that gets blamed.

Some even whine that their cost might go up because of costs inflicted to the corp...

Basically they defend the right for corps to cheat, lie and steal and want them to get away with it, to protect their own interests.

What inspires such loyalty???

Maybe they should pass the exact cost of the litigation to all those under a committment...or maybe they should add a "litigation fee" for all receivers to cover future lawsuits.....

How much would that fee have to be for you to leave DTV? What if you were stuck in 2- year committment ...how high would the fee have to be to sue? 

or would you just pay it, to prevent a lawsuit and protect DTV?


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

raott said:


> My guess is that, if you substitute "Comcast" for "DirecTV" in the article and lawsuit - the opinions here would be quite different.


I think I would have to agree with you. I haven't been a member here for that long,but from what I've seen their are a lot of fanboys on here. It's like D* can do no wrong sometimes. I just think D* should deliver on what they promise. Even some of you fan boys have to agree with that. If they offer something then by all means make sure your subscribers get it.

I love D* and it beats the hell out of any cable service I've had,but I know they screw up a lot. I won't defend them just because their D* like some seem to do.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> SO if DTV intentionally overbilled everyone for $1/month..it would be no big deal right? i mean no body should sue over that little bit....but hey I am sure DTV could use an extra $180MM in revenue..
> 
> Since DTV monitors this, I hope they try it.....


That would fall into a whole other argument. Being overbilled isnt the same as a gimmick to get someone to sign up for your service.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> I can't believe folks are knocking this suit. I don't think I've ever joined one of the class action law suits that have been mailed to me because of something I bought/did, but that's my choice, not the defendants. I usually haven't saved the receipts necessary, anyway.
> 
> If DIrecTV promised a portable DVD player and they failed to deliver one, even a POS one, then they were wrong and should be held accountable.
> 
> Again, I just can't get it through my brain why this should not be the case.


Worse yet, is if the impression of the portable DVD player people would get was not a POS. If people were given the impression it is a quality piece of equipment, and they infact got a POS, I definately think it is not right.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

:lol:

Panties in a bunch, man, panties in a bunch. We have gotten overly sue happy, it solves nothing. This has nothing to do with being fan-boys or not fan-boys. Suits over trivia need to stop, period. This particular one is not about $50 in or out of your pocket, it's about a free DVD player, which, as other have noted, is barely functional. I am going to have to respectfully disagree that this lawsuit needs doing.

Oh, and if you want to avoid doing business with me - this is my company: Crosstec, google it if you like



man_rob said:


> Note to self: Don't do any sort of business dealing with JeffBowser.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

PoitNarf said:


> You're right, I'm not in that position. That's why I didn't decide to become a lawyer or a judge.  :lol:


Hey, at least I spelled your name right


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

I think the point that is being lost here is the real reason for the lawsuit.

Is it sort of excessive to sue over a $50 to $100 portable DVD player-well, I think it is. However.....

The truth of the matter is that Directv did not live up to their end of the bargain. I do not blame the lawyers or plaintiffs for bringing this lawsuit. I blame Directv for not making good on their offers. If Directv had just sent out the DVD players as promised, their would be no lawsuit and no lawyers getting rich from the suit.

All those that disagree with the reasoning behind the suit and think it is frivolous have to admit that if Directv had just sent out the players their would be no lawsuit. This will cost Directv more than the DVD players. If I was in the group expecting the DVD player, I would be pushing for a lawsuit, too. Not because I can't afford to buy my own, but on principle. I don't like doing business with companies that don't do as they advertise.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> :lol:
> 
> Panties in a bunch, man, panties in a bunch. We have gotten overly sue happy, it solves nothing. This has nothing to do with being fan-boys or no fan-boys. Suits over trivia need to stop, period.
> 
> Oh, and if you want to avoid doing business with me - this is my company: www.crosstecsoftware.com


How often does _your_ company fail to deliver on it's promises, that you feel DirecTV is right in doing so?

Edit: Funny, now when ever someone googles CrossTec, they're going to find you saying it's okay for companies to rip off the public.


----------



## gcisko (Sep 27, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Companies should honor their commitments.


I just thought this needed to be repeated in case anyone missed it. To me, it is the essence of this entire thread, regardless of whether anyone see it as more important that any other legal issue.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> I am always amazed that when a corporation defrauds their customers, and people take the only effective action they can to defend themselves, that it's the consumer that gets blamed.
> 
> Some even whine that their cost might go up because of costs inflicted to the corp...
> 
> ...


Been trying to figure out the loyalty here for quite some time. Still don't understand it. Even in a case where Directv is obviously wrong to most, they still have people defending them. I don't get it.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

You miss my point and you put words in my mouth. Kindly refrain from doing so.

I do not condone cheating, nor do I condone what happened with these silly DVD players. I also don't condone the lawsuit happy culture we have come to, and the sense of self-righteous entitlement large swatches of the population have fallen into.

To me this is much bigger that piddly boo-hooing over cheap sign-up trinkets, this, to me, is about society as a whole.



man_rob said:


> How often does _your_ company fail to deliver on it's promises, that you feel DirecTV is right in doing so?
> 
> Edit: Funny, now when ever someone googles CrossTec, they're going to find you saying it's okay for companies to rip off the public.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

jodyguercio said:


> That would fall into a whole other argument. Being overbilled isnt the same as a gimmick to get someone to sign up for your service.


DIffernt mechanism...same result...Deliberately scamming your customers to increase revenue....

How much would YOU have to be overbilled to sue? I don't see much difference (with regards to a lawsuits merit) between overbilling and fraud.

DTV certainly has responsibility to deliver what was offered -a portable DVD player with a "value" of $99....

The arguement is what constitutes that value...players that perform equal to other DVD players similarly priced, or is it sufficient to quote the MSRP...

If they and manufacturer had decided the MSRP was $599 would it have been legit to say it was a $599 value...even if it barely works?

I don't know how much of a POS the player was, but assuming it does not work, and you bought it at the store for $99...would you take it back? or would you just say.."They got me"...and eat he cost? these customers not only couldn't take it back, they were stuck in a 2 year committment. What other course of action do these customers have?

If DTV knew what they were giving away was worthless, they are guilty of bad business at a minimum and probably fraud.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> :lol:
> 
> Panties in a bunch, man, panties in a bunch. We have gotten overly sue happy, it solves nothing. This has nothing to do with being fan-boys or not fan-boys. Suits over trivia need to stop, period. This particular one is not about $50 in or out of your pocket, it's about a free DVD player, which, as other have noted, is barely functional. I am going to have to respectfully disagree that this lawsuit needs doing.
> 
> Oh, and if you want to avoid doing business with me - this is my company: www.crosstecsoftware.com


Jeff:

Cheap POS DVD or not cheap POS DVD, DirecTV obviously thought (either way) that it would have a positive effect on attracting customers, yes or no?

Cheap POS DVD or not cheap POS DVD, customers who did not get what DirecTV promised them are less likely to respond to promotional offerings in the future because such consumers are less inclined to believe that the Company offering the promotion will make good on their promise, yes or no?

If you are in the promotions business, does DirecTV's failure to fulfill their part of this promotion tend to make your business easier or harder to do?


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

paulsown said:


> Been trying to figure out the loyalty here for quite some time. Still don't understand it. Even in a case where Directv is obviously wrong to most, they still have people defending them. I don't get it.


I agree, but just keep reading here and you'll soon figure it out how to filter out the nonsense and you'll also quickly determine which members have the blind loyalty.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

paulsown said:


> Been trying to figure out the loyalty here for quite some time. Still don't understand it. Even in a case where Directv is obviously wrong to most, they still have people defending them. I don't get it.


I don't think it is a fanboy mentality rather a lot of people simply don't like lawyers or our legal system, probably for a good reason or two

Despite that though, reasonable people would agree there is also a good reason for the system we have because it is, while not perfect, probably the more preferred one. The alternative may be only the King can call the shots.

Not to risk getting out of hand, let me just say that the vast majority of lawsuits get settled out of the court or close to that, this case is similar. So in a way our legal system is designed to pick the right battles.

I have been in the jury box before, the animosity toward the court system due to the perception that everyone is suing everyone else was apparent and not without merit. What people do not realize is what they see is only a very small part of the cases, most gets resolved without ever going to a jury trial.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> You miss my point and you put words in my mouth. Kindly refrain from doing so.
> 
> I do not condone cheating, nor do I condone what happened with these silly DVD players. I also don't condone the lawsuit happy culture we have come to, and the sense of self-righteous entitlement large swatches of the population have fallen into.
> 
> To me this is much bigger that piddly boo-hooing over cheap sign-up trinkets, this, to me, is about society as a whole.


How does this lawsuit equate to self-righteous entitlement? If they had simply given out the DVD players as they advertised it would be a non-issue. It was not like people came to their door asking for free DVD players, they offered them as part of a sign-up package. This about a company that lied to customers. I don't agree with the fact that the laywers will get a large sum of money for this, but that is how our legal system works. If Directv followed through, this whole thing would be non-existent. The societal problem that is glaring here is another company thinking they can get away with screwing a customer.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

paulsown said:


> Been trying to figure out the loyalty here for quite some time. Still don't understand it. Even in a case where Directv is obviously wrong to most, they still have people defending them. I don't get it.


I suspect that this is not so much loyalty to "the company" in these kinds of cases:


Ken S said:


> I hear this all the time. As long as it is someone else that is harmed people will whine that it's a waste of time. As soon as something happens to them or their family they're whining and screaming about the horrid injustice that has been done.
> 
> Perhaps we should reserve the legal system just for lawsuits which DirecTV brings.


As Ken S points out so much depends upon who is harmed. I'm considering the notion that when "someone else is harmed" who sues the company, people who aren't originally harmed are now becoming harmed by the (potential and likely minimal) cost increase. This doesn't seem like loyalty so much.

(The other common statement I seem to hear is "the lawyers are the ones who get all the $$". That also doesn't seem like loyalty.)

In the past, I have participated in some class actions, depending upon my youthful naivete and financial situation at the time, or if I personally felt there was merit in the case. On the other hand, by the time I'm invited--it is too late for me to make a difference. The award has been decided; I just muddy the pool.

As to would I participate at the level of being a lead in a Class? Very rarely, I should think. Only where there is a clear case of fraud.

Note: I have chosen to not comment about this particular suit. As a moderator, I am careful to not discuss particular lawsuits. One reason is that DBStalk does not participate in fostering either party in lawsuits.

Lawsuits are news and can be worthy of discussion. You all have done a great job discussing this within the rules of the forums. Thank you very much.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> You miss my point and you put words in my mouth. Kindly refrain from doing so.
> 
> I do not condone cheating, nor do I condone what happened with these silly DVD players. I also don't condone the lawsuit happy culture we have come to, and the sense of self-righteous entitlement large swatches of the population have fallen into.
> 
> To me this is much bigger that piddly boo-hooing over cheap sign-up trinkets, this, to me, is about society as a whole.


So when CrossTec fails to deliver on a promise your response to the customer is "If someone made a service decision based solely on the possibility of receiving" promised goods or services, "well, they have bigger issues.", and you'll berate them for "piddly boo-hooing" over said promised goods and services? When CrossTec doesn't provide what is promised, you're just going to ask your customers to just suck it up?


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

paulsown said:


> How does this lawsuit equate to self-righteous entitlement? If they had simply given out the DVD players as they advertised it would be a non-issue. It was not like people came to their door asking for free DVD players, they offered them as part of a sign-up package. This about a company that lied to customers. I don't agree with the fact that the laywers will get a large sum of money for this, but that is how our legal system works. If Directv followed through, this whole thing would be non-existent. The societal problem that is glaring here is another company thinking they can get away with screwing a customer.


I totally agree with that. Who cares if you don't like the way the legal system works or that people seem to sue over everything? If D* would have went through with what they promised this would not have happend. Why is that so hard to get??


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Remember this is a passionate issue for people for many reason. Please remember to play nice even in our passions.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

PAJeep said:


> So its okay for someone to be cheated out of a $50 dvd player but if someone doesnt get their $50 credit its the end of the world (not saying you, but its posted on here all the time). Last time I checked $50 = $50 right?


But it's not $50 you spent! You didn't get ripped off, you just didn't get your "free gift" that you would probably only use once and toss.

I also would think one shouldn't sue because they didn't get a $50 credit either.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I hear this all the time. As long as it is someone else that is harmed people will whine that it's a waste of time. As soon as something happens to them or their family they're whining and screaming about the horrid injustice that has been done.
> 
> Perhaps we should reserve the legal system just for lawsuits which DirecTV brings.


I have yet to see anyone whine in this thread. Those of us who think it's ridiculous are stating our opinion, not whining.

And FYI, had it happened to me I wouldn't care and get all pissy because I wasn't given my cheap piece of crap. And yes, it has happened before.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> I suspect that this is not so much loyalty to "the company" in these kinds of cases:
> 
> As Ken S points out so much depends upon who is harmed. I'm considering the notion that when "someone else is harmed" who sues the company, people who aren't originally harmed are now becoming harmed by the (potential and likely minimal) cost increase. This doesn't seem like loyalty so much.
> 
> ...


 Not to be repetitive, but I think what is being missed is that if Directv had done as promised, this would be a non-issue. I blame Directv solely for this, and no on else. It is not the system that caused this action to be taken, but Directv. If everyones prices are increased because of it, I blame Directv.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Again, I just can't get it through my brain why this should not be the case.


I guess you must enjoy higher package rates because of frivolous lawsuits then.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

If someone was looking to get out of their contract, perhaps they could use this to show Direct TV did not fulfill their terms of the agreement making the contract null and void.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Either you can't understand my point, or you don't want to. 
Either way, you don't have to agree with me, or even like me. I do request, however, that you refrain from putting words and false conclusions in my mouth. This is my second request at this - try not to make me do a third request, I don't really want to get myself banned from this forum.




man_rob said:


> So when CrossTec fails to deliver on a promise your response to the customer is "If someone made a service decision based solely on the possibility of receiving" promised goods or services, "well, they have bigger issues.", and you'll berate them for "piddly boo-hooing" over said promised goods and services? When CrossTec doesn't provide what is promised, you're just going to ask your customers to just suck it up?


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

I'm still wainting for my $ 50 VISA debit card. Maybe this class action is next.


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> But it's not $50 you spent! You didn't get ripped off, you just didn't get your "free gift" that you would probably only use once and toss.
> 
> I also would think one shouldn't sue because they didn't get a $50 credit either.


So you're completely at peace with the horrible debacle called mail-in rebates in general? Unfortunately I run away from any deal that mentions mail-in rebates now. This lawsuit can possibly set a precedent that tells corporations cannot just toss out "ONLY $10 (after $50 mail in rebate)" and make customers jump through hoops to get the MIR.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> But it's not $50 you spent! You didn't get ripped off, you just didn't get your "free gift" that you would probably only use once and toss.


Nevertheless, that "gift" was part of the benefit the consumer was promised as part of the bargain. That you don't think the "benefit" from that gift was that valuable is irrelevant. I might not think some of the "benefits" you prefer (free delivery and set-up; free Blu-Ray DVDs included with Blu-Ray players; a $20 rebate; etc.) are all that "valuable" to me.

The beauty of a free market is each consumer gets to decide - for HIMSELF or HERSELF - what "floats their boat." For some, yes, it may be a POS DVD player.

And if they didn't receive that DVD player - even if it was a POS - they didn't get the full benefit of their bargain.


----------



## Rakul (Sep 3, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> But to make light of this thing, let me suggest DirecTV call Toshiba, I am sure Toshiba will be more than happy to pay DirecTV a disposal fee to unload their HD-DVR players, to clear out room for their next generation SD-DVD players, and the claimants will be thrilled DirecTV offers them a DVD player of $499 value
> QUOTE]
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> Either you can't understand my point, or you don't want to.
> Either way, you don't have to agree with me, or even like me. I do request, however, that you refrain from putting words and false conclusions in my mouth.


Jeff:

Illogical arguments are illogical arguments. Putting lipstick on a pig does NOT make a prom date.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

ehilbert1 said:


> I think I would have to agree with you. I haven't been a member here for that long,but from what I've seen their are a lot of fanboys on here.


No- what gave you that impression?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

gnahc79 said:


> So you're completely at peace with the horrible debacle called mail-in rebates in general? Unfortunately I run away from any deal that mentions mail-in rebates now. This lawsuit can possibly set a precedent that tells corporations cannot just toss out "ONLY $10 (after $50 mail in rebate)" and make customers jump through hoops to get the MIR.


This isn't a mail in rebate deal.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Nevertheless, that "gift" was part of the benefit the consumer was promised as part of the bargain. That you don't think the "benefit" fromt hat gift was that valuable is irrelevant. I might not think some of the "benefits" you prefer (free delivery and set-up; free Blu-Ray DVDs included with Blu-Ray players; a $20 rebate; etc.) are all that "valuable" to me.
> 
> The beauty of a free market is each consumer gets to decide - for HIMSELF or HERSELF - what "floats their boat." For some, yes, it may be a POS DVD player.
> 
> And if they didn't receive that DVD player - even if it was a POS - they didn't get the full benefit of their bargain.


You said it, "gift"... So if Aunt Sadie doesn't give you a gift for your Birthday are you going to sue her? Afterall Birthday gifts are a contract obligation right?

Oh yeah, and as others have mentioned people DID get a DVD player, it just wasn't portable. So we sue because it's not exactly what you want??

Come on people...


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Nevertheless, that "gift" was part of the benefit the consumer was promised as part of the bargain. That you don't think the "benefit" fromt hat givet was that valuable is irrelevant. I might not think some of the "benefits" you prefer (free delivery and set-up; free Blu-Ray DVDs includes with Blu-Ray players; a $20 rebate; etc.) are all that "valuable" to me.
> 
> The beauty of a free market is each consumer gets to decide - for HIMSELF or HERSELF - what "floats there boat." For some, yes, it may be a POS DVD player.
> 
> And if they didn't receive that DVD player - even if it was a POS - they didn't get the full benefit of their bargain.


Part of what I think is getting missd is that even if they got the DVD player if it may have been such a POS that even those that got it, did not get what they had "bargained" for

The ad was not sign up and get a paperweight tha might sometimes plays DVD..they were offerd a DVD player..a $99 value...the POS may not have been sufficient to complete this offer.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> Either you can't understand my point, or you don't want to.
> Either way, you don't have to agree with me, or even like me. I do request, however, that you refrain from putting words and false conclusions in my mouth. This is my second request at this - try not to make me do a third request, I don't really want to get myself banned from this forum.


I'm not putting words in your mouth. You just don't like hearing them repeated back to you.

Companies should deliver on promises made to lure customers into contracts. Period.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> You said it, "gift"... So if Aunt Sadie doesn't give you a gift for your Birthday are you going to sue her? Afterall Birthday gifts are a contact obligation right?
> 
> Come on people...


it's not a gift. it's a material part of the contractual agreement. Certianly, it's implied that it works.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

paulsown said:


> Not to be repetitive, but I think what is being missed is that *if Directv had done as promised, this would be a non-issue. I blame Directv solely for this, and no on else. It is not the system that caused this action to be taken, but Directv. If everyones prices are increased because of it, I blame Directv*.


(Hightlight mine). I want to say "you are so right" but I can't directly about this case. If you permit me (and I hope you understand why) to use your excellent point substituting "any company" for DIRECTV:


> if the company had done as promised, this would be a non-issue. I blame that company solely for this, and no on else. It is not the system that caused this action to be taken, but the company. If everyones prices are increased because of it, I blame company"


I can clearly state, you are so very right.

(Again, I hope you don't me slightly changing the words so I can comment.) 

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

My argument is not illogical just because you disagree with it. But, that's not why I'm replying to this - I like your clever turn of phrase with the pig remark :lol:

Pig in lipstick image removed, didn't want to slow down forum load speed, If you want to see it: www.crosstecsoftware.com/DWPig.jpg



DirecTV3049 said:


> Jeff:
> 
> Illogical arguments are illogical arguments. Putting lipstick on a pig does NOT make a prom date.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Let us also consider Mail In Rebates a wholly other (and off Topic) concept for this thread. (And please do not try to make a post about this post, PM me.)

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> You said it, "gift"... So if Aunt Sadie doesn't give you a gift for your Birthday are you going to sue her? Afterall Birthday gifts are a contract obligation right?
> 
> Oh yeah, and as others have mentioned people DID get a DVD player, it just wasn't portable. So we sue because it's not exactly what you want??
> 
> Come on people...


Um one little difference, your Aunt Sadie isn't promising a gift in exchange for you signing a 2 year contract.

DirecTV has no problems demanding money from customers whom DirecTV feels didn't fulfill the customer's contractual obligation.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> You said it, "gift"... So if Aunt Sadie doesn't give you a gift for your Birthday are you going to sue her? Afterall Birthday gifts are a contract obligation right?


Birthdays gifts and barter arrangements are apples and oranges.

If Aunt Sadie said "come over to my house and wash my HUMMER and, in return, you can drive it this weekend AND I'll pay for all the gas you use" . . . how would you feel about good ol' Aunt Sadie - or her "deal" - if, at after washing her HUMMER, she didn't pay for the the gas?

And regardelss of how YOU (individually) feel about it, for someone somewhere, gas was the tipping point for the agreement.

Come on people yourself.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> My argument is not illogical just because you disagree with it. But, that's not why I'm replying to this - I like your clever turn of phrase with the pig remark :lol:


You're argument isn't illogical, just unethical. Businesses need to fulfill their promises to customers.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> My argument is not illogical just because you disagree with it. But, that's not why I'm replying to this - I like your clever turn of phrase with the pig remark :lol:


Your argument is "illogical" because in a free market economy individual consumers get to decide for themselves what is "valuable" to them when making any particular business arrangement. What you may believe is "valuable" and what I may believe is "valuable" may be two very different things. In the free market, you get to decide for YOURSELF . . . and I get to decide for MYSELF, what we each think is "valuable."

If an individual is deprived of something they thought was a "valuable" part of the deal - whether IT was "valuable" to you or not - then THAT consumer was deprived of the "benefit" of his or her bargain.

DirecTV offered something it believed SOME consumers would find to be "valuable." You don't think it's that valuable - great for you - but DirecTV obviously thought it would be valuable to OTHER consumers (not YOU) or it would not have even OFFERED them.

SOME people (not YOU) found DirecTV's offer "valuable" to them . . . and, therefore, signed up for DirecTV.

To get the benefit of THEIR bargain, they took the matter to court . . . in lieu of, say, taking guns to the headquarters of DirecTV and holding the Board of Directors hostage.

Furthermore, when DirecTV deprives people of the benefit of their bargain - it has the tendency to harm OTHER business people who - ya know - DO live up their end of a deal . . . no matter how "silly" they think the customer is being.

It also hurts people in the promotions business - by undercutting confidence in promotional deals.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> (Hightlight mine). I want to say "you are so right" but I can't directly about this case. If you permit me (and I hope you understand why) to use your excellent point substituting "any company" for DIRECTV:I can clearly state, you are so very right.
> 
> (Again, I hope you don't me slightly changing the words so I can comment.)
> 
> ...


I don't mind.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> I guess you must enjoy higher package rates because of frivolous lawsuits then.


Obviously the judge in this case doesn't agree with you that this lawsuit is frivolous or it would have been thrown out. It wasn't. The point of this whole thread is that the lawsuit was allowed to go forward.

And, no, I don't enjoy higher rates. I do enjoy doing business with companies that keep their word. And if it can be shown that in this case DirecTV didn't keep theirs, they should have their corporate hand slapped. It might be the only thing that makes them keep their word with me the next time I re-up my commitment. Lawsuits like this could possibly save me money, not cost me.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I see your point. However, it still does not make my argument illogical. You just disagree with me. Fine by me, and you do have a valid argument below, I just disagree that a free gift is worth suing over.

And to reiterate, to those of you still too blinded by rage over a perceived injustice to see my point - I do not condone what happened with this trinket fiasco, a company should do what they say they are going to do, but I remain unconvinced we need to be so slap-happy with the lawsuits. If you can't understand the distinction I am making, there is nothing more I can add.



DirecTV3049 said:


> Your argument is "illogical" because in a free market economy individual consumers get to decide for themselves what is "valuable" to them when making any particular business arrangement. What you may believe is "valuable" and what I may believe is "valuable" may be two very different things. In the free market, you get to decide for YOURSELF . . . and I get to decide for MYSELF, what we each think is "valuable."
> 
> If an individual is deprived of something they thought was a "valuable" part of the deal - whether IT was "valuable" to you or not - then THAT consumer was deprived of the "benefit" of his or her bargain.
> 
> ...


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

highheater said:


> No- what gave you that impression?


You so made me laugh :lol: . I guess for the simple fact that people are actually in this thread arguing about it. D* did not live up to their end of the deal so people got pissed and sued. If they would have done the right thing then no one would have sued. People are actually putting down the legal system (which sucks sometimes) for this and not D*. That blows my mind. D* NEEDED TO DO THE RIGHT THING PLAIN AND SIMPLE. They did not do that.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> I guess you must enjoy higher package rates because of frivolous lawsuits then.


The market decides your package rates, not legal fees.

Basic supply and demand - the market dictates price, cost does not. Charge any more or less than where the supply and demand curve meet and you are leaving your shareholders money on the table.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> a company should do what they say they are going to do, but I remain unconvinced we need to be so slap-happy with the lawsuits. .


So where is your threshold? At what point is the lawsuit legit? How much can a company cheat a customer over before it is actionable for you?


----------



## PAJeep (Mar 8, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> But it's not $50 you spent! You didn't get ripped off, you just didn't get your "free gift" that you would probably only use once and toss.
> 
> I also would think one shouldn't sue because they didn't get a $50 credit either.


So if it was a $50 gift card that they were giving and you didn't get it you would be okay with it?

By the way I am not one of the misfortunate individuals that were part of this Free DVD deal gone wrong, but I certainly think what was done is wrong.

Oh, and by the way can I borrow $50, I promise I'll pay it back.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Good question. My take is, free gift promises don't elevate to that level. You gonna sue your bank if you don't get your free toaster for signing up with them ?

Man, I haven't seen a thread this exciting in ages. It was getting tedious looking at nothing but interim TLE's for DirecTV11 :lol:



mikewolf13 said:


> So where is your threshold? At what point is the lawsuit legit? How much can a company cheat a customer over before it is actionable for you?


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

JeffBowser said:


> Man, I haven't seen a thread this exciting in ages. It was getting tedious looking at nothing but interim TLE's for DirecTV11 :lol:


Maybe we should go over to one of the Dish forums and ask, "How's that AMC-14 satellite working out for you?" That would be entertaining.


----------



## jodyguercio (Aug 16, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> DIffernt mechanism...same result...Deliberately scamming your customers to increase revenue....
> 
> How much would YOU have to be overbilled to sue? I don't see much difference (with regards to a lawsuits merit) between overbilling and fraud.
> 
> ...


If it was one month, I would call and make sure it was handled.....I just happen to see this, I'll say this again as an OPINION, particular lawsuit as being a little silly. Im not backing directv, or any other company, for their actions. Directv was wrong in not honoring their promise, but to tie up the court system over a dvd player is a little ridiculous. Im sure that judge and people that are going to end up on that case if it gets that far would much rather doing more productive things that listen to Mr Joe Public being mad because Directv suckered me into a two year commitment with a dvd player that I never got. Like Ive said, me PERSONALLY I wouldve just let it go. And thats what Im going to do, let this thread go.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> I see your point. However, it still does not make my argument illogical. You just disagree with me. Fine by me, and you do have a valid argument below, I just disagree that a free gift is worth suing over.


You don't want to sue DirecTV if they failed to deliver the DVD player to you (IF it was promised to you), then don't. This is America and still a (mostly) free country.

But, that doesn't mean that people who DO want to sue are wasting the Government's time by suing DirecTV. In this case, it's quite the opposite.

Assuming that what the Plaintiffs in this case said was 100% true, then - if they won - the Courts (i.e.,Government) would be being used:

(1) to give each party the full benefit of the bargain they made in an arms length freely negotiated transaction;
(2) to prevent a business from profiting from its "bad act";
(3) to restore consumer confidence in the "market" system - i.e., ensuring that each party gets the benefit of what it bargained for even if someone else would have made a different deal; 
(4) to prevent the erosion of confidence by consumers in the entire promotional industry; and
(5) to give people who have legitimate grievance against a Company - even a grievenace YOU may find "trivial" but they do not - a relatively peaceful venue for resolving that grievance in a "fair" and "impartial" manner.

I fail to see how results (1) to (5) can be considered a "bad thing" by any person who believes in free markets.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> ...I do not condone what happened with this trinket fiasco, a company should do what they say they are going to do, but I remain unconvinced we need to be so slap-happy with the lawsuits. If you can't understand the distinction I am making, there is nothing more I can add.


Okay, and why would a company feel the need to make good on promises made to lure customers into contracts, if there is no consequences when they don't?


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

:lol:



Carl Spock said:


> Maybe we should go over to one of the Dish forums and ask, "How's that AMC-14 satellite working out for you?" That would be entertaining.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> I see your point. However, it still does not make my argument illogical. You just disagree with me. Fine by me, and you do have a valid argument below, I just disagree that a free gift is worth suing over.
> 
> And to reiterate, to those of you still too blinded by rage over a perceived injustice to see my point - I do not condone what happened with this trinket fiasco, a company should do what they say they are going to do, but I remain unconvinced we need to be so slap-happy with the lawsuits. If you can't understand the distinction I am making, there is nothing more I can add.


Okay, so a company doesn't do what they say and holds the customer to their end of the bargain. You feel the customer shouldn't sue. What should the customer do? Just write it off?

Where's the cut-off on how much a company can defraud before customers are allowed to sue?

Should those customers be held to their part of the agreement? A two-year commitment is trivial right? Should DirecTV be allowed to sue if a customer doesn't return a used DVR....isn't that trivial too?

Should the courts be available only to those with a lot of money who are bringing "really important lawsuits"? You know like DirecTV when they started suing people for signal piracy?


----------



## rhambling (Dec 19, 2007)

the best part about this whole thing is that the customer's were told the installers would be delivering them to the customers. I dont know how many times before Christmas I was asked this. had a hard time explaining that this was a mail in offer.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

There are couple of intertwined thoughts here that might need some pulling apart:
1) if party doesn't fulfill their part of a bargain that is wrong. (I haven't seen anyone really fight that on any level)
2) When does the "breach of fulfillment" reach a level of warranting a lawsuit?
or its variation "is an object such as a portable DVD player" a "trinket"?

Again, I've really seen no one blatantly say that it is OK by skipping out on a deal. Everyone has said it is wrong one way or another.

When does the "breach" rise to the level of a warranted, non-frivolous lawsuit? The judge rules upon that.

So we get to comment upon his decision. (as well as the decision of the lawyers) who bring these cases to court. 

Jeff, I'm very glad for you that you are in a position whereby a portable DVD player is a "trinket". I too am in such a position now and I thank God.

Yet I know many people, family members, friends, others who do not even come close to calling a portable DVD player a trinket. Their budget does not afford them a player without careful budgeting and consideration. When they chose a provider based upon a deal this is signification to them, should we really call their actions frivolous because to us it is a trinket?

Yes, there is a level below which trinket would nearly universally apply. I'm very likely no longer a suitable person to define that. 

And yes, companies do the best at giving the best value to their customers long-term when they honor every deal every time and price every deal to make long-term money. (And I don't mind if a honest promotion attempt does not make long-term money--the next one will be the barn burner.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Okay, so a company doesn't do what they say and holds the customer to their end of the bargain. You feel the customer shouldn't sue. What should the customer do? Just write it off?
> 
> Where's the cut-off on how much a company can defraud before customers are allowed to sue?
> 
> ...


Maybe Jeff's right....if they can stiif a customer for $50...maybe I should be able to stiff them for my $96 ETF...i guarantee $96 is more trivial to them than $50 to me...at least on a percentage of total revenue scale..

Perhaps when I go to collections I could explain that the amount was trvial and they should stop crying.

Who am i kidding , DTV wouldn't even try to collect an amount that small!

I mean that would be a waste of everyone's time and money...


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

mikewolf13 said:


> it's not a gift. it's a material part of the contractual agreement. Certianly, it's implied that it works.


It is a "gift" for signing up.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Birthdays gifts and barter arrangements are apples and oranges.


This wasn't a "barter arrangement" it was a gift for signing up.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

I think people who think $50 is too small an item to warrant a lawsuit do think they have a good logic except:

What they failed to realize was how many people were adversely impacted. I am sure you would consider a lawsuit if DirecTV charged you $10,000 and refused to correct it, because any reasonable person would agree $10,000 is a lot of money to justify a lawsuit if necessary.

But let's say we have 10,000 subs who were overbilled $50 each, it may not be that of a big deal for each sub, certainly not as big as you being overcharged $10,000, but collectively we can agree 10,000 people out of $50 each is a more serious issue than one person out of $10,000 or at least of equal importance.

And class action suits are for that reason, when each individual have little power or reason to resolve aggrievence on his/her own, the system allows a collective class of people similarly affected to bring a lawsuit to correct the wrong doing, not all that different than the system will allow you to file a suit when you as an individual believe you were overbilled and charged $10,000.

Unless of course you believe you will just write the $10,000 off and call it a lesson learned, than I have no argument with you at all. I will be more than happy to take just $1,000 off your hands please


----------



## stevecon (Sep 6, 2006)

Those bringing the suit have done *nothing* wrong. It would seem DTV however, can not make the same claim. DTV made an offer, and it was accepted. It does not matter by how few or many, the contract/agreement has not been fulfilled by DTV. 

DTV could have easily resolved this, but have chosen to ignore the complaints from those that are asking to be made whole. While I doubt I would bring a suit if I were one of them - I certainly would have no problem adding my name to a class action suit. 

DTV is the party that is forcing a lawsuit - they are *now* requiring a court to make them do what they have previously agreed to do in the original offer to these customers.

If you don't want a "POS DVD player" or $50+ programming credit, let me know, as I would be happy to receive either.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> Obviously the judge in this case doesn't agree with you that this lawsuit is frivolous or it would have been thrown out. It wasn't. The point of this whole thread is that the lawsuit was allowed to go forward.
> 
> And, no, I don't enjoy higher rates. I do enjoy doing business with companies that keep their word. And if it can be shown that in this case DirecTV didn't keep theirs, they should have their corporate hand slapped. It might be the only thing that makes them keep their word with me the next time I re-up my commitment. Lawsuits like this could possibly save me money, not cost me.


They did keep their word. They sent out DVD players. Just because it wasn't "portable" everyone is having a hissy now.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> It is a "gift" for signing up.


The "gift" is part of the bargain.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> It is a "gift" for signing up.


The applicable phrase, then Runner, is "quid pro quo." It's Latin and means, "this for that."

And in law, DirecTV got its "quid" and, now, must deliver to the customer the "quo."


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raott said:


> The market decides your package rates, not legal fees.


If you believe that I have swamp land in FL to sell you.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

PAJeep said:


> So if it was a $50 gift card that they were giving and you didn't get it you would be okay with it?


Honestly, I'd be fine. It's happened before and I don't lose sleep over it much less want to sue over it.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> They did keep their word. They sent out DVD players. Just because it wasn't "portable" everyone is having a hissy now.


So if you buy a car on ebay, but instead get a matchbox car, you wouldn't do anything about it? Would you just accept the seller telling you, "You got a car. Don't have a hissy just because it wasn't drivable "


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Okay, so a company doesn't do what they say and holds the customer to their end of the bargain. You feel the customer shouldn't sue. What should the customer do? Just write it off?


Complain to the BBB, Complain to higher ups at D* or just don't worry about it. It's not worth the lawsuit and the repercussions that it will have on those of us customers who don't care.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> If you believe that I have swamp land in FL to sell you.


So basic market economics doesn't apply to D* for some reason? Can you give me the reason it doesn't apply?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> There are couple of intertwined thoughts here that might need some pulling apart:
> 1) if party doesn't fulfill their part of a bargain that is wrong. (I haven't seen anyone really fight that on any level)
> 2) When does the "breach of fulfillment" reach a level of warranting a lawsuit?
> or its variation "is an object such as a portable DVD player" a "trinket"?


1) I agree, it is wrong.
2) When the breach costs the "victim" money.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> They did keep their word. They sent out DVD players. Just because it wasn't "portable" everyone is having a hissy now.


So if I sold you a red car but when it was delivered it was blue, you wouldn't care because it was still a car?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> I think people who think $50 is too small an item to warrant a lawsuit do think they have a good logic except:
> 
> What they failed to realize was how many people were adversely impacted. I am sure you would consider a lawsuit if DirecTV charged you $10,000 and refused to correct it, because any reasonable person would agree $10,000 is a lot of money to justify a lawsuit if necessary.
> 
> ...


There is a huge difference between the customer paying $10,000 for something and not getting it and a customer being promised a "free gift" which costs them nothing out of pocket.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

man_rob said:


> So if you buy a car on ebay, but instead get a matchbox car, you wouldn't do anything about it? Would you just accept the seller telling you, "You got a car. Don't have a hissy just because it wasn't drivable "


Come on, be real.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> There is a huge difference between the customer paying $10,000 for something and not getting it and a customer being promised a "free gift" which costs them nothing out of pocket.


Its part of the bargain, I'm not sure why you do not understand that. This is basic common law contract law. But then again, if basic market theory doesn't apply to D*, I guess basic contract law shouldn't either.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> If you believe that I have swamp land in FL to sell you.


But please realize whatever your belief it is irrelavent to this lawsuit.

If I use your logic, and use the examples I did above, say you were overcharged $10,000 by DirecTV, and DirecTV refused to correct it, can I tell you not to sue DirecTV because I don't like my DirecTV bills to go up as a result of your lawsuit?

Is it fair then to ask those 10,000 people who were over charged $50 each not do the same because you don't want your bills to go up?

That is if you agree your out of $10,000 is as serious as 10,000 people out of $50 each. If you don't agree with this statement than again I have no argument with you at all.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raott said:


> So basic market economics doesn't apply to D* for some reason? Can you give me the reason it doesn't apply?


I didn't say market economics don't apply, don't put words in my mouth. I just don't agree with your statement that lawsuits don't effect what customers wind up paying.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Ya know, I think I see an arbitrage opportunity here - between those who would hassle with things like "$50 rebate cards" and those who would not.

I'd pay people like Jeff and Florida, say, $0.10 on the dollar for their rebate offers and then sell them in an auction type market - pocketing the difference between the cost of aquisition and the amount of the sale.

I think something like this already exists for "gift cards" people receive for Xmas, birthdays, etc.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> So if I sold you a red car but when it was delivered it was blue, you wouldn't care because it was still a car?


All depends on what I paid for it...

And in the case of the DVD player vs the portable DVD player they paid NOTHING.

You guys comparing apples to oranges with this "so if you paid" and "so if you bought" comparisons fail to realize that they didn't buy anything!


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raott said:


> Its part of the bargain, I'm not sure why you do not understand that.


And I don't understand why you can't realize it's not a bargain...


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> 1) I agree, it is wrong.
> 2) When the breach costs the "victim" money.


First off, the customers _are_ playing DirecTV, and they are in a contract (that they signed with the promise of getting a portable DVD player) It would cost the customer quite a bit if they dropped DirecTV.

Second, for the victim to get a portable DVD player to fulfill the undelivered unit from DirecTV, it would cost the customer money.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> I didn't say market economics don't apply, don't put words in my mouth. I just don't agree with your statement that lawsuits don't effect what customers wind up paying.


A supplier charges what the market will allow it to, not any less, not any more. The math is simple, if you charge more (even if your costs are higher from lawsuits) you are leaving money on the table, if you charge more than where the curve meets, you are leaving money on the table.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> But please realize whatever your belief it is irrelavent to this lawsuit.
> 
> If I use your logic, and use the examples I did above, say you were overcharged $10,000 by DirecTV, and DirecTV refused to correct it, can I tell you not to sue DirecTV because I don't like my DirecTV bills to go up as a result of your lawsuit?
> 
> ...


Again, you're talking being charged... These people were NOT, I repeat NOT, charged for the DVD player! Why can't anyone wrap their head around that fact???


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> I didn't say market economics don't apply, don't put words in my mouth. I just don't agree with your statement that lawsuits don't effect what customers wind up paying.


Yes, but there would NOT be a lawsuit - of obvious merit - if DirecTV hadn't reneged on it's deal.

If DirecTV wants to keep it's legal bills to a minimum, then it can do ONE simple thing: keep their end of the bargain.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

raott said:


> A supplier charges what the market will allow it to, not any less, not any more.


And part of those charges help make up for money lost in frivolous lawsuits. What is keeping you from getting that???

They money has to be made up somewhere! It doesn't grow on trees!


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> All depends on what I paid for it...
> 
> And in the case of the DVD player vs the portable DVD player they paid NOTHING.
> 
> You guys comparing apples to oranges with this "so if you paid" and "so if you bought" comparisons fail to realize that they didn't buy anything!


They bought and paid for DirecTV service that as per DirecTV included the delivery of a portable DVD player and they signed a contract with the promise of that player.


----------



## kocuba (Dec 29, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> It is a "gift" for signing up.


So if a company comes up to you and says - if you do *X* we will *GIVE* you *Y* and you agree to this and do *X*. 
So you sit patiently waiting for *Y* and never receive it. You are just gonna say "Oh well guess I'm not getting it even though I did what they wanted me to do. Guess I'll just forget it."

It doesn't matter the value or perceived value, you agreed to their terms and they didn't hold up their end of the bargain.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> There is a huge difference between the customer paying $10,000 for something and not getting it and a customer being promised a "free gift" which costs them nothing out of pocket.


Yes but the customer might be being charged real money in ETF if they backed out.

As for the "free gift" arguments I can only say who are you kidding?  Clearly a stated item of value, in many promotions even an estimated value btw. I'm sure the courts very strongly consider this as a contract or portion therein even if couched in Marketing-speak.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> And I don't understand why you can't realize it's not a bargain...


It is part of the bargained for exchange. You can deny it is, but that doesn't make it so.

Contracts 101.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> If DirecTV wants to keep it's legal bills to a minimum, then it can do ONE simple thing: keep their end of the bargain.


And I'd like to point out AGAIN that these people were sent a DVD player. And now they want another... Who's wrong there?? Now they want 2 when they were told they get 1!


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Again, you're talking being charged... These people were NOT, I repeat NOT, charged for the DVD player! Why can't anyone wrap their head around that fact???


Well let me just use an hypothetical here, say those 10,000 people did get overcharged say just $50, or just $10 for argument sake. Do you still feel the same way if they file a class suit?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> And part of those charges help make up for money lost in frivolous lawsuits. What is keeping you from getting that???
> 
> They money has to be made up somewhere! It doesn't grow on trees!


Sir, I'm not going to argue with you. If you think by charging more (regardless of the customers you lose by doing so) you are generating more revenue, then you do not understand how basic markets work and how companies price their products.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> And I'd like to point out AGAIN that these people were sent a DVD player. And now they want another... Who's wrong there?? Now they want 2 when they were told they get 1!


And if you got a matchbox car instead of a drivable automobile, would the seller have kept his end of the bargain?


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Again, you're talking being charged... These people were NOT, I repeat NOT, charged for the DVD player! Why can't anyone wrap their head around that fact???


What's so hard for YOU to see?

Compare:
(1) I pay $x in montly service fees and IN RETURN I get DirecTV service AND a DVD player; and
(2) I pay $x in monthly service fees for Direc and IN RETURN I get (just) DirecTV.

(1) is still a better "bargain" . . . because your getting MORE in return for the money.

Ya know, some people in life make "business deals" on this premise.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> As for the "free gift" arguments I can only say who are you kidding?


That's why I quote it whenever I say it.... I realize it's not free because the $50 is made from what we as customers pay. But the $50 per DVD player is MUCH better than $150 now that there is a lawsuit involved.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Well let me just use an hypothetical here, say those 10,000 people did get overcharged say just $50, or just $10 for argument sake. Do you still feel the same way if they file a class suit?


For a $50 charge you wouldn't have to result in a lawsuit, you just go higher up within the company. $10? Are you serious? It's $10... So I don't get a $10 lunch one day, I'll live.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> That's why I quote it whenever I say it.... I realize it's not free because the $50 is made from what we as customers pay. But the $50 per DVD player is MUCH better than $150 now that there is a lawsuit involved.


They bought and paid for DirecTV service that as per DirecTV included the delivery of a portable DVD player and they signed a contract with the promise of that player.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> You guys comparing apples to oranges with this "so if you paid" and "so if you bought" comparisons fail to realize that they didn't buy anything!


Yeah, they didn't buy anything...

Except DirecTV for two years at $xx.xx a month.

If it was absolutely irrelevant to the deal, then why did DirecTV offer it in the first place, describing its features in detail? It seemed to have value to DirecTV. Why shouldn't it also have value to the customer?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Ya know, some people in life make "business deals" on this premise.


It's pretty sad when you base how you spend your money on if you'll get a trinket or not. I always try to get the best quality and don't care if I get a trinket or not.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> For a $50 charge you wouldn't have to result in a lawsuit, you just go higher up within the company. $10? Are you serious? It's $10... So I don't get a $10 lunch one day, I'll live.


Hey, Runner, if DirecTV stiffs you (or anyone else) on a $10 credit, I willing to make an offer for it.

This is what arbitrage markets are ALL about baby. People who "throw away" money because they can't be bothered.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> It's pretty sad when you base how you spend your money on if you'll get a trinket or not. I always try to get the best quality and don't care if I get a trinket or not.


It's sad when a multi billion dollar company doesn't deliver on promised "trinkets".

Answer this: Why did DirecTV offer the portable DVD players?


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> It's pretty sad when you base how you spend your money on if you'll get a trinket or not. I always try to get the best quality and don't care if I get a trinket or not.


Eh, what do I care what you think of me and how I'd spend my money?

Maybe I'd take that DVD player and sell it on eBay for $25 bucks; maybe I'll ship it to my wife's uncle in Brazil for use by the parish he runs down there (he's a Catholic priest and doesn't turn his nose up at such donations), whatever. Like I CARE what you think?


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> For a $50 charge you wouldn't have to result in a lawsuit, you just go higher up within the company. $10? Are you serious? It's $10... So I don't get a $10 lunch one day, I'll live.


That was not my question, please do not change the subject.

My questions to you are:

Do you think it is justifiable to file a suit when DirecTV overcharged you $10,000 and not wanting to correct it?

Do you believe you being overcharged $10,000 is just as serious an issue as 10,000 being over charged $10 each by DirecTV and could not get corrected?

And if so do you still think your lawsuit has merit but the class action suit those 10,000 people filed has no merit?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

<moderator note> Please be careful to play nice....

This is obviously an emotional issue.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> They did keep their word. They sent out DVD players. Just because it wasn't "portable" everyone is having a hissy now.


A ) the advertisement was for a portable player

b) again the qulaity/value of the player matters

From the link that started the thread

*Kolker claims DirecTV advertised the incentive as having a value of up to $169 in some instances. The product Kolker received is available online for $29.99, he claims*.​


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Do you think it is justifiable to file a suit when DirecTV overcharged you $10,000 and not wanting to correct it?


Yes



jacmyoung said:


> Do you believe you being overcharged $10,000 is just as serious an issue as 10,000 being over charged $10 each by DirecTV and could not get corrected?


I believe those 10,000 people can decide on their own if $10 is worth the effort. A class action suit is not needed.



jacmyoung said:


> And if so do you still think your lawsuit has merit but the class action suit those 10,000 people filed has no merit?


 Their lawsuit for $10 would be frivolous.

That sum it up for you??


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Complain to the BBB, Complain to higher ups at D* or just don't worry about it. It's not worth the lawsuit and the repercussions that it will have on those of us customers who don't care.


So those that got cheated, should not sue cause *you *might be impacted?

the proposed settlement states:

Each eligible class member who submits a valid claim will be provided one portable DVD player that is of a current generation with an approximate retail value of $129, with no fewer features than the most sophisticated portable DVD player previously advertised by DirecTV.​
a settlement DTV has *agreed to*.....with Attorney fees capped at $200,000....wow people getting what they bargained for.....

You may think the system is broke..i think this is how it is suppossed to work when corps do the wrong thing.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> It's pretty sad when you base how you spend your money on if you'll get a trinket or not. I always try to get the best quality and don't care if I get a trinket or not.


You no longer sound like someone who counts pennies each week to see if you can afford the large bottle of ketchup that is a better deal than the smaller one you might have cash for. I suggest all the people who call a portable DVD player a "trinket" step back and remember a time or a person they know who would not be able to afford such a luxury as a new portable DVD player.

I also suggest that we also consider at what level does a gift become material. Perferably, again from the point of view of someone who counts pennies each week or day.

A $10 gas card--hmmm... likely trinket. But I no longer am a good judge, as I've mentioned. A $35 DVD player? Less borderline. $90 portable DVD player? Definitely not a trinket for a whole lotta people.

Cheers,
tom


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> Carl Spock said:
> 
> 
> > So if I sold you a red car but when it was delivered it was blue, you wouldn't care because it was still a car?
> ...


And with this remark, you have just lost the argument.

We don't know the package the plantiff in this suit has, but we do know he had a two year committment. It isn't a stretch to think he'll give DirecTV at least $2,000 over the course of his contract. That is not an insignificant amount of money.

Just as you say that it "(a)ll depends on what (you) paid for it", the plantiff is paying a significant amount for his satellite service.

You see, RunnerFL, the crucial issue isn't the price of the DVD player or the paint on the car. It's the price of the service or the car itself. We are in complete agreement here. That's the problem. The cheeseball DVD player, portable or not, isn't the concern. It's the $2,000 over the contract, just like it would be the thousands of dollars you spent for a car you didn't like the color of. That's where the fraud comes in.

Just like you would be righteously upset if I sold you a car for a lot of money with a color you didn't like, the plantiff has a right to be righteously upset for subscribing to DirecTV for a lot of money and not getting the DVD he was promised. Same difference.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> There is a huge difference between the customer paying $10,000 for something and not getting it and a customer being promised a "free gift" which costs them nothing out of pocket.


IT cost them. THey entered into an agreement which will cost more than $1000 over the term or at minimum an ETF ($250, I think)

It's not a free gift...that's a marketing term..


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

mikewolf13 said:


> So those that got cheated, should not sue cause *you *might be impacted?


If that's as low as you have to go to understand what I'm saying then yes.



mikewolf13 said:


> with Attorney fees capped at $200,000....wow people getting what they bargained for.....


Where do you see fees capped at $200,000? And if so who do you think pays that $200,000? We the customer.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> A ) the advertisement was for a portable player
> 
> b) again the qulaity/value of the player matters
> 
> ...


Mike:

I can see where SOME argument can be made that this suit may not be 100% meritorious on THAT issue.

MOST of us are familiar with late night television infomericials offering us "Ginzu knifes - a $199 value . . . for the incredibly LOW, LOW price of $49.99." Which begs the question: if I can buy the entire knife set for $49.99, how can it have a "value" of $199?? To SOME extent the consumer has to take these types of claims (which are called "puffery") with a huge grain of salt. Indeed, the law recognizes that "puffery" in sales language is not to be taken so literally. "Value" is also a "weasel" word . . . that doesn't mean the same as "price."


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> You no longer sound like someone who counts pennies each week to see if you can afford the large bottle of ketchup that is a better deal than the smaller one you might have cash for.


No offense to anyone here but if someone is having to pinch pennies to afford ketchup they may want to just stick with OTA.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> And with this remark, you have just lost the argument.


Not quite, there's a huge difference between a $200 car not being the color you want and a $30,000 car not in the color you want.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> If that's as low as you have to go to understand what I'm saying then yes.


Then, by this "logic" (such that it is), DirecTV should NEVER sue any company that screws DirecTV over - i.e., fails to deliver what it promised to deliver to DirecTV - because it may cost us customers more money.

Memo to DirecTV's legal department: YOU'RE ALL FIRED!!


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> And if so who do you think pays that $200,000? We the customer.


That is false. It goes directly to reduced profit. If D* tries to raise prices to make up for the $200k, demand is reduced and revenue drops, not rises.

They have priced their products where they are maximizing revenue right now.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I told myself I wouldn't get into this anymore, but by way of perspective - here is something that truly is lawsuit worthy: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1533677#post1533677

Used to be a grammatically incorrect fella from Alabama who'd post up here some truly horrific HSP stories, (haven't seen him in awhile). This is the sort of stuff that elevates in my mind far above and beyond. DirecTV should be ashamed of themselves for this, and if it truly is that bad, their whole installation arm could (and should) collapse.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

Direct TV is strong-arming their own customers. The only way to get their attention is a class action suit. If they'd done the right thing in the first place this wouldn't even be an issue.

I don't pay my bill and my service is cut off in 30 days. Direct TV doesn't pay what it said it would and you have to get a lawyer to get your money. Maybe if the customers could withhold $50 from their bill while the class action was settled they'd resolve it more quickly.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

paulsown said:


> Not to be repetitive, but I think what is being missed is that if Directv had done as promised, this would be a non-issue. I blame Directv solely for this,


I have to agree. In today's over litigious society, D* knew, or should have known, that not following through on an offer was going to land them in a lawsuit. It is their fault it got this far.


----------



## Carl Spock (Sep 3, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> Not quite, there's a huge difference between a $200 car not being the color you want and a $30,000 car not in the color you want.


You're not addressing my argument at all but that's OK. You obviously enjoy getting out on a limb and jumping up and down on it. I admire that. It's something I like doing, too, and don't get a chance to do on this board (you should know me on other boards! :grin: ). You are a good at your arguments and I think you should keep it up.

I won't press you on the fragility of the limb you've gotten yourself out on. That wouldn't be fair. Your admirable trait is a willingness to get out on that limb and swing gleefully from it.

Good job, RunnerFL. :righton:


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> If that's as low as you have to go to understand what I'm saying then yes.
> 
> Where do you see fees capped at $200,000? And if so who do you think pays that $200,000? We the customer.


Did you actually read the link this thread is based on?
*
"The settlement calls for the Lakin Law Firm to receive attorney fees not to exceed $200,000."*​
Again I can't excuse a company's unethical behavior because it might cost me more money for them to do the right thing...

Based on your logic, the average "Customer" benefitted by DTV having all the revenue form new customer without having to pay all the SAC cost they should have by sending out $29.99 DVD players.. so if those customers bear the cost fo the settlement..so be it.

If I was your client should I be pleased if you defraud some of your clients so that I can pay a lower fee?

Regardless, this suit is all but settled.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

Of course there are more important issues facing our legal system. But that's irrelevant. The legal system is not supposed to reject an issue because it's "not important enough" (according to some). The mischief that would result from such a rule is mind-boggling. Few matters that come to court are of earth-shattering importance. This country's legal system is not supposed to deny citizen's access because their issue is "not important." Rather, citizens should be denied access only if their issue is *without merit.*

Many of the arguments being made against this lawsuit would eliminate class actions altogether. The very reason class actions exist is because without such a procedural tool, a defendant could injure millions of people in small amounts, such that it just isn't worth the bother for any individual to file an action. For example, I'm not going to file a case over being denied a $50 credit for signing up with DirecTV. But if DirecTV reneged on that promise to 1 million people, then you're talking real money, and that's what class actions are for. The United States Congress and every state legislature I know of has made the policy decision that class actions should be authorized.

Apparently folks got a $29 DVD player instead of a portable one that would have cost more, let's say $100. As far as I can see, that's no different than a promise of a $70 credit to get somebody to sign up. Or, when I got my HR20, I was promised 6 months free HD--a $60 value. If DirecTV didn't give me and 1 million others that free HD service, then it ought to have to pay, and a class action is the only way to accomplish that result if DirecTV doesn't do the right thing on its own.

IMHO, this action makes for a more perfect economic market. DirecTV should have to internalize the true costs of customer acquisition, and not be able to save millions of dollars by failing to perform part of the bargain to which it agreed in order to get those customers. Otherwise it would gain an inappropriate competitive advantage, causing market misallocations.

Finally--and I know this will likely meet with guffaws from many who have posted in this thread--justice has been done. Businesses shouldn't get away with such shady practices.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

:lol: :lol: I won't touch the argument between you guys, but I would like to congratulate you on a very amusing and clever response, I had to laugh out loud at that.



Carl Spock said:


> You're not addressing my argument at all but that's OK. You obviously enjoy getting out on a limb and jumping up and down on it. I admire that. It's something I like doing, too, and don't get a chance to do on this board (you should know me on other boards! :grin: ). You are a good at your arguments and I think you should keep it up.
> 
> I won't press you on the fragility of the limb you've gotten yourself out on. That wouldn't be fair. Your admirable trait is a willingness to get out on that limb and swing gleefully from it.
> 
> Good job, RunnerFL. :righton:


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> No offense to anyone here but if someone is having to pinch pennies to afford ketchup they may want to just stick with OTA.


That is perhaps not _meant _to be an offense but it sure doesn't sound very nice.

(And the counting pennies was to get the larger bottle, not about getting any ketchup.) Every family needs some entertainment, some can't afford the base cable channels and do go with OTA. Others only go with the most minimal cable package they can get that entertains them.

I know I'm a very privileged person, extremely well blessed. Somehow I'm also able to see other families and their point of view of what is "a trinket".

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> Did you actually read the link this thread is based on?
> *
> "The settlement calls for the Lakin Law Firm to receive attorney fees not to exceed $200,000."*​


Just a note - if for no other reason to show Jeff that I can have more than one opinion on a subject - the Lakin Law Firm has made quite a handsome business filing class action suits in the Illinois state courts. St. Clair County, Illinois, is right next to Madison County, Illinois, which - for those paying attention to such things - was previously declared a "judicial hellhole." Things are better now (Madison was taken OFF the "hellhole" list a short wile ago). But, less than perfect. St. Clair County, Illinois, Madision County, Illinois, Belleville, Illinois are ALL just across the river from St. Louis, Mo. - and area lawyers are familiar with the "home court advantage" that Illinois lawyers seem to have in the courts on that side of the river.

Doesn't necessarily go to the MERITS of this dispute . . . but, there's a "history" that should color some of this too.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Carl Spock said:


> You're not addressing my argument at all but that's OK.


And no one here is addressing mine so I'm giving up...

You guys think what you want and continue on with your frivolous lawsuits, we'll only have you to blame when our rates go up again.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Let's not forget that DirecTV has a pretty undistinguished history of customer dealings. Here's some lowlights from their recent past:

1. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=1344

2. http://www.wvago.gov/press.cfm?ID=356&fx=more

3. http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=1773&Q=282688

4. http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2006/102606.htm

5. http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/1998/012198.htm

6. http://www.directvrebatesettlement.com/faq.php3#Q1

7. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/12/directv.shtm

Hopefully att some point in time the judgments, fines, and/or settlements will get big enough to dissuade them from acting like this.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Mike:
> 
> I can see where SOME argument can be made that this suit may not be 100% meritorious on THAT issue.
> 
> MOST of us are familiar with late night television infomericials offering us "Ginzu knifes - a $199 value . . . for the incredibly LOW, LOW price of $49.99." Which begs the question: if I can buy the entire knife set for $49.99, how can it have a "value" of $199?? To SOME extent the consumer has to take these types of claims (which are called "puffery") with a huge grain of salt. Indeed, the law recognizes that "puffery" in sales language is not to be taken so literally. "Value" is also a "weasel" word . . . that doesn't mean the same as "price."


Agreed...If this went to trial that would be key. how much puffery before it becomes fraud? You couldn't legitamately say the Ginzu set had a value of $50,000..but $199 apparently is ok...You could argue a comparable product sells for that price..but if it isn't really comparable in terms of features and quality ( or actually functional) then that arguement fails.

...but if you read the article it also cited specific advertised features that the delivered merchandise did not have.

the settlement states the DVD players the plaintiff's ecieve will have at least all of those features.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Let's not forget that DirecTV has a pretty undistinguished history of customer dealings. Here's some lowlights from their recent past:
> 
> 1. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=1344
> 
> ...


Wow , if they could just behave, I'd be paying just $19.99 for Premier according to some posters.......:eek2:


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> ... Their lawsuit for $10 would be frivolous....


I guess you still do not see it, my point is it is about DirecTV cheating $100,000 out of those people, since you said if DirecTV cheated $10,000 out of you it would be a big deal, can I then conclude there is some double standard? Or should I call your $10,000 lawsuit frivolous as well?


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> That is perhaps not _meant _to be an offense but it sure doesn't sound very nice.
> 
> (And the counting pennies was to get the larger bottle, not about getting any ketchup.) Every family needs some entertainment, some can't afford the base cable channels and do go with OTA. Others only go with the most minimal cable package they can get that entertains them.
> 
> ...


Not to mention that some of the MOST penny pinching tightwads I've encountered are people who could easily afford NOT to pinch their pennies. Why do that it? Beats me . . . I guess that's how they GOT fabulously wealthy and can't or won't change their ways.

Short them one NICKEL and there is heck to pay.

It simply goes to show that it takes ALL kinds of people to make the world go around. I understand that the OP - like Jeff - would not himself (or herself, as the case may be) - be compelled to sue over the DVD player.

It's the notion that OTHER people - whose backgrounds/situations/experiences causes them to draw a different conclusion from the OP - are WRONG for doing so that so irks me. Especially in a situation where they do - indeed - appear to have been wronged.

As you've pointed out, Tom, one person's "trinket" is another person's "treasure." Why be upset when people are trying to get the "treasure" that (by all appearances) is due them?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Let's not forget that DirecTV has a pretty undistinguished history of customer dealings. Here's some lowlights from their recent past:
> 
> 1. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=1344
> 
> ...


Ken, are #3 and #5 the same event and reports from two different AG's about the matter?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Hey, man, I have nothing against you, we just have differing opinions on this subject. 



DirecTV3049 said:


> Just a note - if for no other reason to show Jeff that I can have more than one opinion on a subject - the Lakin Law Firm has made quite a handsome business filing class action suits in the Illinois state courts. St. Clair County, Illinois, is right next to Madison County, Illinois, which - for those paying attention to such things - was previously declared a "judicial hellhole." Things are better now (Madison was taken OFF the "hellhole" list a short wile ago). But, less than perfect. St. Clair County, Illinois, Madision County, Illinois, Belleville, Illinois are ALL just across the river from St. Louis, Mo. - and area lawyers are familiar with the "home court advantage" that Illinois lawyers seem to have in the courts on that side of the river.
> 
> Doesn't necessarily go to the MERITS of this dispute . . . but, there's a "history" that should color some of this too.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Ken, are #3 and #5 the same event and reports from two different AG's about the matter?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Tom,

I believe they are separate actions, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it as the dates are close and I'm trusting a press release as I'm far too lazy to do a full case search to compare


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Tom,
> 
> I believe they are separate actions, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it as the dates are close and I'm trusting a press release as I'm far too lazy to do a full case search to compare


They list each other's states as participants and the dates are pretty darn close: both on Jan. 21, 1998.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> They list each other's states as participants and the dates are pretty darn close: both on Jan. 21, 1998.


One talks about $12 million and 29 states the other talks about less than a million and 30 states. I can't be sure...could have been two settlements with some overlapping plaintiffs or just some confusing releases being read by a confused individual (me).

Okay, I just re-read the Connecticut release...it is the same item.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> Hey, man, I have nothing against you, we just have differing opinions on this subject.


No problem. BTW, the picture in your avatar reminds me of a picture I *used* to have on the desktop of my PC. Mine was from a "Sports Illustrated" photo shoot where the "swimsuit" was actually just "body paint."

That painted on "swimsuit" was very realistic looking - even though, technically, (aside from the paint) the model was nude. Nobody at work ever caught on - unless I told them she was naked, they would not have known. I made sure the IT Dept. guys were hooked up . . . so they never ratted me out.

Such were the pleasures of my misspent youth.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> And no one here is addressing mine so I'm giving up...
> 
> You guys think what you want and continue on with your frivolous lawsuits, we'll only have you to blame when our rates go up again.


There would be no frivolous lawsuit if D* would have done what they said they would do. How in the blue hell do you not get that?


----------



## bruceko (Dec 14, 2006)

Just more directv head in the sand.


----------



## PAJeep (Mar 8, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> And no one here is addressing mine so I'm giving up...
> 
> You guys think what you want and continue on with your frivolous lawsuits, we'll only have you to blame when our rates go up again.


No I get it. $50 is nothing to you so it should be nothing to everyone else. What's $10 here or $10 there. I wish I worked with you. Free lunches several times a week would be nice. PM me when your feeling generous and I'll give you my home address.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

mikewolf13 said:


> A ) the advertisement was for a portable player
> 
> b) again the qulaity/value of the player matters
> 
> ...


Random thought I don't think I've seen expressed yet: If DIRECTV planned to give away portable DVD players as incentives to attract new customers, they would have had to allocate some money for paying for those players and then write-off the costs, right?

If they planned to give away the $169-valued players and maybe paid $85 for them (being generous), and they planned to attract 20,000 new customers, they would have had to spend $1.7MM for those players.

Now they don't give away players valued at $169 ... they give away players valued less than that, let's say, $50, and DIRECTV paid $30 for each of these "lesser" players. Instead of paying $1.7MM, they paid $600,000, saving themselves $1.1MM ...

This may be chump change to some, but in my book, that's a lot of money...


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Just a note - if for no other reason to show Jeff that I can have more than one opinion on a subject - the Lakin Law Firm has made quite a handsome business filing class action suits in the Illinois state courts. St. Clair County, Illinois, is right next to Madison County, Illinois, which - for those paying attention to such things - was previously declared a "judicial hellhole." Things are better now (Madison was taken OFF the "hellhole" list a short wile ago). But, less than perfect. St. Clair County, Illinois, Madision County, Illinois, Belleville, Illinois are ALL just across the river from St. Louis, Mo. - and area lawyers are familiar with the "home court advantage" that Illinois lawyers seem to have in the courts on that side of the river.
> 
> Doesn't necessarily go to the MERITS of this dispute . . . but, there's a "history" that should color some of this too.


The is only one winner in any class action suite - the lawyers.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> In my opinion, this falls under the "panties in a bunch" classification. Nobody was harmed, and if someone made a service decision based solely on the possibility of receiving a free DVD player, well, they have bigger issues.
> 
> This is a trivial lawsuit, brought only so that lawyers can make money, I think it is totally ridiculous.


If someone cancels early and returns the leased equipment no one is harmed but D* gets it's "panties in a bunch"..... If someone makes you get your "panties in a bunch" then that someone should have to fix them......


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> The is only one winner in any class action suite - the lawyers.


As a lawyer I find that very offensive and insensative.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> As a lawyer I find that very offensive and insensative.


... and ignorant.


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> ... and ignorant.


maybe they can send out a bunch of HD DVD players???


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

Setting the arguments aside.

Any thoughts on why or how this happens.

Software problem
Human problem
Business decision
Execution w/ the program

Just wondering what some of your thoghts are.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

My opinion...

Software problem - :nono: 
Human problem - :nono:

*Business decision -* :money: :allthumbs :money:

Execution w/ the program - :nono:


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

HDTVsportsfan said:


> Setting the arguments aside.
> 
> Any thoughts on why or how this happens.
> 
> ...


Well, I have lived through a similar situation.

A company I was working for decided to have a "frequent flier" type of promotion. The more of our service the customer used the better the prize they'd be eligible for. The top prize was a very nice VCR (I think it cost over $500 back then).

Well, they ran the promotion featuring the high-end VCR prominently and several thousand people became eligible.

It was at this time the marketing folks discovered that the additional revenue generated by the promotion wasn't going to nearly cover the cost of the VCRs. So, they decided to solve this by sending out a much less expensive model instead. One of them actually bragged about how smart this was at a weekly executive meeting.

By the time we cleaned up the mess, which included negotiations with several state attorney generals and sent out apologies and checks to those customers (25% of whom also quit our service) the marketing person had been promoted and was in a different area of the company.

There's a lot of contempt for customers in corporate America...and more and more it's rewarded.


----------



## DtvSlave (Nov 14, 2007)

They don't want to be held responsible for their "commitment", then they shouldn't hold their customers responsible for breaking their "commitment" to keep DTV for a period of time.

I mean really how could it hurt them if they let one customer go without paying an early term fee?.....LOL


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

dodge boy said:


> As a lawyer I find that very offensive and insensative.


When comments such as those are made I just chalk it up to someone who doesn't have a clue as to the purpose of a class action lawsuit nor an understanding of the risks and expense required to begin one - they are simply parroting a soundbite that sounds good they heard someone else say.


----------



## Skooz (Jul 20, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> The is only one winner in any class action suite - the lawyers.


Absolutely true.

Just look at the numbers from the tobacco monstrosity in the 1990s. The lawyers made insane jack, far far more than anyone in whose name the lawsuit was pressed.

I am part of a class action suit right now (the DDR RAM price fixing thing from 1999 - 2001). It has been settled, but I don't expect much. Maybe a dollar or three. I would be shocked to get a ten dollar bill out of it.

But, the lawyers will all buy new Escalades or party barges. They will rack up, the price of RAM will probably go up, and I will be able to buy a cup of latte from Starbucks.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Skooz said:


> Absolutely true.
> 
> Just look at the numbers from the tobacco monstrosity in the 1990s. The lawyers made insane jack, far far more than anyone in whose name the lawsuit was pressed.
> 
> ...


How many millions of dollars did you risk on bringing that lawsuit?


----------



## krustytheclown (Apr 4, 2008)

We Signed up with DirecTV in Early July of 2007. We were suppose to get our portable DVD player in the 6-8 week period that was mentioned above. It is now about 9 months since that time.

We never received a DVD player. 

It's not even the fact that I want a portable DVD player, as I have a Zune, and probably wouldn't use the DVD player that often, its just shady that when a company tells you they will give you something, for signing up with them, and then doesn't do what THEY PROMISE TO DO IN PRINT.

I hate stupid lawsuits as much as the next guy, BUT when a Multi-Million Dollar Company LIES to people, thats when I have a problem.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

RunnerFL said:


> And part of those charges help make up for money lost in frivolous lawsuits. What is keeping you from getting that???
> 
> They money has to be made up somewhere! It doesn't grow on trees!


Incorrect. As a business consultant, I deal with many companies that go through lawsuits of one kind or another. Sometimes insurance of one kind or another covers the losses. Sometimes it comes out of profits (or bonuses or salaries)

I've yet to see an instance where prices were adjusted due to a lawsuit. And if that did occur, it would only mean that the prices weren't set right to begin with.



raott said:


> That is false. It goes directly to reduced profit. If D* tries to raise prices to make up for the $200k, demand is reduced and revenue drops, not rises.
> 
> They have priced their products where they are maximizing revenue right now.


Exactly right.


----------



## furjaw (Jul 29, 2007)

How do I sign up for the class action lawsuit?


----------



## Skooz (Jul 20, 2007)

Ken S said:


> How many millions of dollars did you risk on bringing that lawsuit?


Good point. But, I think you missed mine entirely.

I risked nothing. But, I am allegedly the aggrieved party.

The point the original poster made was that the lawyers are the ones who make out in these class action lawsuits. The fact is that they do. I don't begrudge them of that.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Ken S said:


> How many millions of dollars did you risk on bringing that lawsuit?


Ken, with respect, there is "risk" and, then, there is "risk." Let's not act like the Lakin Law Firm was at risk of going under if it lost this DirecTV lawsuit.

If class action lawsuits were so "risky" a business proposition for the Lakin Law Firm- at least in the courts of Southern Illinois - one would rationally expect that the Lakin Law Firm would limit its exposure by taking only a few of them, not many of them.

But, here's an article from 1/2005, discussing how the Lakin Law Firm filed SIX class action suits on ONE DAY (Dec. 30, 2004) in Madison County, Illinois. Link: http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/138133-lakin-law-firm-files-six-new-class-actions-before-years-end

The article notes that a total of 82 class action suits were filed in Madison County, Illinois, in 2004 . . . and, as the linked article notes, AT LEAST, 6 of those 82 class action lawsuits (7%) were filed by the Lakin Law Firm. That's a high percentage for ONE LAW FIRM to have, don't ya think? And that's not taking into account (1) how many of the other 76 class action lawsuits filed in 2004 in Madison County were filed by the Lakin Law Firm and (2) class action lawsuits filed by Lakin in OTHER Illinois courts (Monroe County, St. Clair County) that year.

Consider that almost all of these class action lawsuits involved *national* problems/programs. That is, the plaintiff class involved people from Maine to California. One has to wonder WHY so many class action lawsuits are filed in the STATE courts and in some relatively small Southern Illinois counties (Madison County, Monroe County, St. Clair County). Trust me, it's not the nightlife or the clean Midwestern living that causes many plaintiffs to file their class action lawsuits here.

Let's be clear: class action litigation today - in real life - is now a "business model" (or, at a minimum, a business specialty) for SOME law firms. These law firms hold conferences, share strategies, and information.

And I speak AS a lawyer who works in this specific part of the country.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Ken:

More information. In 2004, the Lakin Law Firm filed 21 class action lawsuits in Madison County, Illinois. That's 25% of all the class action lawsuits filed in Madison County, Illinois, in 2004. That doesn't include ANY class action suits (or other types of law suits, like malpractice, auto crash, etc.) it may have filed in Monroe or St. Clair Counties or anywhere else. (source: http://madisonrecord.com/news/contentview.asp?c=137430 ).


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Regardless of one's opinion of this law firm, DirecTV promised me, and others, something which they did not deliver. They sent a product that was very different and, in my opinion, inferior to what they promised. (The cheap home DVD player really does not work very well.)

It was no big deal to me, but perhaps it was to others. I don't think the criticism of this particular lawsuit is justified.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ken S said:


> How many millions of dollars did you risk on bringing that lawsuit?


And how much did they - hey class action suites are lucrative sources of income, so it is a win/win situation for someone


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Skooz said:


> Absolutely true.
> 
> Just look at the numbers from the tobacco monstrosity in the 1990s. The lawyers made insane jack, far far more than anyone in whose name the lawsuit was pressed.
> 
> ...


I got involved in that one also, I doubt that any real cash will hit the "injured parties", we will get a 5 or 6 percent discount coupon for any future purchase of ram from the manufacturer - that expires 60 days after it is issued.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> Regardless of one's opinion of this law firm, DirecTV promised me, and others, something which they did not deliver. They sent a product that was very different and, in my opinion, inferior to what they promised. (The cheap home DVD player really does not work very well.)
> 
> It was no big deal to me, but perhaps it was to others. I don't think the criticism of this particular lawsuit is justified.


If you read all of my posts in this thread, I think you will find that I agree with you (in so far as the "facts" that we have).

But, others have pointed out - and Ken has been responding to - a related point. Namely, that the individual plaintiff in this (or anyother) class action litigation gets very little in the way of compensation for his/her troubles, while the law firms involved take home substantial paychecks.

The "traditional" response for this situation is that the law firms incurred a lot of risk - mostly by out of pocketing a lot of money for lawyer/staff salaries, etc. - without any guarantee of a payoff. That may be correct in *theory,* but I think the *reality* is a lot different. Mostly, the reality is that the risk of getting $0 from a class action lawsuit is very, very small.


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> The "traditional" response for this situation is that the law firms incurred a lot of risk - mostly by out of pocketing a lot of money for lawyer/staff salaries, etc. - without any guarantee of a payoff. That may be correct in *theory,* but I think the *reality* is a lot different. Mostly, the reality is that the risk of getting $0 from a class action lawsuit is very, very small.


I agree 100%. Law firms do not take on the trivial class action cases that they feel may not make them money. They only take on the trivial class action cases that are most likely to bring in lots of cash.

Almost all are minor but obvious misrepresentation cases that will earn a huge pool of people a very small amount each but a huge payoff for the legal team. Most of the work in a class action suit is accounting and clerical work. The lawyers themselves put in little time since the cases are usually so obvious. It is the gathering of forms and creating lists that take the bulk of their time. This work is not done by the most highly paid of their legal team.

I've been involved in a few and receive mailings almost monthly offering the chance to join some other group because I may have been defrauded. For just my signature, I eventually have received a few coupons for worthless items and a couple of small checks that barely paid for my time to fill out the forms. The one I remember best was receiving a seat belt extender because the drivers seat belt in my BMW would be too short if I gained about 400 pounds. I still have the extender but sold the car years ago. I hope that person did not gain 400 pounds or he may sue me.

The fine print listing the total payoff on nearly all of these cases shows that the lawyers did a bit better than the clients. Most of these class action offer mailings just end up in my trash.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

txtommy said:


> I agree 100%. Law firms do not take on the trivial class action cases that they feel may not make them money. They only take on the trivial class action cases that are most likely to bring in lots of cash.
> 
> Almost all are minor but obvious misrepresentation cases that will earn a huge pool of people a very small amount each but a huge payoff for the legal team. Most of the work in a class action suit is accounting and clerical work. The lawyers themselves put in little time since the cases are usually so obvious. It is the gathering of forms and creating lists that take the bulk of their time. This work is not done by the most highly paid of their legal team.


Have you ever worked in a law firm?


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Ken:
> 
> More information. In 2004, the Lakin Law Firm filed 21 class action lawsuits in Madison County, Illinois. That's 25% of all the class action lawsuits filed in Madison County, Illinois, in 2004. That doesn't include ANY class action suits (or other types of law suits, like malpractice, auto crash, etc.) it may have filed in Monroe or St. Clair Counties or anywhere else. (source: http://madisonrecord.com/news/contentview.asp?c=137430 ).


I am curious how many law firms specializing in CA suits are in Madison County Ill..It may be that 25% is a failry reasonable number depending on their status and expertise...or they could be scoundrels...


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> If you read all of my posts in this thread, I think you will find that I agree with you (in so far as the "facts" that we have).
> 
> But, others have pointed out - and Ken has been responding to - a related point. Namely, that the individual plaintiff in this (or anyother) class action litigation gets very little in the way of compensation for his/her troubles, while the law firms involved take home substantial paychecks.
> 
> The "traditional" response for this situation is that the law firms incurred a lot of risk - mostly by out of pocketing a lot of money for lawyer/staff salaries, etc. - without any guarantee of a payoff. That may be correct in *theory,* but I think the *reality* is a lot different. Mostly, the reality is that the risk of getting $0 from a class action lawsuit is very, very small.


I doubt that the 200k the firm will bring in here was a huge windfall for them....how much associate time was spent on this case? over the past year or so since they were involved.

Also in THIS case the plaintiffs are not getting pennies they are getting portable DVD players with all the features that were initially promised.

To me that's pretty much a 100% win for the plaintiffs...with little fight from DTV...sounds like they know they were wrong.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

mikewolf13 said:


> I doubt that the 200k the firm will bring in here was a huge windfall for them....how much associate time was spent on this case? over the past year or so since they were involved.
> 
> Also in THIS case the plaintiffs are not getting pennies they are getting portable DVD players with all the features that were initially promised.
> 
> To me that's pretty much a 100% win for the plaintiffs...with little fight from DTV...sounds like they know they were wrong.


Actually it sounds like a pretty good win for DirecTV as well.

They have to send out the DVD players, which they were supposed to send out anyway as part of the promotion they designed.

They have to pay about $200K in attorneys' fees, which is not a lot of money for a $17B company.

They took a risk in not honoring their promotion, and it cost them the price of the promotion plus $200K. Not a bad downside.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Upstream said:


> Actually it sounds like a pretty good win for DirecTV as well.
> 
> They have to send out the DVD players, which they were supposed to send out anyway as part of the promotion they designed.
> 
> ...


Up - 
Are you insinuating that DTV *deliberatly *mis-lead their customers and *intentionally *sent out the sub-standard DVD players as a calculated risk to have lower marketing costs?

And people call me cynical......


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Ken, with respect, there is "risk" and, then, there is "risk." Let's not act like the Lakin Law Firm was at risk of going under if it lost this DirecTV lawsuit.
> 
> If class action lawsuits were so "risky" a business proposition for the Lakin Law Firm- at least in the courts of Southern Illinois - one would rationally expect that the Lakin Law Firm would limit its exposure by taking only a few of them, not many of them.
> 
> ...


Of course its a business model, but there is significant risk involved. The fact that one law firm specializes in that type of law shouldn't be a shock by any means. I'm an attorney as well and if I had a client with a potential class action case I would look to refer them to a firm specializing in that type of work. Just as attorneys refer work to my firm based on our areas of expertise. My firm does not have the financial resources to bring a class action suit where costs can run into the millions. There are other firms that have lines of credit and business models to support that kind of practice.

If I was going to file a class suit in that area I would seek out the people with expertise in the area and with the financial resources to hand the case. It appears that's what the Lakin Law firm does. For some reason you think that's a negative...I and any other prospective client would probably think just the reverse.

If you are an attorney you very well know there are seminars on every area and aspect of law. Is there something negative about attorneys remaining educated in their field? Should we not discuss strategies. I guess the insurance companies don't do that?

The firms that engage in class action law suits take significant cash/time risks. They try to do everything they can to win the lawsuit including choosing the best possible venue. That's probably why they're successful...and I don't think any client would want or expect anything less.

The fact that the firm isn't risking everything to bring a suit for a client doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to make money. DirecTV doesn't risk their business yet they make billions.

In the case of class action lawsuits the clients generally have little at risk, and take on almost no additional risk by participating.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Mike -- I have no idea if it was a deliberate attempt to mislead or just an execution failure. (My guess is execution failure, though as indicated in posts 189 190 and 191 in this thread, others believe it may have been a business decision.)

But intentional or not, at some point they realized that the promotion wasn't being honored. Their downside for not honoring the promotion was minimal.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> Up -
> Are you insinuating that DTV *deliberatly *mis-lead their customers and *intentionally *sent out the sub-standard DVD players as a calculated risk to have lower marketing costs?
> 
> And people call me cynical......


Are you suggesting the accidentally purchased and sent out the wrong DVD?
I believe that DirecTV either bought the cheaper DVDs purposely or is grossly negligent in the way they handle promotions. There are just too many of these "mistakes" to continue writing them off to accidental happenings.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

raott said:


> Have you ever worked in a law firm?


Yep. Worked in a law firm. I don't work in a law firm currently.

And I have friends who own law firms.

And if you look at the list of the firms who filed class action suits (and how many each firm filed) in Madison County in 2004 - you'll see a firm where both partners were in my law school class.

And I have good friends who work for corporations that get named in class action suits. We share tickets to the Rams games.

I good have friends who are lawyers primarily represent plaintiffs in personal injury work.

I have good friends who are lawyers who primarily defend against personal injury suits.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Of course its a business model, but there is significant risk involved. The fact that one law firm specializes in that type of law shouldn't be a shock by any means. I'm an attorney as well and if I had a client with a potential class action case I would look to refer them to a firm specializing in that type of work. Just as attorneys refer work to my firm based on our areas of expertise. My firm does not have the financial resources to bring a class action suit where costs can run into the millions. There are other firms that have lines of credit and business models to support that kind of practice.
> 
> If I was going to file a class suit in that area I would seek out the people with expertise in the area and with the financial resources to hand the case. It appears that's what the Lakin Law firm does. For some reason you think that's a negative...I and any other prospective client would probably think just the reverse.
> 
> ...


Ken - again - no probelm with the general *theory* of class action suits.

What you're missing - and it's my failure in describing the matter - is that Lakin is a relatively small law firm (Lakin is NOW only 18 attorneys) with its offices in WOOD RIVER, IL. Not exactly a booming metropolis.

And how it comes that this lawsuit - which involves DirecTV customers nationwide - ends up being brought in a rural county in Southern Illinois.

And how the judges in said county are elected on partisan tickets . . . and receive substantial contributions from the members of the Plaintiff's bar in that County.

Put it this way - the fact that EVERY jurisdiction has traffic cops doesn't mean that there aren't places that are notorious SPEED TRAPS. Madison County is the legal equivalent of a SPEED TRAP.

But, hey, if you can discern differently from Florida you have observational powers that exceed mine.


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> Just more proof that we live in a sue-happy country...


Yes, because God forbid that someone is out there holding companies accountable for promises they made to their customers.

It has nothing to do with being sue-happy. Companies SHOULD be held accountable for their actions.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Are you suggesting the accidentally purchased and sent out the wrong DVD?
> I believe that DirecTV either bought the cheaper DVDs purposely or is grossly negligent in the way they handle promotions. There are just too many of these "mistakes" to continue writing them off to accidental happenings.


as often happens..what I would like to beleive is not in concert with the facts....

I prefer to think companies make mistakes as oppossed to outright dishonesty ...incompetence over malice...but "There are just too many of these "mistakes" to continue writing them off to accidental happenings"


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Ken - again - no probelm with the general *theory* of class action suits.
> 
> What you're missing - and it's my failure in describing the matter - is that Lakin is a relatively small law firm (Lakin is NOW only 18 attorneys) with its offices in WOOD RIVER, IL. Not exactly a booming metropolis.
> 
> ...


Ahh so you're suggesting that you have corrupt judges in that county?

Is the case without merit? From what I've read the plaintiffs certainly had a basis for their claim.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a firm picking the best venue possible to bring a case. Once again...isn't that part of what representing a client to the best of your ability is all about? If there's corruption on the part of the judges or this firm someone should report it to the state bar.

If you read the DirecTV agreement you'll see they put in a clause requiring arbitration. Want to take a guess what the win rate is for companies that use the private arbitration firms? They are picking the venue they believe to give them the best chance of winning....they are also paying these firms retainers.

I don't get why the size of the firm matters? Some of the best trial lawyers I've ever worked with were in smaller firms...generally because if you pack too many of them in one building it will explode.

So, corruption aside the fact that the suit was brought in that venue isn't that bothersome to me. The fact that a firm with 17 lawyers and my guess about 30 support personnel is bringing class suits isn't a shock. Do you think they partner with other firms and get referrals?


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> ..but "There are just too many of these "mistakes" to continue writing them off to accidental happenings"


Indeed. I grew up during the Ford Pinto debacle. I think there are BOTH company mistakes/screw-ups, but there is also sheer, unadultared greed.

When I worked in a law firm, I worked for clients who were scrupulously honest (yet sometimes messed up) AND I worked for clients whose "ethics" were questionable and constantly pushed the legal envelope . . . whose sole consideration was whether they were LIKELY to get away with something (chance of being caught, factored into the costs incurred IF caught versus cost of "doing the right" thing).

How much is incompetence and how much is greed. IMO? Too much of both. That and a heavy helping of the "road to hell is paved with good intentions."


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Ahh so you're suggesting that you have corrupt judges in that county?


Corrupt as in taking bribes? No. I've got no evidence of that.

But - if you've actually tried cases - you know there's a difference between walking into a federal courtoom, say, in Chicago where there are more lawyers than ANY judge could personally know . . . and walking into a state level courtroom in small town where . . . when YOU get there, the judge and the Plaintiff's attorney are already discussing their kids, their wifes, and where they're going on vacation (and that's a true story).

Madison County is the latter. Keep in mind, Edwardsville, IL (the county seat for Madison County) is only about a 20 - 30 minute drive from downtown St. Louis . . . AND lawyers FROM St. Louis take note of this "coziness" between the "local" plaintiff's bar and the local judges. In Madison County, St. Louis lawyers are considered "foreigners." Wonder how lawyers from Chicago, New York, or LA feel?

Any of this illegal? Nope.

But, if you're the defendant, is it likely to make you feel like you're gonna get any close calls? Nope.

There are other things about Madison County that make it somewhat unique. For example, it's docket moves fast - really fast. Particularly in comparison to similar sized jurisdictions in THIS area.

I don't know about Florida, but HERE it's unusual to be having a jury trial six months after the civil complaint is filed. And THAT happens in Madison County. Which is "unusual." Illegal? No. Unusual? Yep. And - for the most part - tips in favors of plaintiffs.

Yep, arbitration is beeatch for the individual consumer.

But, what does pointing out that DirecTV (or any other company) does better in arbitration than individual consumer's do, have to do with this discussion of class action suits . . . except some "Global Notion of Karma" of what goes around comes around. That is, what DirecTV loses in class actions in places like Madison County, it gains back in things like arbitration. Uh, ok.

Look . . . there's nothing wrong with saying (1) class action lawsuits have their place while - at the same time - noting (2) the current class action system has some "problems." At least, I don't think so.

True, the MERE fact - by itself - that the DirecTV case was brought in Madison County doesn't MEAN that it has no merit. But, the fact that it WAS brought in Madison County - as opposed to say Cook County, Illinois or Nassau County, New York is certainly . . . "interesting."

I think it's "interesting" too that Madison County - which is relatively rural - has this "history" vis a vis class action law suits and that this suit was brought by a firm that specializes in class action suits (and does almost nothing else).

Pretty soon the accumulation of such "interesting" points starts to look more than coincendental and, therefore, raises some concern that the class action process - as it operates in the real world - is less than ideal.


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Corrupt as in taking bribes? No. I've got no evidence of that.
> 
> But - if you've actually tried cases - you know there's a difference between walking into a federal courtoom, say, in Chicago where there are more lawyers than ANY judge could personally know . . . and walking into a state level courtroom in small town where . . . when YOU get there, the judge and the Plaintiff's attorney are already discussing their kids, their wifes, and where they're going on vacation (and that's a true story).
> 
> ...


Wow I'm really trying to figure out where you going with this. As a Southern IL resident I can't help but think your saying us "rural" folk shouldn't have courts because we might not all be strangers to one another. I also have to LOL at your suggestion that ST Louis res/lawyers are considered "foreigners" to that area. When that same area advertises to IL residents to stay the night at Edwardsville or Fair View Hieghts because it is so close to St Louis. I'd say most residents of Madison County, and Saint Clair county work in St Louis and simply commute.

I don't even see why this topic of location has even become a issue. All I can tell you is here in Southern IL I get at least one "Free Portable DVD Player" offer in the mail/paper each week from D*. Now if they aren't honoring that offer they should be sued.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I don't think it's coincidental at all. If you look at the federal court system you will see the same type of activity. BTW, civil trials in six months...check out the Eastern District of Virginia...known as one of the rocket dockets across the US. Funny how a lot of corporate suits get filed there.

Choice of venue is an advantage without a doubt.

Our judicial system has some problems. But, in general, they tip in favor of the bigger, richer client. For every class action case how many confidential settlements does corporate America negotiate?

In this case I just don't see where venue played that big a part. Plaintiffs brought it where they knew they would get a fast hearing...DirecTV obviously knew they had a problem and are going to settle.



DirecTV3049 said:


> Corrupt as in taking bribes? No. I've got no evidence of that.
> 
> But - if you've actually tried cases - you know there's a difference between walking into a federal courtoom, say, in Chicago where there are more lawyers than ANY judge could personally know . . . and walking into a state level courtroom in small town where . . . when YOU get there, the judge and the Plaintiff's attorney are already discussing their kids, their wifes, and where they're going on vacation (and that's a true story).
> 
> ...


----------



## Rage187 (Oct 27, 2007)

My wife was just asking about our portable DVD player we sent away for in September. Guess I know the outcome already.


----------



## ZBM2 ZAR3 (Apr 1, 2008)

Instead of class-action lawsuits; maybe the better business bureau or other consumer advocate agency could deal with this...


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

ZBM2 ZAR3 said:


> Instead of class-action lawsuits; maybe the better business bureau or other consumer advocate agency could deal with this...


I suspect calling the BBB would accomplish about as much as complaing on the internet.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Let's not forget that DirecTV has a pretty undistinguished history of customer dealings. Here's some lowlights from their recent past:
> 
> 1. http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=1344
> 
> ...


Can we make this list a sticky - ongoing class action suits / see if you qualify?

Somehow I don't think the fanboys will put this one up there.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

Will the $ 50 VISA card that I am currently waiting for turn into an offer of $ 50 off Direct TV services?


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

highheater said:


> Will the $ 50 VISA card that I am currently waiting for turn into an offer of $ 50 off Direct TV services?


You know at least they offer you actual money to sign up for ABP. My electric company charges you to pay them in every form of paymeant except automatic check withdraw. We will never do that with them!! I once had a 800$ electric bill after a rate hike with "esimated usage". We called up and had them come out and read the meter and the bill was adjusted to 300$. Now we make sure we get nothing but actual readings!!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

highheater said:


> Can we make this list a sticky - ongoing class action suits / see if you qualify?
> 
> Somehow I don't think the fanboys will put this one up there.


Those aren't class action suits. They were list of settled complaints with DirecTV. There are some ongoing class action suits going against DirecTV however...but that's a different list for a different thread.


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

What I get a kick out of is people assuming that all lawsuits are bad, even though they involve what are, at best, dishonest business practices. The legal system is DESIGNED to handled problems like this but now its a bad thing to actually use it to get a remedy to a problem that a company clearly doesn't want to just deal with in an honorable and legitimate fashion?

Not all lawsuits are bad and most things like the BBB are useless. Huge companies like D* only see one thing - money. It doesn't cost them anything to have a complaint against them with the BBB because most people don't check there before signing up.

The legal system is perfectly good at handling these issues and should be used to do so. Generally, its the ONLY way to get a remedy from a huge corporation that doesn't really care all that much about the issue because they are compelled to respond to a lawsuit (or just settle it, which is still a response).


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

D* gets people to sign up for 2 years, at $100/month that's $2400 not including any up front costs. Yet they can't send out a $40 dvd player? 

They deserve it.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

generalpatton78 said:


> Wow I'm really trying to figure out where you going with this. As a Southern IL resident I can't help but think your saying us "rural" folk shouldn't have courts because we might not all be strangers to one another. I also have to LOL at your suggestion that ST Louis res/lawyers are considered "foreigners" to that area. When that same area advertises to IL residents to stay the night at Edwardsville or Fair View Hieghts because it is so close to St Louis. I'd say most residents of Madison County, and Saint Clair county work in St Louis and simply commute.
> 
> I don't even see why this topic of location has even become a issue. All I can tell you is here in Southern IL I get at least one "Free Portable DVD Player" offer in the mail/paper each week from D*. Now if they aren't honoring that offer they should be sued.


Location is an issue for this reason: if your virtuous sister beds down at the local bordello, then she's going to have a "reputation" whether said reputation is accurate or not. Or, if you lay down with dogs - you can hardly complain if someone suspects you may have fleas.

Sorry that you don't "get" it. I suspect you're not a lawyer. I also suspect you don't read the newspaper much - even the Belleville ones.

My best friend is a lawyer for a major retailer and he works out the retailer's offices in St. Louis. This friend is from Southern Illinois (Benton, Illinois to be exact), and he still has family and friends there. We had lunch today and we were talking about this. His comment: "Madison County, Monroe County, and St. Clair County are all corrupt. The City of St. Louis has a couple of judges that I'd call "plaintiff friendly," but it goes beyond that over there."

It's not for nothing that Madison County and Monroe County earned the designation "Judicial Hellhole." And, yeah, that was by an organization pushing tort reform, still - they DID have the ammunition to make the accusation stick.

Want just one MORE taste of the flavor of practicing law in Southern Illinois? Two words: Amiel Cueto. He was a politically connected lawyer from Southern Illinois (Belleville, Il). In 1997, Cueto was convicted in federal court of conspiring to defraud the United States Government and THREE counts of obstructing justice.

Despite his 1997 convictions, Cueto was not DISBARRED from the practice of law in Illinois until Dec. 2004 - 7 years after his conviction.

What you have to understand is this: that conviction would have been an automatic disbarrment almost as soon as the ink dried on the judgment in ANY other jurisdiction. The disbarment would have gone into effect EVEN IF Cueto sought an appeal of his conviction. But this is Illinois . . . and Southern Illinois in particular. In an "unusual" move, rather than disbar him immediately, Cueto's license to practice law in Illinois was merely "suspended on an interim basis."

Eventually, this "farce" - an interim suspension - became too much for even the Illinois Registration and Disciplinary Committee to maintain . . . therefore, they eventually managed to have Cueto disbarred (seven years after he had been convicted).

But hey, if you're "comfortable" with a legal system where the judges sitting on a case may have - just yesterday - accepted a large campaign contribution from one of the lawyers appearing before him . . . well, then, you're living in the right place.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Wow. For some reason I am not surprised at the personal attacks coming from a logon name with DirecTV in it. It's easier to understand DirecTV's attitude towards their customers after reading a post like that.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Location is an issue for this reason: if your virtuous sister beds down at the local bordello, then she's going to have a "reputation" whether said reputation is accurate or not. Or, if you lay down with dogs - you can hardly complain if someone suspects you may have fleas.
> 
> Sorry that you don't "get" it. I suspect you're not a lawyer. I also suspect you don't read the newspaper much - even the Belleville ones.
> 
> ...


I guess DirecTV has never made campaign contributions?

There are many states where the judges are elected rather than appointed. The appointee system has more than it share of flaws. Not that any politician has ever put hacks on the bench to pay off political favors or garner them in the future. Nope...that's never happened.

Hey...the electorate is really too stupid to decide who should be a judge that needs to be left to our trustworthy politicians...you know the ones that get huge campaign contributions.

I also chuckle when I hear about "plaintiff" friendly lawyers from corporations. Gee...someone found a judge that ruled against them when they did something wrong...he must be on the take. A jurisdiction that pushes cases forward and doesn't allow items to be delayed and/or rot on the docket should be applauded.

There are problems in every state, but to claim that little old DirecTV was harmed by the big, bad plaintiff's bar in Southern Illinois in this case is a bit much. I don't suppose there are any trial lawyers in Madison County that DirecTV could have hired? That's pretty common practice at least whenever any of my corporate clients were going into court.

But...all of this has little to do with the case we're discussing. DirecTV is settling. DirecTV could have easily avoided all of this...they chose not to and I'm sure they had numerous chances to handle this when people started calling/writing with complaints.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

jjohns said:


> Wow. For some reason I am not surprised at the personal attacks coming from a logon name with DirecTV in it. It's easier to understand DirecTV's attitude towards their customers after reading a post like that.


Personal???

Fact: the Illinois state court judges in Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair County run for their offices on political tickets (i.e., they run AS Democrats or Republicans).

Fact: Plaintiff's lawyers who practice in Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair County make large political donations to the election campaigns of said judges.

Fact: the day AFTER making a large political contribution to a judge, a Plaintiff's lawyer from Madison, Monroe, or St. Clair County WILL appear in front of the very same judge.

Fact: there is NOTHING illegal about this practice in Southern Illinois.

It is also true that SOME people have no problem with this "system" for selecting state court judges.

The OP appears to be one of them.

Other people, however, view it as "unseemly" for a lawyer to, on April 2, 2008, make a large political donation to a judge and, then, on April 3, 2008, appear before that very same judge.

Put me in that category. I'd like for my judges to appear a little more impartial thankyou.

The courts in Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair county have a bad reputation. They have a bad reputation among local lawyers . . . and they have a bad reputation nationally. Google them. I'll wait. That reputation - based on my own personal experience appearing in those courts and on information I have from other lawyers who have as well - is pretty well deserved. The situation has gotten better in the past two years, but it's still not great.

Regardless of the merits of the class action suit against DirecTV, the place where the suit was filed (St. Clair County) - because of the bad reputation of the court system there - carries a "taint."

I have no affiliation with DirecTV other than being a customer . . . I use that moniker because it's EASY to remember when I'm on a forum dedicated to discussing matters pertaining to DirecTV.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I guess DirecTV has never made campaign contributions?
> 
> There are many states where the judges are elected rather than appointed. The appointee system has more than it share of flaws. Not that any politician has ever put hacks on the bench to pay off political favors or garner them in the future. Nope...that's never happened.
> 
> ...


You know what I find interesting Ken? You're defending a court that you've never set foot in and, before this thread, likely never heard anything about.

Not ONCE in this thread did I write on what side of the playing field - plaintiff or defense - I was acting on when *I* personally appeared in these Courts.

Truth is, the law firm I worked for did a little of both. Our primary client was a bank and we sued borrowers and other banks (on loans where they'd want to spread the risk by having other participants). We also handled some PI and other work (contracts) too.

I know what I saw. I know how it compares to other courts. I know what other local lawyers think - you do not.

You want to go on talking about something you haven't seen first hand or discussed with anyone who HAS seen it first hand, then knock yourself out.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Personal???
> 
> Regardless of the merits of the class action suit against DirecTV, the place where the suit was filed (St. Clair County) - because of the bad reputation of the court system there - carries a "taint."


Any different than all the credit card companies being located in consumer-unfriendly Delaware? If the big companies can stack the cards in their favor why can't the little guy do the same?

Surprised Direct TV can be sued at all - I would have guessed they would have placed some arbitration only clause in their contracts by now.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

DirecTV3049 said:


> Personal???
> 
> Fact: the Illinois state court judges in Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair County run for their offices on political tickets (i.e., they run AS Democrats or Republicans).
> 
> ...


So, please explain to me exactly what part of this process may have been tainted? We all understand you don't like the courts in Southern Illinois. All your buddies don't like them too. But...in what way could this case have been tainted? Did DirecTV really deliver the proper DVD players? Did they not make the offer? Why not go to trial? Why not try to remove the case to the federal courts or a different jurisdiction? My guess...someone at DirecTV looked at the facts and said we need to settle this case before the damages grow bigger and we get even more negative publicity.

You also didn't bother to respond when I asked why DirecTV didn't hire local counsel? It's pretty standard procedure...my guess is they could probably afford to do so. Certainly, there's another law firm in that area that has made campaign contributions.

As for political contributions...it goes both ways and I'll take that system over appointed judges any day. I have a great deal more problem with Supreme Court Justices receiving favors from the President and Vice President. So..appointed or elected...there are flaws. Oh, and if you want to see a history of judicial corruption go look at Philadelphia both on the local and federal levels. Unfortunately, we live in a society where people are willing to sell their integrity.

Here's a NY Times article on the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/us/01judges.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

highheater said:


> Surprised Direct TV can be sued at all - I would have guessed they would have placed some arbitration only clause in their contracts by now.


They have and it has already been ruled as unconscionable in at least one jurisdiction.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

DirecTV3049 said:


> You know what I find interesting Ken? You're defending a court that you've never set foot in and, before this thread, likely never heard anything about.
> 
> Not ONCE in this thread did I write on what side of the playing field - plaintiff or defense - I was acting on when *I* personally appeared in these Courts.
> 
> ...


Please show me one quote where I'm discussing the actual local courts, judges, and/or local attorneys? I have only stated that the facts of what happened don't lend themselves to there being much opportunity for prejudice as DirecTV settled it very quickly.

I have no idea of what law firm you work for or who you have represented. If you believe that the judges in your area are corrupt I would advise you to file complaints with your state bar rather complain on an internet message board. Did the law firm you worked for make political contributions? Did any lawyers from your firm ever then have one of those judges hear their cases?

I have defended the right of people to vote for their judges. You don't agree obviously. Perhaps you don't believe lawyers should have the right to make political contributions to judges...that should be reserved for insurance companies or other corporations? It certainly appears that some of the newer justices on the Illinois Supreme Court were well funded. I wonder by whom?



DirecTV3049 said:


> I know what I saw. I know how it compares to other courts. I know what other local lawyers think - you do not.


So, you know how these local courts compare to all of the courts everywhere? Gee...and you claim that I'm overreaching. By the way, that power of telepathy you have must be quite an advantage. I'm sure all of the other local attorneys empty their souls to you on a regular basis.

If you want to continue with personal attacks take them somewhere else or waste them on someone else other than me.

If you want to discuss, or explain, how DirecTV was wronged in this specific case have at it. Your weak and wild claims of judicial bias and the story of an attorney who was suspended rather than disbarred (both it would seem having the same effect if he couldn't practice law) have little bearing on this issue.

I do understand you don't trust anything that happens in those courts. You have failed though to explain why poor little DirecTV didn't do more to defend itself. Were you involved in this case?


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Ken S said:


> So, please explain to me exactly what part of this process may have been tainted? We all understand you don't like the courts in Southern Illinois. All your buddies don't like them too. But...in what way could this case have been tainted? Did DirecTV really deliver the proper DVD players? Did they not make the offer? Why not go to trial? Why not try to remove the case to the federal courts or a different jurisdiction? My guess...someone at DirecTV looked at the facts and said we need to settle this case before the damages grow bigger and we get even more negative publicity.


I didn't say that it was ACTUALLY tainted. In fact, re-read my posts and you'll see that. I DID say that the "history" of class action "abuse" in Southern Illinois supplies some background color. That "background" color is relevant in the same way that when YOU sleep with dogs, others may believe YOU have fleas. It colors - rightfully or wrongfully - their perception of you. Period. End of story.



> You also didn't bother to respond when I asked why DirecTV didn't hire local counsel?


Since you missed the point, I'll repeat it.

I AM licensed to practice in Illinois. I LIVE in Missouri. I WORKED (actually, still do) in Illinois - and had a short commute (30 minutes) to Edwardsville and Belleville . . . assuming I had the other qualifications you want - you'd EXPECT me to be capable local counsel for your case in Madison County . . . unfortunately, in the EYES OF THE JUDGES, Clerk's Office Staff, and other judicial personnel in Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair, I was a "from out of town" because I wasn't FROM Madison County, or Monroe, or St. Clair. It's a VERY PROVINCIAL place.

If you're a lawyer in this area, then crossing the Mississippi River is like going into a different country. You may not believe it . . . but, regardless, it is true. I've experienced it first hand, lawyers here talk about it, it is a well-known local "fact."

What can I tell ya? So there's "local counsel" and there's really "local counsel" in this part of the country.

I don't know WHO DirecTV hired, BUT - I can tell you - that the number of lawyers (and size of law firms) available who have their main/primary/only offices in Madison County, Monroe County, or Belleville is pretty small.



> Certainly, there's another law firm in that area that has made campaign contributions.


Here's a report on who contributes what to judges campaigns in this area. Yes, the source of the report probably has some bias . . . but nobody's ever argued with the numbers they put out: http://www.atra.org/reports/IL_justice/
According to this report, 75% of all contributions to local judicial campaigns came from plaintiff trial lawyers practicing in medical mal, class action, or PI areas.

No matter HOW you slice it, Ken, that number looks bad to the "man of the street."


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

DirecTV3049 said:


> I didn't say that it was ACTUALLY tainted. In fact, re-read my posts and you'll see that. I DID say that the "history" of class action "abuse" in Southern Illinois supplies some background color. That "background" color is relevant in the same way that when YOU sleep with dogs, others may believe YOU have fleas. It colors - rightfully or wrongfully - their perception of you. Period. End of story.
> 
> Since you missed the point, I'll repeat it.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't consider someone 30 minutes away from a local court to be local counsel. Yes, they could be a member of the bar, but when I went looking for local counsel I was always looking for someone that practiced regularly in those courts before those judges. I have yet to find a local/state court where there wasn't some bias. Go to Chester County Pennsylvania with a lawyer that practices 20 minutes away in Philadelphia and you get the same thing. Broward County lawyers sometimes find things a bit chilly in Palm Beach.

As for the contributions to local judges campaigns...who else cares? Of course lawyers are making the bulk of those contributions. Those contributions are also public information and available to the voting public unlike what happens in the world of politically appointed judges. On the state level though things change. Didn't Illinois have the most expensive election in history for the Supreme Court recently? You talk about things looking bad to the man on the street, but I think you're proposing that the man on the street shouldn't be allowed to elect their judges.

Clearly a judge that believes they cannot be unbiased on a case should recuse themselves. But that's far different than judges being removed because they don't rule on cases the way certain groups think they should.

I've said before there are abuses on both sides and with both systems. I'll still take the current system over the "tort reformers" pro-corporate/insurance company gifts. There is much good that has come from the plaintiff's bar...if anything there should never be a question that we can trust corporate executives to look out for the health or best interests of their customers when that conflicts with making an extra dollar.

Once again, I understand your point on this settlement. I just don't think there's any evidence to suggest it would have turned out differently if filed elsewhere. DirecTV settled way too quickly to logically think otherwise.

This has turned way off topic and has probably bored the rest of the forum to sleep. I originally posted the article because it came up in a news search...I had no editorial. I was amazed when people claimed the lawsuit shouldn't have been filed...that the plaintiffs were wrong to do so. While I understand your comments on the courts in Madison County and have read about what used to happen there before the President decided to gut yet another avenue of consumer protection to favor his buddies (a topic for another time and another forum) I don't believe that venue had any real effect on this case. I understand you feel it "may" have.


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

Ken S said:


> As for the contributions to local judges campaigns...who else cares? Of course lawyers are making the bulk of those contributions.


It's one thing to say that lawyers (in general) - both plaintiff and defense - contribute to judicial campaigns; but when 75% of the contributions come from ONE side of the aisle then . . . :eek2:



> but I think you're proposing that the man on the street shouldn't be allowed to elect their judges[/quote[]
> 
> Seems to work fine for the federal judiciary . . . the Founding Fathers having a "soft spot" for an INDEPENDENT judiciary that seems to P.O. both the right and the left fairly equally.
> 
> ...


----------



## generalpatton78 (Dec 17, 2003)

Let me make this clear I take great offense to the BS DirecTV3049 :kickbutt: is spewing about Southern IL. Now I don't have any experience with the court systems in St Clair or Madison counties, but I have served as a Juror in a federal conspiracy case in Benton IL (Franklin County).

Our area may be rural but yes we have newspapers (even one called "The Southern Illinoisan") and the Internet. So yes we read and even have representation in Washington  . Actually one of our countries greatest law makers Paul Simon lived just a few miles from me and even Obama has ties to our area. So I'm sorry DirecTV3049 if you don't like our courts or our rural lifestyle, but your vote counts the same as mine.!pride !pride :icon_peac


----------



## DirecTV3049 (Sep 13, 2007)

generalpatton78 said:


> Now I don't have any experience with the court systems in St Clair or Madison counties


'Nuff said.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

generalpatton78 said:


> Let me make this clear I take great offense to the BS DirecTV3049 :kickbutt: is spewing about Southern IL. Now I don't have any experience with the court systems in St Clair or Madison counties, but I have served as a Juror in a federal conspiracy case in Benton IL (Franklin County).
> 
> Our area may be rural but yes we have newspapers (even one called "The Southern Illinoisan") and the Internet. So yes we read and even have representation in Washington  . Actually one of our countries greatest law makers Paul Simon lived just a few miles from me and even Obama has ties to our area. So I'm sorry DirecTV3049 if you don't like our courts or our rural lifestyle, but your vote counts the same as mine.!pride !pride :icon_peac


Rural not withstanding, if you do some research you will find that madision counties earned label of the class action lawsuit captial of the US at one time. Might be a little better now but any class action suite filed was getting a change of venue to that area

As shown in a except from the presidential speech given when the Class Action fairness Act of 2005 was signed

"Class-actions can serve a valuable purpose in our legal system. They allow numerous victims of the same wrong-doing to merge their claims into a single lawsuit. When used properly, class-actions make the legal system more efficient and help guarantee that injured people receive proper compensation. That is an important principle of justice. So the bill I sign today maintains every victim's right to seek justice, and ensures that wrong-doers are held to account.

Class-actions can also be manipulated for personal gain. Lawyers who represent plaintiffs from multiple states can shop around for the state court where they expect to win the most money. A few weeks ago, I visited Madison County, Illinois, where juries have earned a reputation for awarding large verdicts. The number of class-actions filed in Madison County has gone from two in 1998 to 82 in 2004 -- even though the vast majority of the defendants named in those suits are not from Madison County. Trial lawyers have already filed 24 class-actions in Madison County this year. We're in February. (Laughter.) Including 20 in the past week -- after Congress made it clear their chance to exploit the class-action system would soon be gone.

Before today, trial lawyers were able to drag defendants from all over the country into sympathetic local courts, even if those businesses have done nothing wrong. Many businesses decided it was cheaper to settle the lawsuits, rather than risk a massive jury award. In many cases, lawyers went home with huge pay-outs, while the plaintiffs ended up with coupons worth only a few dollars. By the time the settlement in at least one case was finished, plaintiffs actually owed their lawyers money.

A newspaper editorial called the class-action system "an extortion racket that only Congress can fix." This bill helps fix the system. Congress has done its duty, and I'm proud to sign it into law.

Over the past few years I've met people from all over the country who know the importance of class-action reform firsthand, and three of them are with us today. Marylou Rigat lives in Connecticut, yet a class-action involving her faulty roof was resolved by a judge in Alabama. The award covered only a fraction of the cost of new shingles, but that wasn't Marylou's biggest problem. She had no idea she was part of the class-action in the first place, and no one contacted her about her award. She only learned by accident when she called the company about her warranty. And then she found out there was nothing more she could do.

Hilda Bankston is with us. And her late husband used to own a drugstore in Fayette, Mississippi. Their business was doing well, until the store got swept up in massive litigation just because it dispensed prescription drugs for a certain drug -- prescriptions for a certain drug. She had to sell the pharmacy six years ago. But she's still getting dragged into court, again and again. Here's what she said: "My husband and I lived the American Dream until we were caught up in what has become an American nightmare."

Alita Ditkowsky is with us. She was part of a class-action against a company that made faulty televisions. When the case was settled in Madison County, Illinois, Alita's lawyer took home a big check while she got a $50 rebate on another TV, built by the same company that had ruined the first TV. (Laughter.) Here's what she said: "I'm still left with a broken TV." (Laughter.) "He got $22 million. Where's the justice in this?" "


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Once again...let's get out the violin for the poor little corporations that never do anything wrong, never put a $1 profit in front of risk to human life and never use their huge wallets and massive PR departments to sway the legal system their way.

Don't let the people vote for judges...that would be unfair. Far better to have appointed political hacks on the bench.

We should also limit the amount people can win in lawsuits...that way the corporations can have actual numbers to plug into their spreadsheets when determining what their risk might be.

Think they don't take risks with your lives to save a dollar? Read a little about what Southwest Air has been up to recently. It was probably all those legal fees they pay that made them fly unsafe planes with structural cracks.

Can you imagine what product safety would be like today without the fear of lawsuits? I think we'd all be sewing and packing our own parachutes.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Once again...let's get out the violin for the poor little corporations that never do anything wrong, never put a $1 profit in front of risk to human life and never use their huge wallets and massive PR departments to sway the legal system their way.
> 
> Don't let the people vote for judges...that would be unfair. Far better to have appointed political hacks on the bench.
> 
> ...


Yup - fine example of a "major" corporation, sure glad they had the PR and huge wallets.

"Hilda Bankston is with us. And her late husband used to own a drugstore in Fayette, Mississippi. Their business was doing well, until the store got swept up in massive litigation just because it dispensed prescription drugs for a certain drug -- prescriptions for a certain drug. She had to sell the pharmacy six years ago. But she's still getting dragged into court, again and again. Here's what she said: "My husband and I lived the American Dream until we were caught up in what has become an American nightmare." "


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> Yup - fine example of a "major" corporation, sure glad they had the PR and huge wallets.
> 
> "Hilda Bankston is with us. And her late husband used to own a drugstore in Fayette, Mississippi. Their business was doing well, until the store got swept up in massive litigation just because it dispensed prescription drugs for a certain drug -- prescriptions for a certain drug. She had to sell the pharmacy six years ago. But she's still getting dragged into court, again and again. Here's what she said: "My husband and I lived the American Dream until we were caught up in what has become an American nightmare." "


Ahh...here come the half-truth anecdotes. Let's see is this the case where the drugs were expired or they continued to sell them after they had been told not to? I suppose they didn't bother to carry insurance. Poor Hilda...she made a profit from a product that hurt people and now she has to go to court. That shouldn't be allowed...not for Hilda and certainly not for Walmart.

You can spew more of this type of rubbish in this thread if you'd like. You've made it clear you believe it's not fair to sue people/corporations that make profits and either defraud or hurt people in the process. It's not fair to elect judges they MUST be appointed so certain political beliefs can be pushed...no matter what the general electorate wants.

Oh wait...poor Hilda wasn't harmed at all...in fact, it appears she's a liar...
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7518

Hilda Bankston Story - Recycled, But Still False

PRI's anecdotes are just as phony as the crisis the report supposedly documents. Perhaps the most outrageous of these is the uncorrected story of the Bankston Drugstore.

Hilda Bankston became a darling of lobbyists and lawmakers seeking to restrict plaintiffs' rights in 2002 when she first came to Washington, D.C., to tell her story. Bankston testified to Congress that her family's drugstore was named as a defendant in hundreds of lawsuits brought against a variety of pharmaceutical manufacturers. She told lawmakers that the lawsuits were so numerous that she was unable to keep track of them.[18]

Bankston's story might engender sympathy - if it were true.

In 2005, investigative reporter Stephanie Mencimer visited the Jefferson County, Miss., courthouse to check out Bankston's story. Mencimer found only a single lawsuit against Bankston-Rexall Drugs, a far cry from "hundreds."[19] And Bankston's attorney - who was paid by drug companies, not the Bankstons - confirmed to Mencimer that the pharmacy was totally indemnified by the drug manufacturers. Neither Bankston nor the drugstore suffered any costs, even for legal fees, as a result of litigation, Mencimer reported.[20]

Bankston's story is merely another in a long list of myths designed to manufacture a crisis where none exists.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> As shown in a except from the presidential speech given when the Class Action fairness Act of 2005 was signed
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


So doesn't the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 address the issue which affected Hilda Bankston?

And wouldn't the fairness protection also apply to DirecTV in this case?


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Ahh...here come the half-truth anecdotes. Let's see is this the case where the drugs were expired or they continued to sell them after they had been told not to? I suppose they didn't bother to carry insurance. Poor Hilda...she made a profit from a product that hurt people and now she has to go to court. That shouldn't be allowed...not for Hilda and certainly not for Walmart.
> 
> You can spew more of this type of rubbish in this thread if you'd like. You've made it clear you believe it's not fair to sue people/corporations that make profits and either defraud or hurt people in the process. It's not fair to elect judges they MUST be appointed so certain political beliefs can be pushed...no matter what the general electorate wants.
> 
> ...


Ahh the infamous Citizen.org spin site. Figures. BHL

You definately have the wrong opinion of what I am saying - yes if warrentted law suites are valid, in 99.999999998 percent of the cases CA's are not warrented.

Done with this, do not know what bee you have in your bonnet on this subject , nor do I really care but the bottom line is there is only one winner in a class action suit - and it sure ain't the consumer. CA"s put the "Just US" in Justice.

have a good day today and a better day tomorrow


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> Ahh the infamous Citizen.org spin site. Figures. BHL
> 
> You definately have the wrong opinion of what I am saying - yes if warrentted law suites are valid, in 99.999999998 percent of the cases CA's are not warrented.
> 
> ...


You have a 99.999999998% good day as well.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ken S said:


> You have a 99.999999998% good day as well.


I always have a good day since the early 70's, learned that anytime I was able to roll out of the tent and still have no holes in me - it was going to be a great day.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I just want to get this straight.....a bank of lawyers are going through the courts to recover $89 portable DVD players which were supposed to be sent to certain customers as part of a promotion....

OK. I get it. 

While the customers surely should get what they were promised, I find this as yet another way to clog the legal system with frivoulous activities that could be resolved via small claims court or some other logical conclusion. Class action lawsuit - give me a break.

No wonder people are sue-happy today.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I just want to get this straight.....a bank of lawyers are going through the courts to recover $89 portable DVD players which were supposed to be sent to certain customers as part of a promotion....
> 
> OK. I get it.
> 
> ...


Ahh...because thousands of separate small claims actions is a better way to handle this type of thing? Certainly that wouldn't "clog" the legal system because that's easier and less expensive than one case.

Please explain why it is frivolous to go after something you were promised in in a business deal?

Here's a better solution...how about DirecTV does what they say they're going to do? They certainly expect no less from their customers.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

I'm just dropping in on this thread for the first time. Has the number of aggrieved subscribers been determined or estimated?

Obviously, no one who has a real job would ever file an individual small claim for that value, because, individually, their time is worth more than that. AT&T once tried to screw me out of less than ten dollars and I probably spent an hour of my time, which is worth a hell of a lot more than ten dollars, fighting them. Because I was certain that what they had tried to do to me, they probably had done to millions of customers, I sure wish I had been thirty years younger and with more free time on my hands to feel them out for a class action suit (I have never sued anyone in my life) because they probably were making millions by doing this.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Ken S said:


> Ahh...because thousands of separate small claims actions is a better way to handle this type of thing? Certainly that wouldn't "clog" the legal system because that's easier and less expensive than one case.
> 
> Please explain why it is frivolous to go after something you were promised in in a business deal?
> 
> Here's a better solution...how about DirecTV does what they say they're going to do? They certainly expect no less from their customers.


Hiring a bunch of expensive lawyers, who will be the only ones to really gain monetarily, for customers expecting $89 DVD players is beyond frivolous, its plain lame.

I agree that DirecTV needs to do its part, but why is it every time some little thing happens, a gaggle of lawyers has to be summoned. :eek2:

It seems to have accelerated into widespead sue-sue-sue syndrome with the lady who apparently wanted to blame McDonalds because she was too stupid to remember that coffee is hot when she spilled it on herself. Now there has to be signage to remind everyone. Duh. 

A class action lawsuit for this? :nono:

Life's too short for this scale of legal activity for something so innane.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Hiring a bunch of expensive lawyers, who will be the only ones to really gain monetarily, for customers expecting $89 DVD players is beyond frivolous, its plain lame.


Hdtvfan -- did you read the article about the lawsuit. The settlement, which the judge preliminarily approved, calls for DirecTV to send customers the DVD players they promised, and the attorney fees are capped at $200K.

Regardless of one's philisophical views on class actions, it is hard to argue that the settlement in this case is unreasonable. The customers are made whole, since they get the product DirecTV promised them. The $200K attorney fees will hardly make the law firm rich, and amounts to a slap on the wrist for DirecTV.


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> yes if warrentted law suites are valid, in 99.999999998 percent of the cases CA's are not warrented.


:nono2: :nono2:

All those 9's make my eyes go cross-wise, but if I counted them correctly, you're saying that 2 of every 100 billion class action suits has merit.

Dang, 100 billion lawsuits? Our legal system must be great to be able to process that much work!


----------



## jahgreen (Dec 15, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Hiring a bunch of expensive lawyers, who will be the only ones to really gain monetarily, for customers expecting $89 DVD players is beyond frivolous, its plain lame.


Once again, this view would mean that companies could get away with cheating millions of people for a few dollars each. Class action suits are sometimes abused, yes, but they are a necessary tool to keep businesses with millions of customers (or shareholders) in line.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Hiring a bunch of expensive lawyers, who will be the only ones to really gain monetarily, for customers expecting $89 DVD players is beyond frivolous, its plain lame.
> 
> I agree that DirecTV needs to do its part, but why is it every time some little thing happens, a gaggle of lawyers has to be summoned. :eek2:
> 
> ...


So they should have just let it go...let DirecTV get away with not doing what they promised?

You realize class action law suits and personal injury lawsuits like the McDonalds coffee suit you're talking about are too entirely different things?

A number of lawyers would be called a group...not a gaggle. But I suspect you're trying to be demeaning...which, of course, makes your argument all that much more stronger.

Life is too short for this type of crap...that's why we should expect companies to do what they say. DirecTV is getting off cheap here. Perhaps if there was a $5,000,000 fine attached they would think twice before pulling this type of stunt again (although it would probably have to be much higher based on their past track record and fines).

I assume you feel the hundreds of suits DirecTV has brought against pirates are also ridiculous and should not have been brought? Or is life long enough for DirecTV to protect its rights...just not the other way around.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It seems to have accelerated into widespead sue-sue-sue syndrome with the lady who apparently wanted to blame McDonalds because she was too stupid to remember that coffee is hot when she spilled it on herself. Now there has to be signage to remind everyone. Duh.


Please do some research on Stella Liebeck before you simply parrot the message the media and tort reformers have fed you.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Ken S said:


> So they should have just let it go...let DirecTV get away with not doing what they promised?


No one said that - in fact, it was said that they should fulfil their obligation.


> You realize class action law suits and personal injury lawsuits like the McDonalds coffee suit you're talking about are too entirely different things?


Not really, they are both over-reactions and abuses of the legal system.


> A number of lawyers would be called a group...not a gaggle. But I suspect you're trying to be demeaning...which, of course, makes your argument all that much more stronger.


I have heard a group of lawyers together called alot of things...


> Life is too short for this type of crap...that's why we should expect companies to do what they say.


No company was saying it - I was, and I guess it's all a matter of what's *really* important in one's life. To each his own, but those of us who have seen 10000 times more serious situations recognize what's *really* important.


> I assume you feel the hundreds of suits DirecTV has brought against pirates are also ridiculous and should not have been brought? Or is life long enough for DirecTV to protect its rights...just not the other way around.


Now you are comparing contractual legal violations with promotional gifts not delivered. Apples and Refrigerators.

Again, and for the last time....a crusade by a group of lawyers to pursue getting a promotional item is certainly worthy in concept, but frivoulous and costly in practice. DirecTV should fulfill their responsibility to deliver them - no one is disputing that - it's the overkill of a class-action suit that was being debated.

It's clear that there are just some folks who prefer to settle everything in life with a lawsuit. I prefer common sense, reason, and civil negotiation. The DirecTV situtation falls in this venue.

I have never had to sue anyone, despite being "wronged" in various situations as much as many people, including car accidents with personal injury and others at fault....and I have achieved great results following that path (not to mention saving the exhorbitant costs of an attorney).

In simplist terms - I am opposed to this kind of over-reactonary behavior, but that's just my position. The number of situations that *really* require an attorney are limited. Too many people in this day and age are ready to sue for just about any reason and any situation. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Now you are comparing contractual legal violations with promotional gifts not delivered. Apples and Refrigerators.


Actually, many of the lawsuits were brought against people for simply ordering perfectly legal hardware from certain sites with zero proof that they were being used for any kind of piracy.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

raott said:


> Actually, many of the lawsuits were brought against people for simply ordering perfectly legal hardware from certain sites with zero proof that they were being used for any kind of piracy.


It's still not the same thing.

My whole points have been about the over-reaction of a lawsuit-happy society. Nothing more.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Again, and for the last time....a crusade by a group of lawyers to pursue getting a promotional item is certainly worthy in concept, but frivoulous and costly in practice. DirecTV should fulfill their responsibility to deliver them - no one is disputing that - it's the overkill of a class-action suit that was being debated.
> 
> It's clear that there are just some folks who prefer to settle everything in life with a lawsuit. I prefer common sense, reason, and civil negotiation. The DirecTV situtation falls in this venue.
> 
> ...


It was part of the deal to get someone to sign up...that makes it part of the contract. If it had been a year of free HBO that they had offered and not provided would that make a difference? If it had such little value than DirecTV wouldn't have spent so much in promoting it.

Judging from my history with DirecTV customer service these people probably tried many different things before resorting to the lawsuit. In general most people don't want to sue, but at some point the other side leaves them no choice. I'm sure DirecTV handled this issue as nicely as they handled the free year of the protection plan that was offered on their website.

In the end it appears DirecTV did their usual and treated the customer with contempt leaving them no other method of recourse than a lawsuit. Well, I guess they could have gone to a DirecTV office and threatened someone with a hammer...that seemed to get a lot of approval around here (although I don't think from you).

Personally, I don't think think the reward in this case was nearly big enough. One of the ideas behind class actions is to penalize the wrong doer. Unfortunately, the amount in this case probably won't be enough to make DirecTV act differently in the future.

No one is forcing you to bring a lawsuit and you have the right to opt out of any class action which may include you. I hope you're never in a situation where its necessary. It's expensive, very time consuming and unpleasant. Oh, and one of the reasons you have the leverage you do when you "negotiate" your own settlements is that the other side knows you have the right to sue. As that right is diminished they will become less and less willing to do so.

Once again, you should read about the McDonalds case before commenting on it. Try it with an open mind and understand they had received over 700 similar complaints before that suit and deemed in unnecessary to either warn people or change the way they served coffee. But...then again...why bother...it's just easier to go along with the pumped out drivel from the insurance companies and other like entities.

We do live in a society that brings many lawsuits. We also have a court system that can dispose of those suits without basis relatively quickly. Unfortunately, we have a large group of greedy individuals that wants further protection. They don't want to be responsible when they have harmed others...it gets in the way of their profits.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It seems to have accelerated into widespead sue-sue-sue syndrome with the lady who apparently wanted to blame McDonalds because she was too stupid to remember that coffee is hot when she spilled it on herself. Now there has to be signage to remind everyone. Duh.


I used to think that the McDonald's coffee case was frivolous. Then I learned the facts of the case.

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson's car having purchased a cup of McDonald's coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000. However, McDonald's refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald's callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck's attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:

1. By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

2. Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;

3. Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;

4. The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

5. McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;

6. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;

7. Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;

8. At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;

9. Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;

10. McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;

11. McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: "No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;"

12. McDonald's admitted that its coffee is "not fit for consumption" when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;

13. Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's still not the same thing.
> 
> My whole points have been about the over-reaction of a lawsuit-happy society. Nothing more.


Your right its not the same thing.

D* suing thousands of people because they have simply purchased hardware from a website (not to mention the people they threatened to sue if they wouldn't pay several thousands of dollars to D*) is much more of an abuse of the legal system than a class action lawsuit (which reduces the burden on the courts) because D* refused to honor an obligation to a customer.

My guess is, if the story was about the same lawsuit against a cable company, your opinion on the class action would be 180 degrees different.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

raott said:


> Please do some research on Stella Liebeck before you simply parrot the message the media and tort reformers have fed you.


Stella aside, there can be no defending BMW NA vs. Gore. There is no reason Gore should have gotten $4M (reduced to $2M on appeal) because BMW fixed some paint damage to his car before they sold it to him. At best, he should have gotten a new car.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> Stella aside, there can be no defending BMW NA vs. Gore. There is no reason Gore should have gotten $4M (reduced to $2M on appeal) because BMW fixed some paint damage to his car before they sold it to him. At best, he should have gotten a new car.


BMW v Gore was overturned by the US Supreme Court


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> Stella aside, there can be no defending BMW NA vs. Gore. There is no reason Gore should have gotten $4M (reduced to $2M on appeal) because BMW fixed some paint damage to his car before they sold it to him. At best, he should have gotten a new car.


That was a case involving punitive damages. So, yes there is a defense to why it was so high. The idea behind punitive damages is to penalize the defendant for actions over and above equitable compensation to the plaintiff. Our legal system includes a punishment motive both on the criminal and civil sides.
Now, whether or not the amount of punitive damages awarded was justified can certainly be questioned.

There are as many cases of very low awards they just don't make the newspapers.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

raott said:


> BMW v Gore was overturned by the US Supreme Court


Yes it was, but nothing can take away the fact that the original jury awarded him $4M. I have no issue with the total amount of the award. Approximately $4K per car is not outrageous had the $4K been paid to every owner.

But to award Gore$4M when his actual damages were so much less is the problem.

I have no problem with CA suits as sometimes they are the only means to keep large corporations in line but other times they are more about the lawyers than the clients.

And yes, Gore only got $50K when it was all said and done.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Ken S said:


> That was a case involving punitive damages. So, yes there is a defense to why it was so high. The idea behind punitive damages is to penalize the defendant for actions over and above equitable compensation to the plaintiff.


And punative damages have their place and sometime companies need to be punished. But why should Gore be one who was enriched? We are not talking pain and suffering (if we are over a paint job, then he needs new meds), but instead a guy who got a jury award because he was a crybaby.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> Yes it was, but nothing can take away the fact that the original jury awarded him $4M. I have no issue with the total amount of the award. Approximately $4K per car is not outrageous had the $4K been paid to every owner.
> 
> But to award Gore$4M when his actual damages were so much less is the problem.
> 
> ...


I don't care what the initial jury awarded him, it was overturned. Juries make bad decisions all the time. I've seen juries award a legitimate injury a single dollar.

Regarding punitives, at most a 10-1 ratio of punitive to compensatory will be the max that will be upheld - and that is pushing it.

Our system isn't quite as bad as people try to make it out to be, people love to cite exceptional cases, those cases are not the norm.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> And punative damages have their place and sometime companies need to be punished. But why should Gore be one who was enriched? We are not talking pain and suffering (if we are over a paint job, then he needs new meds), but instead a guy who got a jury award because he was a crybaby.


Simple because HE brought the lawsuit. He wasn't a "cry baby" he was a customer who was a victim of criminal business practices by BMW. My guess (I didn't read the transcript), but some of the basis for the large award was the jury trying to determine what amount of money would make an impression on BMW NA so they didn't do this again.
But..in the end the system worked and he didn't receive that sum of money.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Bill Broderick said:


> I used to think that the McDonald's coffee case was frivolous. Then I learned the facts of the case.


I read the whole case when it was filed - the person was stupid and greedy, and McDonalds was ignorant thinking the person had no case - with jurys today, everyone has a case about almost anything. It doesn't require reason, facts, or common sense...it only requires remote possibilities of some tiny interpretation of almost facts.

Using this same "reasoning"....no one better go on or go under any bridges, because they could collapse (1 in 500 Million chance). I'm sure there will have to be 20 foot tall signs required to tell people about this soon. 

Or maybe no one should stick their heads into a fully lit oven because they may get burned or gased - another warning sign waiting to happen. :nono2:

I guess we now live in a world where no one had accountability for their own stupid actions nor any requirement for the use of any common sense.


raott said:


> My guess is, if the story was about the same lawsuit against a cable company, your opinion on the class action would be 180 degrees different.


Bad guess. 

I agree that DirecTV is wrong and needs to rectify the situation....but it doesn't require a batallion of attorneys to file a class action suit.

That reminds me....I have to return the "Dumb and Dumber" DVD to Blockbuster tomorrow morning. :lol:


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Gotta disagree ...

DIRECTV made an offer: sign-up for our service, get this portable DVD player in return. DIRECTV signed up new customers, DIRECTV didn't follow-through with all of them. Customers tried to get relief from DIRECTV, they didn't get satisfaction. Should the customers have just dropped it? Forget that it was a DVD player - say it was a $100 credit. If DIRECTV signed up 20,000 customers through the promotion and failed to give the credits, DIRECTV would have pocketed $2,000,000. Is that right? No. What if DIRECTV only gave $50 credit instead of $100. So DIRECTV pockets only $1,000,000. Does that make it better and absolve DIRECTV of responsibility to fulfill their half of the bargain that allowed them to sign up 20,000 new customers. No, of course not.

This case had very clear terms of the class action. DIRECTV barely gets a slap, the law firm gets some notoriety and $200K, and customers get what they were promised. Hardly an abuse of the legal system.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Sorry Drew - gotta disagree back.

I could already have my small claims judgement on this by now if I was a "victim", and pursue it myself without Boston Legal working on my case.

Been there - done that....and with another large company...I won that case and DID get restitution. It cost me $47 and I won $329 in "damages", including my costs.

Life can be simpler.

Maybe this is where we start telling lawyer jokes...  :lol:


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

How is requesting that thousands of people seek relief through individual small claims court cases better than a class action suit? Some people are suggesting that small claims court is more reasonable but, in fact, it ties judges up for thousands of cases/people on the same case rather than making more efficient use of time through a class action case. This is exactly why class action suits exist.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

schlar01 said:


> How is requesting that thousands of people seek relief through individual small claims court cases better than a class action suit? Some people are suggesting that small claims court is more reasonable but, in fact, it ties judges up for thousands of cases/people on the same case rather than making more efficient use of time through a class action case. This is exactly why class action suits exist.


Fast, cheap, painless.

Claims under $5000 (larger amounts in some states) is exactly the reason Small Claims Courts exist.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

schlar01 said:


> How is requesting that thousands of people seek relief through individual small claims court cases better than a class action suit? Some people are suggesting that small claims court is more reasonable but, in fact, it ties judges up for thousands of cases/people on the same case rather than making more efficient use of time through a class action case. This is exactly why class action suits exist.


Agreed. Tie up 20,000 small claims courts, or one court for the class?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Fast, cheap, painless.
> 
> Claims under $5000 (larger amounts in some states) is exactly the reason Small Claims Courts exist.


And when the total claims goes above the boundary, Small Claims Court is no longer an option.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Fast, cheap, painless.
> 
> Claims under $5000 (larger amounts in some states) is exactly the reason Small Claims Courts exist.


In my jurisdiction (and I suspect many others) a small claims judge is actually a district court judge performing a dual role, same with the small claims clerk and staff.

Again, tying up a huge number of judges and staff makes zero sense when the requirements of a class action are satisfied and can be done in one suit- judicial economy is an important purpose of a class action.


----------



## schlar01 (Jul 16, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Fast, cheap, painless.
> 
> Claims under $5000 (larger amounts in some states) is exactly the reason Small Claims Courts exist.


The total court time and cost to handle 20,000 small claims cases is probably significantly above what a class action suit requires.

This is why class action suits exist


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Drew2k said:


> Agreed. Tie up 20,000 small claims courts, or one court for the class?


My friend....just think of how their attorneys would then have to deal with 20,000 small claims cases, instead of one measily class action....  :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

schlar01 said:


> The total court time and cost to handle 20,000 small claims cases is probably significantly above what a class action suit requires.
> 
> This is why class action suits exist


Perhaps, if there is some merit to the actual scope in this case. At $79 in damages per person, I'd rather have the courts spend their time putting criminals in jail.

But small claims are for Small Claims Court - who would have thought?


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> For something as insignificant as a $50 portable DVD player? Yes!
> 
> Seriously, this is so not worth suing over and only hurts the consumer in the end.


You are kidding I hope. $50 is still money. So if someone hits your car and does $50 worth of damage you won't pursue that person when they say "Hey is's only a little ding" and refuse to exchange insurance information.

$50 is your I can't be bothered limit so if you come into my store and I short your cash change $40 and say "Sue me" you will just shrug your shoulder and say "It's only $40 and forget about it and keep coming back for more purchases?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'd rather have the courts spend their time putting criminals in jail.


Which is precisely why it should be handled in a class action with one judge and one docket.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TBoneit said:


> You are kidding I hope. $50 is still money. So if someone hits your car and does $50 worth of damage you won't pursue that person when they say "Hey is's only a little ding" and refuse to exchange insurance information.
> 
> $50 is your I can't be bothered limit so if you come into my store and I short your cash change $40 and say "Sue me" you will just shrug your shoulder and say "It's only $40 and forget about it and keep coming back for more purchases?


As much as it pains me....

I agree with you.

Where I struggle is the class-action process for such a small item. Again, ask any courthouse in the country - this is the purpose of Small Claims Court.

More important, what happens if they start sending those suckers out soon?

At this point, the only data of interest would be how long folks have actually been waiting, how many people are actually affected themselves, and what specific written response did DirecTV give to communication on this topic?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

raott said:


> Which is precisely why it should be handled in a class action with one judge and one docket.


And one hungry den of lawyers just churning for sending out invoices....


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Where I struggle is the class-action process for such a small item. Again, ask any courthouse in the country - this is the purpose of Small Claims Court.


And ask any lawyer or judge what the purpose of a class action is and judicial economy (regardless of each invididual claim's value) will be an answer.

Many, if not most class actions, taken individually are low dollar claims.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

raott said:


> And ask any lawyer or judge what the purpose of a class action is and judicial economy (regardless of each invididual claim's value) will be an answer.
> 
> Many, if not most class actions, taken individually are low dollar claims.


The thing is....I rarely have the desire or need to ask a lawyer much of anything...let alone having them explain the value of having them employed. 

OK - I concede and will join in the fun and say "Sue Away".......SUE SUE SUE SUE.

By the way, your DirecTV rates are going to triple now to pay off the lawyers. :eek2:

Boy....I feel better already. :lol:


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As much as it pains me....
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
> ...


From here: http://www.stclairrecord.com/news/2...-gets-preliminary-approval-by-associate-judge
"Christopher T. Kolker filed the class action on May 9, 2007, on behalf of all persons who entered into a programming agreement with DirecTV and who, within eight weeks of submitting a valid redemption form, have not received a portable DVD player with a value of at least the advertised value.

Kolker signed a two-year contract for DirecTV digital television service in 2006 and claims he expected that a free portable DVD player would arrive in the mail in six-to-eight weeks. Instead, he got a traditional, full-sized, stationary DVD player with no viewing screen."

So it looks like almost a while has passed and no player. Even last year Portable DVD players were more expensive than they are now. If you had kids and a older car you'd find them darn handy on a lengthy trip.

I hate to see some of these class action lawsuits but without the threat of them how many more things would fail to happen.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Bill Broderick said:


> I used to think that the McDonald's coffee case was frivolous. Then I learned the facts of the case.
> 
> Snipped


I've drunk many a cup of McD's coffee. I drink my coffee black. That means it is the hottest as there is no half and half added which would slightly reduce the temperature.

I've never burned myself on any coffee. I know that fresh poured coffee is hot. That means I make sure the lid is tight and the cup isn't leaking before I leave the premises. I know common sense is not taught these days. I also know not to squeeze something that can collapse when it contains liquid whether hot or cold.

I seem to rememner that the award was reduced signifigantly on appeal.

Annecdote: I was talking to a McDonalds manager about the coffee and what happened to it one day since it didn't taste the same. As he explained it they had lowered the temperature setting on the coffee and all the customers thought it was better. Then a McD headquarters type came in and checked the temp and had them set it back up to the Specified temperature range and the customers all complained.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> By the way, your DirecTV rates are going to triple now to pay off the lawyers.


The market sets your rates, not costs.

Will the lawsuits hit D*'s profits? Possibly, but since I don't own D* stock I don't really care.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TBoneit said:


> I've drunk many a cup of McD's coffee. I drink my coffee black. That means it is the hottest as there is no half and half added which would slightly reduce the temperature.
> 
> I've never burned myself on any coffee. I know that fresh poured coffee is hot. That means I make sure the lid is tight and the cup isn't leaking before I leave the premises. I know common sense is not taught these days. I also know not to squeeze something that can collapse when it contains liquid whether hot or cold.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your insights. This is one of the points I was trying to make.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

raott said:


> The market sets your rates, not costs.
> 
> Will the lawsuits hit D*'s profits? Possibly, but since I don't own D* stock I don't really care.


Perhaps I should have included 3-4 :lol: :lol: :lol: or    , not just one.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Perhaps, if there is some merit to the actual scope in this case. At $79 in damages per person, I'd rather have the courts spend their time putting criminals in jail.
> 
> But small claims are for Small Claims Court - who would have thought?


And class action cases are for a multitude of similar cases - who would have thought?
Why do you keep insisting there were so many lawyers involved in this case? The firm that brought the suit is relatively small and I'd guarantee that they didn't have every lawyer in the place working on this one case, but then why let facts get in the way of a baseless string of responses.
You would rather force people to file individual lawsuits...incur the court costs of doing so rather than hiring one firm to represent all of their interests. Yes, that makes sense. We should make it as hard and expensive as possible for people to seek and gain recovery when someone ignores the law or contract.
Then we can take all the civil courts and convert them to criminal courts (you do realize there's a difference?) so we can put more people in jail.
And in the end let's insult lawyers. How about letting us know what profession is lucky enough to have you?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Ken S said:


> And class action cases are for a multitude of similar cases - who would have thought?


Of significant substance. I would have thought.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Sorry Drew - gotta disagree back.
> 
> I could already have my small claims judgement on this by now if I was a "victim", and pursue it myself without Boston Legal working on my case.
> 
> ...


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

raott said:


> Which is precisely why it should be handled in a class action with one judge and one docket.


Criminal <> Civil

No criminals walked free due to this class action...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

My CrackerJack Box had no prize in it...anyone know a good lawyer. :lol:

*(When does all this sue-sue-sue mentality ever end???)*


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

DirecTV makes deal.
DirecTV doesn't hold up its side of the deal.

Trash lawyers.
Trash judges.
Trash old ladies.
Trash rural U.S.

Yep - that's about the normal pattern.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Of significant substance. I would have thought.


When you get elected as King you can sit and decide who has the right to the courts and who doesn't.

If there were 1,000 people affected by this latest DirecTV action that would be about $800,000 is that significant? What if there were 5,000 people affected...that's $4,000,000. What level does it have to reach to meet a sufficient level of significant substance for you?

If each individual's claim against DirecTV was $890 then it's more likely they would bring individual actions. Smaller claims are one of the primary reasons for the class action lawsuit.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Ken S said:


> When you get elected as King you can sit and decide who has the right to the courts and who doesn't.


I *AM* King (of my household and Madagascar - note Avatar).


> Smaller claims are one of the primary reasons for the class action lawsuit.


So I guess what you're saying is Small Claims court is *not *for small claims. 

I hope everyone affected gets their portable DVD players. No one is disputing that it is the "right thing" to happen.

Fact is there is now indeed a suit, and the only winners will be the lawyers - as always.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

I think the people who gave up hope but are now getting their portable DVD players would also consider themselves winners.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> I've drunk many a cup of McD's coffee. I drink my coffee black. That means it is the hottest as there is no half and half added which would slightly reduce the temperature.
> 
> I've never burned myself on any coffee. I know that fresh poured coffee is hot. That means I make sure the lid is tight and the cup isn't leaking before I leave the premises. I know common sense is not taught these days. I also know not to squeeze something that can collapse when it contains liquid whether hot or cold.
> 
> ...


You have control over your handling of the coffee. The DirecTV customers had no control over DirecTV's handling of the promised portable DVD players.

Are you arguing that the customers should have known that DirecTV wasn't going to fulfill their obligation, and thus shouldn't have expected getting the portable DVD player as advertised?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I *AM* King (of my household and Madagascar - note Avatar).
> 
> So I guess what you're saying is Small Claims court is *not *for small claims.
> 
> ...


Actually, there is a settlement. Once it receives final approval the action will be over. There was no trial, no jury and little courtroom time was taken up. But, hey according to your line of thinking...that's far less efficient than thousands of individual small claims actions.

The plaintiffs should receive the DVD player they were promised
The lawyer involved should receive payment for their services.
The court received payment for court costs.
DirecTV gets to pay all of that because they caused this whole thing to happen in the first place.

It appears in this case consumers have won. Although, the penalty was probably not great enough to dissuade DirecTV from doing this again.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I *AM* King (of my household and Madagascar - note Avatar).
> 
> So I guess what you're saying is Small Claims court is *not *for small claims.
> 
> ...


You really don't see the difference between a small claim, say you get ripped off by a local company, versus a wide spread, systematic rip off affecting tens of thousands of customers by a multi billion dollar corporation?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

man_rob said:


> You really don't see the difference between a small claim, say you get ripped off by a local company, versus a wide spread, systematic rip off affecting tens of thousands of customers by a multi billion dollar corporation?


The situations were very much the same (another company) - I just got my situation settled much faster and simpler.

Again, if folks get what they should, that's good.

I just think all of this class-action mentaility by people is legal system abuse.

It's overused and often abused.

But whatever floats your boat.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's overused and often abused.
> 
> But whatever floats your boat.


I agree, but wouldn't you agree that if you had to choose a place for a class action to be used, wouldn't this be it? Giant class of people wronged by a large corporation - people can't get anywhere on their own - time to let the legal system take care of it.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I agree that DirecTV is wrong and needs to rectify the situation....but it doesn't require a batallion of attorneys to file a class action suit.


I guess it did....

DTV did not rectify the situation on their own.

So how much should DTV be allowed to ripoff custoerms before they are allowed to sue?

If this had not been a class action, do you think DTV EVER would have done the right thing for those customers?

WHy was your right to small claims court more valid than the right of the class to seek a judgement???

I mean you took a judges time for $379....THis case is worth probably more than a million..depending on number of people in the class. when all is said and done.

You took advantage of the court system but disparage others doing the same?

Why? Because you sued for less money? Wouldn't that make your use of the system LESS efficient?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tcusta00 said:


> I agree, but wouldn't you agree that if you had to choose a place for a class action to be used, wouldn't this be it? Giant class of people wronged by a large corporation - people can't get anywhere on their own - time to let the legal system take care of it.


I have received at least 11 legal notification invitation to particpate in class action lawsuits within the past 2 years - I save them for entertainment purposes.

When you read through them, and see the proposed "settlements", it become obvious that only the lawyers "win" anything of substance.

I agree that they have their place - I just haven't seen a case (yet) where the reward equals the price paid for the process. I'm sure there are some, but they are the exception and not the rule.

In any case - at the end of the day - we all hope for the same thing - for the merchandise to be delivered as promised. Congrats to those who will finally get what they should.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mikewolf13 said:


> WHy was your right to small claims court more valid than the right of the class to seek a judgement???


It's not about rights, its about process. A simpler, less costly one. I got full restitution in my case without the overkill of class action. In fact, I got a notification of a settled class action on the same situtation AFTER mine was already taken care of....found it all rather humorous.

I guess since the DirecTV situation is now settled, this is all a moot point.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The situations were very much the same (another company) - I just got my situation settled much faster and simpler.
> 
> Again, if folks get what they should, that's good.
> 
> ...


Exactly how is the use of a class action lawsuit being abused in this instance?

We have tens of thousands of DirecTV customers who have the same complaint against a single entity. Why do you feel it is wrong for them to join together for a settlement _in this case_?


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's not about rights, its about process. A simpler, less costly one. I got full restitution in my case without the overkill of class action. In fact, I got a notification of a settled class action on the same situtation AFTER mine was already taken care of....found it all rather humorous.
> 
> I guess since the DirecTV situation is now settled, this is all a moot point.


But if all the people who got those notifications filed their own suit instead...would that be a more efficient or less efficient system?


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

Can't you see by now that logic isn't represented in this case?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jjohns said:


> Can't you see by now that logic isn't represented in this case?


I sure can...


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Where I struggle is the class-action process for such a small item. Again, ask any courthouse in the country - this is the purpose of Small Claims Court.


The problem with SCC, is that most of those who didn't get their DVD player will never go to the trouble. A few will and they will get compensated.

So what happens next time DirecTV, or any company for that matter, decides to run a promotion? Why should they follow through on their end? Sure a few people might file claims, but they will have actuarials which will tell them how many and how much it would cost to fight/compensate these few. That number will be far less than the amount to honor the promotion.

That is why there is a need for CA suits.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> IWhen you read through them, and see the proposed "settlements", it become obvious that only the lawyers "win" anything of substance.


Yes, in most cases you get a coupon for a nominal amount.

However, I have been part of 2 CA's in which I received more than a nominal amount. One was back in the early 90's against BMW. I got a $2K certificate off a new BMW, but was able to transfer that certificate to another owner. I ended up with $1K cash and he got $2K off a new car.

The second was about 2 years ago and I got a free washer from Maytag in the Neptune settlement. Sold the brand new washer for $400. So sometimes there are legitimate awards.

But right now I am waiting on a $25 check from the VISA currency exchange suit so other time they are nominal.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> That is why there is a need for CA suits.


We can debate the merits of the CA process in this case until the cows come home and will continue to disagree...so repeating each side is futile.

We'll just agree to disagree.

Since the case is being settled, and both sides have been covered, this thread has seemed to have run its full course.

If this was a steak, it would be well done.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Yep, 13 pages worth oughta do it!


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I have received at least 11 legal notification invitation to particpate in class action lawsuits within the past 2 years - I save them for entertainment purposes.
> 
> When you read through them, and see the proposed "settlements", it become obvious that only the lawyers "win" anything of substance.


hdtf - I think you have to also look at the flip side. The individual members of the class may sometimes get peanuts, but the defendant who loses is paying through the nose. Consider a settlement of $10 per member, but there are 50,000 members of the class. You sneeze and wipe your nose at the $10, because it's a pittance, but the company, the loser, has a bloody nose due to the payment of $500,000 they wouldn't have had to pay if they didn't lose. The point is sometimes to seek restitution for the class, but also and very often, to punish the defendant for malfeasance, improper practices, etc. This is exactly what's happened in the DIRECTV case. Justice was served.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Drew2k said:


> hdtf - I think you have to also look at the flip side. The individual members of the class may sometimes get peanuts, but the defendant who loses is paying through the nose. Consider a settlement of $10 per member, but there are 50,000 members of the class. You sneeze and wipe your nose at the $10, because it's a pittance, but the company, the loser, has a bloody nose due to the payment of $500,000 they wouldn't have had to pay if they didn't lose. The point is sometimes to seek restitution for the class, but also and very often, to punish the defendant for malfeasance, improper practices, etc. This is exactly what's happened in the DIRECTV case. Justice was served.


Yup....2 sides to every coin.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I guess since the DirecTV situation is now settled, this is all a moot point.


Maybe for this promotion, but what about the next one? If Direct TV can blow off those promised DVD players why can't they blow off those that have been promised (and still waiting for) $ 50 VISA debit cards like myself.

Or any other offer extended now (3 mos HBO, price protection) or in the future.

Seems they are less likely to do so if there is some pain on their part to settle the first case- above and beyond the cost of the player itself.

Is Direct TV going to allow those who didn't get their players to cancel their service without penalty since they breached the contract? I don't think that advice is being passed by customer service reps.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

man_rob said:


> You have control over your handling of the coffee. The DirecTV customers had no control over DirecTV's handling of the promised portable DVD players.
> 
> Are you arguing that the customers should have known that DirecTV wasn't going to fulfill their obligation, and thus shouldn't have expected getting the portable DVD player as advertised?


The answer about the McDs coffee was was not intended to defend DirecTvs actions. They made an offer and failed to live up to it. That lack of fulfillment is wrong. It was in reference to a mention of the McDs coffee case.

In a earlier message on page 12 
"Quote:
Originally Posted by RunnerFL 
For something as insignificant as a $50 portable DVD player? Yes!

Seriously, this is so not worth suing over and only hurts the consumer in the end.

You are kidding I hope. $50 is still money. So if someone hits your car and does $50 worth of damage you won't pursue that person when they say "Hey is's only a little ding" and refuse to exchange insurance information.

$50 is your I can't be bothered limit so if you come into my store and I short your cash change $40 and say "Sue me" you will just shrug your shoulder and say "It's only $40 and forget about it and keep coming back for more purchases? "

The sad thing is that Class action lawsuits will only work on large companies. Or to put it another way a large company will likely take the hint that they can't get away with what happened here. OTOH a small company with one location may and a less than scrupulous owner may figure I'll take the chance since most won't be bothered to sue.

Just imagine how bad things would be if there was no mechanism to enforce individual contracts. Oh wait I don't have to imagine. Just look at how some contractors are in the home improvement field. Only some but enough to make it throw of the dice will you get a good one or a bad one or a indifferent one.


----------



## rasthan (Apr 30, 2006)

I was looking to sign up with DirecTV last year. Partly because I had really outdated receivers with DISH and it would have cost more money to upgrade than to just switch.

I'll admit, I saw the offer for the DVD player and thought it was nice. Granted, it wasn't the deciding factor, but it was a (small) factor.

I'll add that the portable DVD player shown in the advertisements at the time was exactly what I received. I still use it now and then!


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Its truly amazing how some people can be arguing and saying that this is a frivolous lawsuit. Let me put it to you this way.

If you went into Walmart and they had a sign up that said, "Buy a 52" Plasma TV and we will give you a coupon for a free DVD player that’s redeemable at the special booth outside the store."

So you flip out your cash or cc and buy your $1200 plasma, then get to the booth and the attendee says "Hey sorry but we can’t give you the DVD player"

Question: 
Would you be pissed off, make up a lot of noise and want a refund or would you just walk out and do nothing.

The only difference here is that Directv expects to get away with it because they’re not dealing with you in person and your griping over the phone don't mean a hill of beans.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I haven't seen anyone say the lawsuit is frivolous...I have seen it said that using a class action suit to resolve it is debatable, as opposed to other methods.

This has now been bantered about extensively here. Both sides have been heard. Nothing more to day really.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

The lawsuit is frivolous.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

The lawsuit has merit.

(So there.)


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

yea i guess you told me its just my opinion.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Well, you are entitled to it, as much as any of us. 

But we love a good debate around here, so if you want to expound on your opinion, I have no doubt there will be others who agree with you and still others who disagree.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I remember when they promised dvd players it was after i got Directv so i wasn't
affected. But if they promised and didn't deliver i would be screaming "I WANT MY DVDPLAYER AND I WANT IT NOW". This has been a long time ago.
I guess what i am trying to say is i don't blame people for being PO'ed but a ca lawsuit ?


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

gfrang said:


> I remember when they promised dvd players it was after i got Directv so i wasn't
> affected. But if they promised and didn't deliver i would be screaming "I WANT MY DVDPLAYER AND I WANT IT NOW". This has been a long time ago.
> I guess what i am trying to say is i don't blame people for being PO'ed but a ca lawsuit ?


Gfrang:

What makes it frivolous?

If DTV would comply without a lawsuit...there woud be no lawsuit.

Do you think DTV (or any company) should be able to disregard their promotions without any fear of reprisal?

What does not seem to be in any dispute is that DTV made a promise that they did not fulfill...only that customers that did not get what they were promised are being frivolous in pursuing what they are promised. (like it's the custoemr's fault)

So what should they do? just suck it up?

How much would *you *have to get ripped off to sue? How much are you willing to be ripped off before you sue? Especially when the rip-off got you committed to being a customer for 2 years...or would you just pay the ETF? Positively re-enforcing the companies dishonest stream of revenue?

Would you say "forget it" over $12/year...if so would you consider a lawsuit against a compnay overcharging their 17MM custoemr $1/month frivolous?

I am not saying DTV does this, but I suspect most people crticising this lawsuit would consider a suit over $12 to be frivolous...So you basically are saying DTV could "steal" $180MM and you would consider a lawsuit agianst them frivolous.

Anyone who thinks the plaintiffs should just suck it up over their promised DVD player with a "value of $169" is free to send me $169...I promise to give you DTV service for free...but if you don't get the service...don't sue me..that would be frivolous.

But there will be no refunds of the $169...you'll just have to get over it.


----------



## Rage187 (Oct 27, 2007)

So, do I just wait and they will contact me or do I have to sign up somewhere to get my dvd player?

We sent for it in September
In October we got an email saying they received it and it was complete; the portable dvd player should arrive in 6-8 weeks

Now 6 months later, nothing.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

What i meant was i couldn't see Directv not making good on there promise.
As far as lawsuits go big corps. will spend more money defending themselves 
then to settle. I don't blame anybody for being mad at all.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Rage187 said:


> So, do I just wait and they will contact me or do I have to sign up somewhere to get my dvd player?
> 
> We sent for it in September
> In October we got an email saying they received it and it was complete; the portable dvd player should arrive in 6-8 weeks
> ...


Rage,

Generally, they will send out a letter to anyone that potentially be in the class. You could contact the law firm though and ask to be included.


----------



## krustytheclown (Apr 4, 2008)

gfrang said:


> What i meant was i couldn't see Directv not making good on there promise.
> As far as lawsuits go big corps. will spend more money defending themselves
> then to settle. I don't blame anybody for being mad at all.


You can't see a Multi-Billion Dollar company ripping people off? DirecTV does it all the time. After this is settled, I'm sure another promo will come along, that they refuse to honor.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

krustytheclown said:


> You can't see a Multi-Billion Dollar company ripping people off? DirecTV does it all the time. After this is settled, I'm sure another promo will come along, that they refuse to honor.


I get riped off all the time and also get paperwork to sign for class action lawsuits.
in all i participated in i got less than 5 dollars. Whats that saying? Buyer beware.


----------



## simonkodousek (Feb 20, 2007)

I usually do not participate in things like this, but in this case DirecTV was wrong and should be held accountable for their actions.


----------



## Sucellus (Feb 2, 2007)

Yeah, the sungale dvd player they sent out is a cheap piece of crap but that was to be expected. I didn't sign up for DirecTV for the dvd player. 

It may be pointless and groundless but I'd like someone to look into a lawsuit against someone regarding all the infomercials running in the middle of the night. I pay for these channels and I want the normal programming to run all night.


----------



## HDTVsportsfan (Nov 29, 2005)

You need to compain to the content providers. DirecTV just passes along what they and have no control over the infomercials.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Now this steak (thread) is not only overdone, it's charcoal....can't believe it's still alive....  :lol:


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

simonkodousek said:


> I usually do not participate in things like this, but in this case DirecTV was wrong and should be held accountable for their actions.


Fine if all you want is gratitude of knowing you won a law suite but if you want
compensation i would try another way. People should flood directv's office whit 
e-mail,try to work things out whit retention,call crs's. The only winners in a C A 
lawsuit are the lawers.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

gfrang said:


> Fine if all you want is gratitude of knowing you won a law suite but if you want
> compensation i would try another way. People should flood directv's office whit
> e-mail,try to work things out whit retention,call crs's. The only winners in a C A
> lawsuit are the lawers.


You're absolutely wrong. I have a new Neptune washer in my house thanks to the class action against Maytag several years back.

Also, do you think companies would care at all about those letters and calls you're talking about if not for the fear of a lawsuit? The only place where a consumer can stand on somewhat equal footing with a large corporation is the court room.

Going to court can be very expensive and time consuming. The class action suit allows a number of similarly aggrieved consumers to bring a single action against a plaintiff.

Class action lawsuits are very expensive to bring and the lawyers take all the risk by fronting all the costs. There's absolutely no guarantee they'll get the money back. In addition to the costs the attorneys invest their time, once again with no guarantee of payment.

Yes, they can get paid well if they win/settle the case, but even that amount has to be approved by the judge.

If you don't like class action suits you have the right to opt out and bring a single action.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Now this steak (thread) is not only overdone, it's charcoal....can't believe it's still alive....  :lol:


I'd suggest you not bother to read it any further as it obviously bothers you on some level. If the moderators of the forum think it should be closed they'll do so.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

gfrang said:


> Fine if all you want is gratitude of knowing you won a law suite but if you want
> compensation i would try another way. People should flood directv's office whit
> e-mail,try to work things out whit retention,call crs's. The only winners in a C A
> lawsuit are the lawers.


Apparently another person who didn't read the article in the OP.....

These plaintiffs are going to get exactly what they were promised..not $2 not $5 but a portable DVD player with all the promised features...sounds like the plaintiffs "win" here.

I hate when people re-state the cliche that "only lawyers win in class action suits..Frankly, it's ignorant.

No doubt the lawfirms will get more than any individual plaintiff, but that's not the purpose of class action.

it's to hold corps accountable when individual claims would not be worth the time or effort

It's to not flood the courts with thousands onf the same lawsuits in hundreds of juisdictions.

Class actions's protect the consumer, the threat of class actions' protect the consumer.

Without CA, DTV would never have done "the right thing"..as evidenced by the fact many got nothing, many got crappy non-portable DV player , and DTV could have rectified it long ago.

Because the settlements you were included in may not have been worth your time to pursue does not mean you should dismiss people and their right to pursue a legitimate resolution to their issue.

What other avenue did they have? What reason would DTV have to give in? they have the customer locked in to a two year agreement so who cares if they threaten to leave.

*For anyone who opposes these class actions please answer my standing question*: How much would it be ok for (enter company here) to rip you off before you would want to take legal action? And ...Would the fact they did the same to thousands (potentially millions) of people change your decision to sue?


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I just have a quick question. Who sent out the dvd players to the customers was it Directv or the
supplier?


----------



## digitalfreak (Nov 30, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Note to self: Don't do any sort of business dealing with JeffBowser.


Or RunnerFL


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Ken S said:


> If the moderators of the forum think it should be closed they'll do so.


Ya think?


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

gfrang said:


> I just have a quick question. Who sent out the dvd players to the customers was it Directv or the
> supplier?


Why does this matter? It's DTV's responsibility to the customer...

The answer would have no impact on whether or not the suit is frivolous.

The only thing this question would be relevant in is deciding if DTV had a suit against their vendor....which I wonder if that would be considered frivolous?

It is probable that DTV hired a vendor to handle the promotion and distribute DVD players..but I don't know if that in fact is what happened.

p.s. don't you love comments about "dead horse" threads that just put the thread back at the top and keep it alive......


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

mikewolf13 said:


> Why does this matter? It's DTV's responsibility to the customer...
> 
> The answer would have no impact on whether or not the suit is frivolous.
> 
> ...


deleted


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Ya think?


So, are you just trying to keep this thread at the top for some reason or build your post count with these off topic comments?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

gfrang said:


> I just have a quick question. Who sent out the dvd players to the customers was it Directv or the
> supplier?





mikewolf13 said:


> Why does this matter? It's DTV's responsibility to the customer...
> 
> The answer would have no impact on whether or not the suit is frivolous.
> 
> ...


Well, It may not be Directv trying to screw you over. Maybe they are just screwing up fixing the issue that was created by a third party. I am not saying that people aren't owed their DVD players, and I do think the suit should go forward until the original offer is fulfilled, one way or another, but I would be interested to know who actually caused the problem in the first place. Frankly I seriously doubt it was Directv. It is their responsibility to clean up this mess though...

A little bit of history. I worked for a retail company that was offering a $50 rebate on an item. The rebates were not sent out. Turns out, we had hired and paid another company to fulfill this paticular rebate. Guess what, that company had overextended themselves, not properly expected requests, and went under. They paid NO rebates to anyone. No one even figured this out until 2 months after the end of the promotion when suddenly everyone started walling into stores and asking where their rebate was. (the company that folded never informed anyone, including the company I was working for, what was going on) It did cause chaos. Since it was a retailer that deals with rebates all the time, they were able to quickly have another one of their rebate companies take over the rebate, and we had to have everyone resubmit their rebates, and they were all paid out in short order.

I assume Directv had the same kind of situation happen, however, they probably don't have 30 different rebate companies sitting in the wings waiting to jump in, so they didn't know what to do, and really just &^%$ the entire thing. Someone probably figured it would go unnoticed. They don't do these kinds of offers to often. The person in charge should be fired... you don't let this issue slide when you figure out whats going on, you fix it immediately. However, I don't think this was malicious of Directv, because I seriously doubt anyone other than the people in charge of this promotion realized they were having such a large problem. They probably also lost many if not all the submissions, because they were probably never in Directvs hands anyway, so the only people that got taken care of via substitution were the people that were sending in the rebate forms after Directv realized there was a problem. The guy in charge should have actively figured out how to find all the customers that sent in the forms and taken care of everyone...

I suspect that this will get worked out in the next 3 to 4 months.

By the way, anyone who thinks lawyers are the only ones that make out in lawsuits, tell that to anyone working in California as a manger in a company that has been involved in a C A lawsuit in the last few years. Yeah, the lawyers may get a lot, but I got a boat load too... Exempt, non exempt, OT pay.. Its all a big mess out here, and I have yet to hear of one CA suit on this matter loosing, and everyone I know has gotten a significant amount of money out of it, that they were rightfully owed....


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Exactly!! and that's why they need to make class action lawsuits easier to do.
Look at all the rip off Rebate offers that where made a few years ago! I still have not gotten a $100 rebate that I should have been sent on a laptop purchase.

If you look on the net you will find tons of people who bought equipment based on the lower price that would be obtained if they got back there rebates, and in most cases people never received anything. Companies like DirecTV do these things deliberately.

All they have to do, is instead of giving out $10 million dollars worth of DVD players they just put $3 million in a high interest 3 year investment  Then if a lawsuit develops by the time a court desision is made the remaining people can be paid off using the $3m plus its accumulated interest. If no lawsuit ever develops, they can roll that money over as a backup on there next free give away.



krustytheclown said:


> You can't see a Multi-Billion Dollar company ripping people off? DirecTV does it all the time. After this is settled, I'm sure another promo will come along, that they refuse to honor.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> If you believe that I have swamp land in FL to sell you.


Appeals Court Overturns $78.9 Million Patent Verdict Against DirecTV

so i guess everyone's rates are going to go down!!!????!!!!:lol: :lol:


----------



## cweave02 (Oct 12, 2007)

Suit has been settled. Go to:

http://cartopstories.troubledcompan...tles Ill. Suit Over Portable DVD Player Promo


----------

