# ETF and New Agreement..Time to Fight Back



## rubocop (May 15, 2012)

I contacted DTV on May 14 and advised them I do not accept the terms of the new Customer Agreement. I requested they honor what they provided to me in regards to them canceling my service. I was told the service would be canceled on the 15th. It was subsequently canceled today. I received an e-mail stating the ETF would apply. When the charges are placed on my credit card I will first contact their legal department and dispute the charges. I will also advise them my next step will be to file a complaint with the Pa. AG and then initiate a civil action against DTV. I have contacted my attorney and he states I have a case and will seek class action status. This is going to cost them big time. Apparently this company has a very high (in the thousands) number of complaints every year. 

In addition, when they state the conversation between you and their CSR is recorded two party consent has been given for you to record the conversation. Let them know the conversation is being recorded. It will make for a stronger case for you. 

I've had problems with them from the beginning. Get everything they say in writing or legally record the conversation because they end up doing whatever they want. Absolutely terrible customer service. 

Any questions? Please PM me.


----------



## adamson (Nov 9, 2007)

Good luck there, you will find out differently. It is time though for me also to rethink Directv. My HR24's seem to be getting buggy even with 059E and no solid working firmware in sight. I am simmering every day and really am in total disgust that a huge company will not look to someone else in writing its firmware. We all know what has just occured with the latest two releases and maybe it is the beginning of the end for childs play.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rubocop said:


> I contacted DTV on May 14 and advised them I do not accept the terms of the new Customer Agreement. I requested they honor what they provided to me in regards to them canceling my service. I was told the service would be canceled on the 15th. It was subsequently canceled today. I received an e-mail stating the ETF would apply. When the charges are placed on my credit card I will first contact their legal department and dispute the charges. I will also advise them my next step will be to file a complaint with the Pa. AG and then initiate a civil action against DTV. I have contacted my attorney and he states I have a case and will seek class action status. This is going to cost them big time. Apparently this company has a very high (in the thousands) number of complaints every year.
> 
> In addition, when they state the conversation between you and their CSR is recorded two party consent has been given for you to record the conversation. Let them know the conversation is being recorded. It will make for a stronger case for you.
> 
> ...


What was the difference from the previous version that you disagree with?

Mike


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I don't think it's necessarily actually a term, its just seen as a way to get out of the contract with no etf as thats used in the wireless world.


----------



## rubocop (May 15, 2012)

Mike Bertelson said:


> What was the difference from the previous version that you disagree with?
> 
> Mike


Everything.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rubocop said:


> Everything.


 I was just wondering what has changed that has an effect on your service. From what I can tell there is very little that's different and I'm wondering what it is that you consider canceling service over.

Mike


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> What was the difference from the previous version that you disagree with?
> 
> Mike





rubocop said:


> Everything.


Hmm... It doesn't seem that much different to me. I am curious what you object to in the new agreement. What are your damages?


----------



## rubocop (May 15, 2012)

dpeters11 said:


> I don't think it's necessarily actually a term, its just seen as a way to get out of the contract with no etf as thats used in the wireless world.


They have made many promises of many things to many people and then just didn't deliver. Like some large businesses they think they are able to get away with what ever they want. This isn't my first confrontation with big business and unfortunately most likely won't be my last. An individual by themselves most likely will have very little impact. I've always succeeded by getting many others involved. They don't like large numbers against them. I have the money, time and patience to fight back and I don't like losing. I also have a very good attorney who isn't an ambulance chaser and tells me like it is (which I've only had to use sparingly).


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> What was the difference from the previous version that you disagree with?
> 
> Mike





Mike Bertelson said:


> I was just wondering what has changed that has an effect on your service. From what I can tell there is very little that's different and I'm wondering what it is that you consider canceling service over.
> 
> Mike





Go Beavs said:


> Hmm... It doesn't seem that much different to me. I am curious what you object to in the new agreement. What are your damages?





rubocop said:


> They have made many promises of many things to many people and then just didn't deliver. Like some large businesses they think they are able to get away with what ever they want. This isn't my first confrontation with big business and unfortunately most likely won't be my last. An individual by themselves most likely will have very little impact. I've always succeeded by getting many others involved. They don't like large numbers against them. I have the money, time and patience to fight back and I don't like losing. I also have a very good attorney who isn't an ambulance chaser and tells me like it is (which I've only had to use sparingly).


Dude.....stop avoiding the question. What part of the change don't you agree with and what are your damages due to this T&C change?


----------



## rubocop (May 15, 2012)

Go Beavs said:


> Hmm... It doesn't seem that much different to me. I am curious what you object to in the new agreement. What are your damages?


"IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AND WE WILL CANCEL YOUR ORDER OR SERVICE" That is what they sent me and according to my attorney that is what they are obligated to do. It will be settled in court. Research is already under way for previous cases. Damages at this point are irrelevant.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

rubocop said:


> I contacted DTV on May 14 and advised them I do not accept the terms of the new Customer Agreement. I requested they honor what they provided to me in regards to them canceling my service. I was told the service would be canceled on the 15th.* It was subsequently canceled today.*
> 
> ...snip





rubocop said:


> "IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AND WE WILL CANCEL YOUR ORDER OR SERVICE" *That is what they sent me and according to my attorney that is what they are obligated to do.* It will be settled in court. Research is already under way for previous cases. Damages at this point are irrelevant.


Looks like they did what you wanted them to.


----------



## rubocop (May 15, 2012)

bixler said:


> Dude.....stop avoiding the question. What part of the change don't you agree with and what are your damages due to this T&C change?


I don't agree with any of the changes. Damages? Not relevant at this point.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

rubocop said:


> "IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AND WE WILL CANCEL YOUR ORDER OR SERVICE" That is what they sent me and according to my attorney that is what they are obligated to do. It will be settled in court. Research is already under way for previous cases. Damages at this point are irrelevant.


 As somone who is all for putting a company in its place ,when they are in the wrong.

I would like to know what exactly you didn't like in the agreement.

Maybe we wouldn't like it either. People are asking because they what to know what your seeing that we're missing?

I live in Pa as well, in the past I know a very common lawsuit that D* faces here. 2 of them infact.

But I doubt its got anything to do with you.

D* only charges sales tax and no other fees like some states and cable do! 
So lets here it!


----------



## rubocop (May 15, 2012)

Go Beavs said:


> Looks like they did what you wanted them to.


They did not terminate service when they agreed to do so. Any charges related to this termination should not be imposed. I have already been informed of a pending ETF. The ETF or any other charge to me will initiate civil action.

It is interesting to see some of you are very loyal to DTV.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

rubocop said:


> I don't agree with any of the changes. Damages? Not relevant at this point.


That doesn't answer the question. What changes don't you agree with. Come on, you can admit you don't even know what the changes are. How are the changes affecting you?


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

rubocop said:


> They did not terminate service when they agreed to do so. Any charges related to this termination should not be imposed. I have already been informed of a pending ETF. The ETF or any other charge to me will initiate civil action.
> 
> It is interesting to see some of you are very loyal to DTV.


I think you are 100% right to do what you are doing.
They can't change the rules and strongarm you into accepting them. Your agreement was based on the contract that you agreed to upon signing or renewing with them. if they want to change the terms of that agreement mid-stream, then they certainly cannot hold you liable for any associated costs when you opt out.

I, for one, understand that you are fighting them based on principle, and not necessarily based on whether or not you have issues with the new terms.

Good for you and I wish the best of luck.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

rubocop said:


> Everything.


So you're saying you were fine with the previous terms but you disagree with every single change, without exception?

I am very interested to see how this plays out for you.


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Please be reminded that our forum rules do not allow petitions or a "call to arms" against any company.

If you are looking to gather the troops for a class action lawsuit, you won't get that here and this this thread will be shut down. Proceed with caution.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

As for those here who are saying that there is very little difference in the old agreement vs the new one - If the changes were inconsequential, then why did DirecTV go to the trouble of changing the agreement?


----------



## Stewpidity (Jan 26, 2008)

did it say anything about waving the ETF if you choose to cancel? when you cancelled did you verify NO ETF would apply?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

rubocop said:


> They did not terminate service when they agreed to do so. Any charges related to this termination should not be imposed. I have already been informed of a pending ETF. The ETF or any other charge to me will initiate civil action.
> 
> *It is interesting to see some of you are very loyal to DTV*.


It's not a matter of being loyal or not being loyal. I'm just trying to understand what has changed that some feel is egregious enough, that an effect on our service, or in some way changes my day to day dealings with DIRECTV that is worth going through the trouble of canceling service.

Changing the term "receiver" to "box" or "mirroring" to "enabled TV" has absolutely zero effect on the service provided or our costs as subscribers. I must be missing something because I can't find a difference from the previous version that effects the provided service or costs.

That's why I'm asking what you feel is so flagrantly detrimental that you're willing to go to court over.

Mike


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Chris Blount said:


> Please be reminded that our forum rules do not allow petitions or a "call to arms" against any company.
> 
> If you are looking to gather the troops for a class action lawsuit, you won't get that here and this this thread will be shut down. Proceed with caution.


Class Action Suits are a joke anyway. All these do is cost the company money and Lawyers make millions and the customer gets nothing!


----------



## MarkG21 (Jan 4, 2010)

rubocop said:


> Everything.


Could you be more specific?

Can you explain why you object that DirecTv is changing the term "receiver" to "box" in the agreement? Just curious, maybe I'm missing something?


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

damondlt said:


> Class Action Suits are a joke anyway. All these do is cost the company money and Lawyers make millions and the customer gets nothing!


 Agreed.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Stewpidity said:


> did it say anything about waving the ETF if you choose to cancel? when you cancelled did you verify NO ETF would apply?


That's the legal fine line he and D* are walking. He didn't cancel the service, he just didn't agree to be held to the new terms by invoking the clause about not accepting the new terms. D* chose to cancel instead of him being allowed to continue the subscription under the original terms.

Can he win? I don't know, but I suspect he can.

But I also think that even if he wins, he loses money. More money than the ETF I suspect.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Class Action Suits are a joke anyway. All these do is cost the company money and Lawyers make millions and the customer gets nothing!


The lead plaintiffs in a class action suit often get much more than the 'general class'. But otherwise, you are correct.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Will this guy ever answer the question? What part of the T&C change is he objecting to? I have a feeling he doesn't even know what the changes are.....


----------



## wilsonc (Aug 22, 2006)

There has been no real material changes to their terms and conditions, just updates to how things are defined. There are no damages incured. Good luck, because you've already agreed to pay the ETF as the agreement just says upon cancellation, not dictating who started the cancellation.



> (e) Payment Upon Cancellation. You acknowledge that you have provided your credit or debit card account information to us. You understand that you will incur fees and charges as a result of your receipt and use of Service and/or Receiving Equipment, and may incur early cancellation fees and/or equipment non-return fees (as specified in any lease, programming
> or other service commitment agreement you entered into in connection with obtaining Receiving Equipment). By giving us your credit or debit card account information at any time, you authorize us to apply this method of payment, in accordance with applicable law, to satisfy any and all amounts due upon cancellation. You further acknowledge that you are required to maintain current credit or debit card information with us and agree to notify us whenever there is a change in such information, such as a change in the card number or the expiration date.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> As for those here who are saying that there is very little difference in the old agreement vs the new one - If the changes were inconsequential, then why did DirecTV go to the trouble of changing the agreement?


 It seems to me that some of the changes use more up to date terminology (enabled TV versus mirror) or in some cases more generic terminology (box versus receiver) to make things more consistent. It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.

Why? Do you think there is an ulterior motive here and if so what is it?

Mike


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

As I read it he is not so so much concerned with what was changed as he is with the provider's attitude that they can change things, and then charge the customer for not agreeing.
That gives off a slight aroma of racketeering.

If the customer doesn't choose to agree, then it's not up to the customer to pay for cancellation. The provider changed the agreement, so any termination costs should be on them. 

edit /unless that was covered in the previous agreement. Then he has no case.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Mike Bertelson said:


> It seems to me that some of the changes use more up to date terminology (enabled TV versus mirror) or in some cases more generic terminology (box versus receiver) to make things more consistent. It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.
> 
> Why? Do you think there is an ulterior motive here and if so what is it?
> 
> Mike


It's not about motive. It's about having an agreement with a provider and having the provider changing the agreement, and then coercing you into continuing the services.
If the changes are minimal and they are merely updating language, then they should phase in the changes with new customers, leaving existing ones as they were.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Mike Bertelson said:


> It doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me.


That's a subjective view.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that golf be banned from ever being shown on television again, but that may or may not be in alignment with your own views.


----------



## Stewpidity (Jan 26, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> That's the legal fine line he and D* are walking. He didn't cancel the service, he just didn't agree to be held to the new terms by invoking the clause about not accepting the new terms. D* chose to cancel instead of him being allowed to continue the subscription under the original terms.
> 
> Can he win? I don't know, but I suspect he can.
> 
> But I also think that even if he wins, he loses money. More money than the ETF I suspect.


I would imagine one hour with a lawyer would be more than the ETF, unless of course the lawyer takes it on contingency but that would be risky in this case. Obviously he just wants to cancel, by the same token i have a hard time believing Directv with all there attorneys that vet the TOS would leave a loophole like this open for any unhappy customer to be able to cancel w/o penalty


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> That's a subjective view.
> It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that golf be banned from ever being shown on television again, but that may or may not be in alignment with your own views.


Fair enough...you may consider calling a receiver a box worth going to court over and that's fine.


Marlin Guy said:


> As I read it he is not so so much concerned with what was changed as he is with the provider's attitude that they can change things, and then charge the customer for not agreeing.
> That gives off a slight aroma of racketeering.
> 
> If the customer doesn't choose to agree, then it's not up to the customer to pay for cancellation. The provider changed the agreement, so any termination costs should be on them.


Actually, it's no different than any other service providers Customer Agreement.

Have you read your Dish Network Residential Customer Agreement? It has the same provisions to allow for changes to the agreement, pricings, programming packages, etc. as DIRECTV. The net effect is nearly identical.

For that matter so does Comcast, TWC, Cox and if I continue to search for the other providers I'm sure I'll find nearly identical set of requirements.

So, how is DIRECTV's agreement any different?

Mike


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

wilsonc said:


> *There has been no real material changes to their terms and conditions*, just updates to how things are defined. There are no damages incured. Good luck, because you've already agreed to pay the ETF as the agreement just says upon cancellation, not dictating who started the cancellation.


That bold underline is the key I think. If there is no materially adverse changes to the T&C then why should OP be allowed to cancel and not pay ETF? For the cell phones changes I've seen, there is usually a discount or fee change which can be materially adverse even if it's a 1 cent increase. What is materially adverse about the Directv changes??


----------



## mitchflorida (May 18, 2009)

If you can't identify what you disagree with you have no chance to win. I was told that if there was a change that cost you money, they would reimburse the difference.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"damondlt" said:


> Class Action Suits are a joke anyway. All these do is cost the company money and Lawyers make millions and the customer gets nothing!


No, they are not a one. Often they are the only way to effectuate change.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> It's not about motive. It's about having an agreement with a provider and having the provider changing the agreement, and then coercing you into continuing the services.
> If the changes are minimal and they are merely updating language, then they should phase in the changes with new customers, leaving existing ones as they were.


As I posted above, as a Dish sub you are subject to the requirements. If you don't agree with Dish's changes to the Customer Agreement they can cancel your service. And, just like DIRECTV there is nothing that says they can't charge you the ETF if you don't agree.

Mike


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

bixler said:


> Will this guy ever answer the question?


No, he clearly came here just to stir up stuff.

The only things changed in the Terms & Conditions were some words like "receiver" became "box", etc. Nothing that would actually change anything.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Marlin Guy said:


> As I read it he is not so so much concerned with what was changed as he is with the provider's attitude that they can change things, and then charge the customer for not agreeing.
> That gives off a slight aroma of racketeering.
> 
> If the customer doesn't choose to agree, then it's not up to the customer to pay for cancellation. The provider changed the agreement, so any termination costs should be on them.
> ...


We've already been down this road and that thread got locked. It's been discussed until we're all blue in the face. We now at least have confirmation that the ETF is charged if you choose to cancel because you don't agree to the new Terms & Conditions. Let's move on...

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> No, he clearly came here just to stir up stuff.
> 
> The only things changed in the Terms & Conditions were some words like "receiver" became "box", etc. Nothing that would actually change anything.


Let the OP speak for himself please.

Let this be a notice to everyone. Discuss the topic and not the other members. If you have a question for another member then please ask but do not proclaim to the whole world what someone else is thinking/intending.

So, everyone will keep on topic and keep it civil or you'll be gone from this thread.

Mike


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Mike Bertelson said:


> So, how is DIRECTV's agreement any different?


I don't know that it is different. I'm just thinking the OP and his lawyer don't like the way that this particular provider does things. He is only dealing with DirecTV in this case, so he has no quarrel with other providers, nor should he. However, pushing this case could have some effect on how others handle their customers in the future. I suspect that is his ultimate noble goal. And for that I wish him nothing but the best.
Sheep don't affect change. Wolves do.



> THIS DESCRIBES THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF YOUR RECEIPT OF AND PAYMENT FOR DIRECTV® SERVICE AND IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION (SECTION 9) AND DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES (SECTION 8). IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THESE TERMS, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY AND WE WILL CANCEL YOUR ORDER OR SERVICE. IF YOU INSTEAD DECIDE TO RECEIVE OUR SERVICE, IT WILL MEAN THAT YOU ACCEPT THESE TERMS AND THEY WILL BE LEGALLY BINDING.


They should explicitly indicate that the customer is liable for ETFs in the above statement, but they don't. My guess is that it is not an oversight, but more likely a tactic. Of course, I am being subjective.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

raott said:


> No, they are not a one. Often they are the only way to effectuate change.


Most class action suits I've seen, the company settles (cheaper), not admitting wrong doing. Nothing changes, and in some examples, the settlement is that customers get 10-20% off an accessory purchase, $10 etc.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> We've already been down this road and that thread got locked. It's been discussed until we're all blue in the face. *We now at least have confirmation that the ETF* is charged if you choose to cancel because you don't agree to the new Terms & Conditions. Let's move on...<snip>


 That's a good point.

The Customer Agreement states that continuing service constitutes acceptance of the Agreement. It would seem DIRECTV considers non-acceptance a desire to cancel and thus the ETF applies. DIRECTV's actions seem to imply that's their thinking...not being a lawyer I can't say for sure but it seems to fit the circumstances.

Mike


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

RunnerFL said:


> We've already been down this road and that thread got locked. It's been discussed until we're all blue in the face. We now at least have confirmation that the ETF is charged if you choose to cancel because you don't agree to the new Terms & Conditions. Let's move on...


My face isn't blue and I didn't see the other thread.
If these forums had a one thread per topic limit they'd be a very empty and boring place. One shouldn't assume that all members read all threads. While I suspect that some do, they are likely the exception and not the rule (unintended pun).


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Actually, it's no different than any other service providers Customer Agreement.
> 
> Have you read your Dish Network Residential Customer Agreement? It has the same provisions to allow for changes to the agreement, pricings, programming packages, etc. as DIRECTV. The net effect is nearly identical.
> 
> ...


Actually, Dish's agreement is slightly different. Dish leaves the option of continuing with the previous contract on the table, whereas DirecTV does not.



> IF YOU ARE AN EXISTING CUSTOMER AND DO NOT WISH TO ACCEPT ANY CHANGED OR REPLACED AGREEMENT, YOU MUST NOTIFY US MMEDIATELY AND WE WILL, AT OUR OPTION, EITHER CANCEL YOUR SERVICE *OR ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE YOUR SERVICES UNDER THE PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS AGREEMENT*.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> I don't know that it is different. I'm just thinking the OP and his lawyer don't like the way that this particular provider does things. He is only dealing with DirecTV in this case, so he has no quarrel with other providers, nor should he. However, pushing this case could have some effect on how others handle their customers in the future. I suspect that is his ultimate noble goal. And for that I wish him nothing but the best.
> Sheep don't affect change. Wolves do.
> 
> 
> ...


None of the other providers, including your provider, make that explicit claim. So does that mean we shouldn't have service from provider? The requirements are the same no matter where we go so I don't see how dropping DIRECTV, Dish, Comcast, etc. will help the situation. It causes the sub to go from one provider's Customer Agreement they don't agree with to another provider who's Customer Agreement they will disagree with on the same grounds. Something about that doesn't seem logical to me.

In your quote above it clearly says that continuing to receiver service is acceptance of the "TERMS AND THEY WILL BE LEGALLY BINDING". That begs the question does non-acceptance of the new Customer Agreement imply agreement to have DIRECTV cancel service.

Clearly DIRECTV thinks so because the applied the ETF to the OP.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> Actually, Dish's agreement is slightly different. Dish leaves the option of continuing with the previous contract on the table, whereas DirecTV does not.


Yes it is slightly different. The fact that Dish maintains the option to continue service under the previous agreement is irrelevant.

My point is that Dish still provides the option to cancel your service if you notify them of your non-acceptance of the Customer Agreement. Further they have similar requirement for an ETF with the same ambiguity as to whether or not they can charge you if you decide not to accept the new terms.

Mike


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Yes it is slightly different. The fact that Dish maintains the option to continue service under the previous agreement is irrelevant.


It's irrelevant to your point, but not to mine, nor the OP's.
IF DirecTV had told him that they were going to leave him on his old agreement until the end of his term, then there would be disagreement.

You can't say there's no difference, and then when that is disproved, claim it is irrelevant. There is a difference, and it is significant. Not only does it show that Dish is willing to be more flexible, but it indicates that they may already experienced a similar challenge, and they have chosen to be more flexible rather than face litigation. And that is very relevant.


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

Time to go to work now. I enjoyed the spirited and civil debate.
Good day to all.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Marlin Guy said:


> It's irrelevant to your point, but not to mine, nor the OP's.
> IF DirecTV had told him that they were going to leave him on his old agreement until the end of his term, then there would be disagreement.


Just because the option exists doesn't mean they'll go in that direction. They can still cancel your service and then where are your? :shrug:



> You can't say there's no difference, and then when that is disproved, claim it is irrelevant. There is a difference, and it is significant. Not only does it show that Dish is willing to be more flexible, but it indicates that they may already experienced a similar challenge, and they have chosen to be more flexible rather than face litigation. And that is very relevant.


I doubt it means they've experienced a similar challenge. If the option was to give them an out because they've previously faced litigation they would remove that option all together. Since they have that option in the terms of the Customer Agreement seems to indicate it gives them the option to retain good customers rather than having to dump them. This seems more likely to me than trying to avoid litigation...of course I've been wrong before. :grin:

Mike


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Most class action suits I've seen, the company settles (cheaper), not admitting wrong doing. Nothing changes, and in some examples, the settlement is that customers get 10-20% off an accessory purchase, $10 etc.


$10 is a good one. In the 2 I've ever got a check from, one was .02 and the other was $3. I bet the lawyers got much bigger checks at our expense. Does it make change? I don't think it does. Cause the same lawsuits still exsist year after year with the same company's. Direct has been facing EFT lawsuits and local channel lawsuits here in pa for as long as I can remember. 
CLASS ACTION SUITS have not solved anything and will not as long as we have sue happy people and lawyers.


----------



## crawdad62 (Jul 16, 2008)

damondlt said:


> $10 is a good one. In the 2 I've ever got a check from, one was .02 and the other was $3. I bet the lawyers got much bigger checks at our expense. Does it make change? I don't think it does. Cause the same lawsuits still exsist year after year with the same company's. Direct has been facing EFT lawsuits and local channel lawsuits here in pa for as long as I can remember.
> CLASS ACTION SUITS have not solved anything and will not as long as we have sue happy people and lawyers.


I actually got a OS install disc which I guess was worth quite a bit. Unfortunately it was for Apple OS9 and I received it after OSX was a couple of versions in. :lol:


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:
 

> What was the difference from the previous version that you disagree with?


I'm baffled by this issue as well. To me it would appear that nothing has effectively changed. It would appear that only the language has been altered to be less definitive about what will happen.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

OP appears to be trying to get out of a contract without paying the ETF. And it is a long way to be granted Class Action Status.

I get a lot of Class Action certifications in the mail. Right into the trash.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RunnerFL said:


> We now at least have confirmation that the ETF is charged if you choose to cancel because you don't agree to the new Terms & Conditions.


As I pointed out in another thread, the Customer Agreement of five years ago explicitly stated that you would be charged an ETF if you had not fulfilled your commitment. The subsequent language has gone from "may" be charged to making reference to another section on cancellation.

I'm guessing that what they are trying to do is "clean up" the language so they don't restate what goes on in the event of a cancellation. This avoids having two definitions that may conflict if one of them is amended and the other is not.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

damondlt said:


> $10 is a good one. In the 2 I've ever got a check from, one was .02 and the other was $3. I bet the lawyers got much bigger checks at our expense. Does it make change? I don't think it does. Cause the same lawsuits still exsist year after year with the same company's. Direct has been facing EFT lawsuits and local channel lawsuits here in pa for as long as I can remember.
> CLASS ACTION SUITS have not solved anything and will not as long as we have sue happy people and lawyers.


Your mileage may vary.

One particular company that I had done business with was facing two different class action suits for basically the same thing (monopolistic practices, unfair trade, etc.). As a member of the class, I received two checks for a total of more than $300. The company was ordered to make changes that resulted in a much more competitive business environment, and therefore more choices and lower costs for consumers.

While not the normal result of a class action suit, my example shows that they can serve a useful purpose (other than for making an attorney's boat payment).


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

bixler said:


> Dude.....stop avoiding the question. What part of the change don't you agree with and what are your damages due to this T&C change?


IT DOESN'T MATTER.

DirecTV decided to change the terms and said accept the changes or don't.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

bixler said:


> That bold underline is the key I think. If there is no materially adverse changes to the T&C then why should OP be allowed to cancel and not pay ETF? For the cell phones changes I've seen, there is usually a discount or fee change which can be materially adverse even if it's a 1 cent increase. What is materially adverse about the Directv changes??


The OP *did not cancel*. DirecTV changed their T&C and let people know they must agree to the changes. As requested by DirecTV the OP informed DirecTV that they did not agree to the new T&C. DirecTV then had two choices - let the OP operate under the old agreed to T&C or cancel the service. This was DirecTV's choice and was solely initiated by DirecTV's actions (the change to T&C). To me the real question is this - does the existing T&C, which the OP agreed to, allow for DirecTV to cancel the service and collect an ETF?


----------



## crawdad62 (Jul 16, 2008)

pfp said:


> IT DOESN'T MATTER.
> 
> DirecTV decided to change the terms and said accept the changes or don't.


But that essentially happened. Does D* have an escape clause that says you can have the ETF waived if the TOS changes? I'm not asking rhetorically. I truly don't know. I'm probably like most people and just sign and go about my business. Probably not the smartest move to make but I'm not all tied in a knot either.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

pfp said:


> The OP *did not cancel*.


Yes, he did. He chose to cancel when he decided he didn't want to agree to the new Terms & Conditions.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

bixler said:


> Will this guy ever answer the question? What part of the T&C change is he objecting to? I have a feeling he doesn't even know what the changes are.....


 It's quite obvious he is simply looking to get out of his contract for whatever reason and has nothing specifically to do with the terms. Just like people do when there is a change in their cellphone terms. He just wants to use the loophole to get out. However I can't imagine the costs of a lawyer, even if s/he is a friend would make it worthwhile.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> Yes, he did. He chose to cancel when he decided he didn't want to agree to the new Terms & Conditions.


Do we really need to rehash this argument? It was covered pretty thoroughly in this thread, and the only thing that was clear is that people have differing opinions on the matter that they were not willing to change.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Yes, he did. He chose to cancel when he decided he didn't want to agree to the new Terms & Conditions.


No, he didn't. DirecTV did the cancelling. And I know you insist it's a matter of symantics, but it's not. Cell phone providers have already fought this battle and lost. If your cell phone TOS changes, and you refuse to accept those changes, the company is required to cancel you with no penalty.

The difference (and it's a big one, IMO) is that the changes cell phone companies were making affected the price of service. It was ruled that the new contract was "_materially adverse_" or something along those lines (even if the change was only a matter of pennies on your monthly bill).

In this particular case, I don't think that any changes to the TOS will be deemed "materially adverse". A change in how the equipment is referenced doesn't amount to anything, IMO, that would let you out of your contract without penalty.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. But I assume that the situation that cell phone providers went through is part of what led the OP to this course of action. I think the differences in the two are such that he won't be successful in this case - or if he is it won't lead to any widespread change in how DirecTV operates.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

pfp said:


> The OP *did not cancel*. DirecTV changed their T&C and let people know they must agree to the changes.


 One could argue that since continued service is tacit approval of the Customer Agreement, it could work in the other direction.

If a subscriber informs DIRECTV that they do not accept the new terms, that sub is choosing to allow DIRECTV to cancel service. However you look at it, DIRECTV certainly thinks along these lines as they intend to charge the OP the ETF.


> As requested by DirecTV the OP informed DirecTV that they did not agree to the new T&C. DirecTV then had two choices - let the OP operate under the old agreed to T&C or cancel the service. This was DirecTV's choice and was solely initiated by DirecTV's actions (the change to T&C). To me the real question is this - does the existing T&C, which the OP agreed to, allow for DirecTV to cancel the service and collect an ETF?


 In the end it's moot because we now have definitive proof that DIRECTV believes the ETF applies regardless of who we believe is the "canceler".

Mike


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> No, he didn't. DirecTV did the cancelling. And I know you insist it's a matter of symantics, but it's not.


You're right, it's not a matter of semantics. He chose to not like the new Terms & Conditions, that makes it his choice. That makes it pretty black and white.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

njblackberry said:


> OP appears to be trying to get out of a contract without paying the ETF. And it is a long way to be granted Class Action Status.
> 
> I get a lot of Class Action certifications in the mail. Right into the trash.


 If its something that pertains to you, I wouldn't throw it in the trash. Because all that unclaimed money, goes into the Lawyers pockets. I'd rather cash a .02 check then let some scumbag lawyer walk away with a million of those .02 checks. There was a huge write up on 20 20 years ago about this. Its crazy!:nono2:


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

TBlazer07 said:


> It's quite obvious he is simply looking to get out of his contract for whatever reason and has nothing specifically to do with the terms. Just like people do when there is a change in their cellphone terms. He just wants to use the loophole to get out. However I can't imagine the costs of a lawyer, even if s/he is a friend would make it worthwhile.


It's quite possible that you're correct about the OP's motivation, but under the terms of the DirecTV Customer Agreement, it makes no difference. DirecTV provides the option for subscribers to refuse new terms and conditions. There doesn't have to be any material difference between the old and new terms, the subscriber doesn't have to have suffered any damages, and no justification is necessary. Having said that, if there was some negative material effect on the OP, it would make for a more compelling story, but I don't think that it makes any legal difference.

Before the OP can file any suit, he'll need to go through arbitration, as per the Customer Agreement, or somehow get around the arbitration provision. And if he actually has an attorney working on this, it won't necessarely cost him anything up front, depending on what kind of fee arrangement there is.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I am also not a lawyer. My only take on all of this is the process by which the OP notified DirecTV. If he simply called a CSR and worked at that level, then I'm certain DirecTV's records will only show that the customer called and cancelled service.

If I were to choose to do something like this, I would have submitted my non-acceptance of the new terms in writing (possibly via my attorney), and would not have made any mention of cancelling service. That would be up to DirecTV once they were notified I did not accept the change in terms. If they then terminated my service (not the same thing as my cancelling), and I were still under a service commitment, and they subsequently charged me an ETF, then it might be a good test case to pursue legal action.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> That's the legal fine line he and D* are walking. He didn't cancel the service, he just didn't agree to be held to the new terms by invoking the clause about not accepting the new terms. D* chose to cancel instead of him being allowed to continue the subscription under the original terms.
> 
> Can he win? I don't know, but I suspect he can.
> 
> But I also think that even if he wins, he loses money. More money than the ETF I suspect.


He can win, I have in the past. D* chose to break off the old contract by disconnecting his service, they shouldn't charge an ETF, but they do anyway because 99.99% of people are clueless or don't want to bother fighting it.

I'm going to cancel in July (and pay a $200 ETF), but I don't see anything that's adversely affecting customers in this new TOS except for the new "up to $6" Box/Enabled TV fee. They removed the language that said that lease customers are exempt from this fee, but they aren't charging it for lease customers. Or maybe D* will also modify the lease agreement to remove the monthly fee (they haven't yet). So that's a gray area unless D* does start charging it.

Typically, you can get out of an ETF if the rates in the contract are raised at all, even by one penny. But other changes that don't negatively impact customers aren't sufficient enough to avoid paying the ETF.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

dcandmc said:


> Before the OP can file any suit, he'll need to go through arbitration, as per the Customer Agreement, or somehow get around the arbitration provision. And if he actually has an attorney working on this, it won't necessarely cost him anything up front, depending on what kind of fee arrangement there is.


He can go to small claims court. You don't really even need an attorney. The hard part is actually getting the money once you get the decision.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> In the end it's moot because we now have definitive proof that DIRECTV believes the ETF applies regardless of who we believe is the "canceler".
> 
> Mike


Just because DirecTV has requested that the OP pay an ETF doesn't mean such request is consistent with their company policies, the Customer Agreement, or the law.

We've seen plenty of posts here describing actions taken by DirecTV that make you wonder what they're thinking.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

carl6 said:


> I am also not a lawyer. My only take on all of this is the process by which the OP notified DirecTV. If he simply called a CSR and worked at that level, then I'm certain DirecTV's records will only show that the customer called and cancelled service.
> 
> If I were to choose to do something like this, I would have submitted my non-acceptance of the new terms in writing (possibly via my attorney), and would not have made any mention of cancelling service. That would be up to DirecTV once they were notified I did not accept the change in terms. If they then terminated my service (not the same thing as my cancelling), and I were still under a service commitment, and they subsequently charged me an ETV, then it might be a good test case to pursue legal action.


That would be the smart way to go about it.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> He can go to small claims court. You don't really even need an attorney. The hard part is actually getting the money once you get the decision.


If he filed in small claims court and DirecTV made an appearance, they would likely argue that the arbitration provision of the Customer Agreement takes precedence, and ask that the suit be dismissed on those grounds.

ETA: Never mind, I see that the Customer Agreement allows small claims actions in lieu of arbitration. That would absolutely be a viable alternative, given that the maximum ETF that DirecTV is trying to collect would be well below any state's small claims limit. The OP couldn't assert a class action in small claims, however.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

dcandmc said:



> Just because DirecTV has requested that the OP pay an ETF doesn't mean such request is consistent with their company policies, the Customer Agreement, or the law.
> 
> We've seen plenty of posts here describing actions taken by DirecTV that make you wonder what they're thinking.


I didn't say it was consistant with anything. It does show that someone at DIRECTV believes the ETF applies. Right or wrong, it's where we currently stand.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

dcandmc said:


> If he filed in small claims court and DirecTV made an appearance, they would likely argue that the arbitration provision of the Customer Agreement takes precedence, and ask that the suit be dismissed on those grounds.


That's a very important point. This and the previous Customer Agreements require that if informal resolution between DIRECTV and the customer can't be reached that it be settled by arbitration.

IIRC, within the last couple of months The United Stated Supreme Court upheld forced arbitration in credit Customer Agreements. It would seem the OP has no standing to take DIRECTV to court and that they'll be at the mercy of whom ever DIRECTV chooses as the Arbiter.

IIUC, the OP will have no choice in the matter...arbitration or nothing.

Mike


----------



## Geekzilla (Jun 10, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> He can go to small claims court. You don't really even need an attorney. The hard part is actually getting the money once you get the decision.


I've had several Small Claims victories against large corporations and they always have paid me within about 2 weeks. Even if the agreement requires arbitration, there's no reason he can't file in Small Claims Court. Often times the other party doesn't even show up to assert that the case should be arbitrated or otherwise defend themselves.



Marlin Guy said:


> Sheep don't affect change. Wolves do.


What a great line MarlinGuy. I am stealing it for my exclusive use at work. Please don't sue me!


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Geekzilla said:


> I've had several Small Claims victories against large corporations and they always have paid me within about 2 weeks. *Even if the agreement requires arbitration, there's no reason he can't file in Small Claims Court.* Often times the other party doesn't even show up to assert that the case should be arbitrated or otherwise defend themselves.
> <snip>


 IIUC the arbitration clause actually does mean the OP can't sue. The argument before the US Supreme Court was whether or not a customer can sue if they've previously agreed to forced arbitration.

The Supreme Court upheld the clause in the Customer Agreement and ruled that the customer didn't have standing to sue the corporation. I'm assuming that includes small claims court but I'm an engineer, not a lawyer so I could be wrong...again. :grin:

It definitely makes for an interesting discussion. Hopefully a lawyer will add his 2¢...or 4.8¢. 

Mike


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> IIUC the arbitration clause actually does mean the OP can't sue. The argument before the US Supreme Court was whether or not a customer can sue if they've previously agreed to forced arbitration.
> 
> The Supreme Court upheld the clause in the Customer Agreement and ruled that the customer didn't have standing to sue the corporation. I'm assuming that includes small claims court but I'm an engineer, not a lawyer so I could be wrong...again. :grin:
> 
> ...


Except that the DirecTV Customer Agreement specifically allows an individual small claims action in lieu of arbitration. DirecTV may decide to just ignore small claims actions and pay any resulting judgement, figuring that it's a cost of doing business that is less than what they would spend to engage in arbitration.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Did the previous agreement require arbitration? If it did, you are right. If not, he's not under that rule since it is part of this agreement that he doesn't accept.

And even if you have arbitration as a rule, you can roll the dice and try small claims court.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

dcandmc said:


> Except that the DirecTV Customer Agreement specifically allows an individual small claims action in lieu of arbitration. DirecTV may decide to just ignore small claims actions and pay any resulting judgement, figuring that it's a cost of doing business that is less than what they would spend to engage in arbitration.


I can't get to their website at work so I can't read the current agreement but that would make any argument that you can't sue moot. Law suit is back on and the OP may still win this one. Interesting. 

We're back to the argument what constitutes cancelation by the customer.

I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Mike


----------



## zimm7778 (Nov 11, 2007)

Seems to me Directv would have two choices in this case. Either live up to the original agreement for the duration of the individuals contract if the consumer does not agree to the new one and cancel immediately upon the end of the contract , or cancel the service immediately and hold the consumer harmless on ETF. They were the ones who changed the agreement, not the consumer. Why then should the consumer be held liable for a decision to change the agreement you made about the service you provided? Granted this may just be wording on the agreement, but regardless it is an issue that would apply no matter what was changed.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

wilsonc said:


> There has been no real material changes to their terms and conditions, just updates to how things are defined. There are no damages incured. Good luck, because you've already agreed to pay the ETF as the agreement just says upon cancellation, not dictating who started the cancellation.


This is different than if they cancelled the account due to non payment for a long period of time how? ETF due.

Or if you continually made a pest of yourself demanding service calls for imaginary problems? ETF due.



Marlin Guy said:


> I think you are 100% right to do what you are doing.
> They can't change the rules and strongarm you into accepting them. Your agreement was based on the contract that you agreed to upon signing or renewing with them. if they want to change the terms of that agreement mid-stream, then they certainly cannot hold you liable for any associated costs when you opt out.
> 
> I, for one, understand that you are fighting them based on principle, and not necessarily based on whether or not you have issues with the new terms.
> ...


I don't have a contract to look at but I'd bet it has language allowing them to change terms and channels delivered. NO Strongarm involved, nobody ever came to his house and threatened a kneecapping if he didn't agree. 
It was the posters choice agree to the new innocuous terms or be terminated. ETF due.

Unless of course you were being sarcastic?

I'd bet my current cable company doesn't even have the original contract that was signed way, way back when HBO had one channel and signed off at night. They might of course but some of the name changes I remember Cross country cable, TKR cable, Cablevision and I'm sure there were a couple of others in there too.

Yes I have Satellite TV and Cable.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Marlin Guy" said:


> I think you are 100% right to do what you are doing.
> They can't change the rules and strongarm you into accepting them. Your agreement was based on the contract that you agreed to upon signing or renewing with them. if they want to change the terms of that agreement mid-stream, then they certainly cannot hold you liable for any associated costs when you opt out.
> 
> I, for one, understand that you are fighting them based on principle, and not necessarily based on whether or not you have issues with the new terms.
> ...


Playing devils advocate, does the agreement you agreed to when you first signed up and entered into a two year agreement with them not say that you are to beheld to the eft regardless of changes to the terms and conditions?

When a credit card changes it's terms and conditions and you cancel it, that doesn't change your balance due and you still owe that money, immediately. I see this as a similar situation, where you agreed to pay them so much if you canceled early for any reason, regardless of the reason when you first signed up.

I can see a reasons to not be charged the eft if their change to the terms and conditions significantly changed your ability to use their services income way, otherwise it seems a bit thin an argument at best.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> We've already been down this road and that thread got locked. It's been discussed until we're all blue in the face. We now at least have confirmation that the ETF is charged if you choose to cancel because you don't agree to the new Terms & Conditions. Let's move on...
> 
> :beatdeadhorse:


There already was confirmation in the other thread. Just some people don't want to agree with it.

I wouls also say that a lawyer would charge more in a retainer than any fees would be due to the fact they know this won't go to court so there's no "big pay day" potential for them. Also as with no basis for an objection over the difference in the T&C there's no legal basis either. Seems to me this thread is just to stir a pot more than it is to try to bring any real information.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Marlin Guy" said:


> As for those here who are saying that there is very little difference in the old agreement vs the new one - If the changes were inconsequential, then why did DirecTV go to the trouble of changing the agreement?


I have not read the new and old in full, but from what I have seen, a lot of the changes have to do with keeping up with the actual technology and how signals are delivered, to encompass these new things, like rvu enable tv access, which did not exsist a year ago. Basically making sure all the new stuff is properly covered, which is a logical thing IMHO to do.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"damondlt" said:


> Class Action Suits are a joke anyway. All these do is cost the company money and Lawyers make millions and the customer gets nothing!


They aren't all bad... Ever seen the movie Erin brocavich? sometimes even if they don't make people lots of money, they may have positive results for the future for everyone as a result of them.

Although, there is no way this is the case with anything like what the op is after.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Marlin Guy" said:


> It's not about motive. It's about having an agreement with a provider and having the provider changing the agreement, and then coercing you into continuing the services.
> If the changes are minimal and they are merely updating language, then they should phase in the changes with new customers, leaving existing ones as they were.


Except if the changes are not material to existing customers, why keep two separate terms and conditions. Why not simply reword it so that old customers are covered the same as new customers, and old customers upgrading to new equipment that is now included are all taken care of as well?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"harsh" said:


> As I pointed out in another thread, the Customer Agreement of five years ago explicitly stated that you would be charged an ETF if you had not fulfilled your commitment. The subsequent language has gone from "may" be charged to making reference to another section on cancellation.
> 
> I'm guessing that what they are trying to do is "clean up" the language so they don't restate what goes on in the event of a cancellation. This avoids having two definitions that may conflict if one of them is amended and the other is not.


Holy smokes. What's this world coming to. I actually agree with this!


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> There already was confirmation in the other thread. Just some people don't want to agree with it.


I disagree that there was confirmation. There was opinion in the other thread but nothing that even came close to confirmation. Just because someone post their opinion doesn't make it fact...I'm just sayin' :grin: 


> I wouls also say that a lawyer would charge more in a retainer than any fees would be due to the fact they know this won't go to court so there's no "big pay day" potential for them. Also as with no basis for an objection over the difference in the T&C there's no legal basis either. Seems to me this thread is just to stir a pot more than it is to try to bring any real information.


While I believe the ETF applies if I don't accept the new terms, an argument can be made for both sides of the discussion.

Personally, I find the discussion interesting and really like to hear arguments on both sides. 

For everyone reading this, if anyone believes there's nothing to discuss then they should just move on and let the rest of us have some spirited, civil discussion. 

Mike


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

inkahauts said:


> Except if the changes are not material to existing customers, why keep two separate terms and conditions. Why not simply reword it so that old customers are covered the same as new customers, and old customers upgrading to new equipment that is now included are all taken care of as well?


I believe this thread answers that question. Or at least it indicates that an alternative answer could be a better option.

As someone else stated, Dish chose to leave the option in there in order to retain good customers. Perhaps that reflects a difference in corporate mentalities. Perhaps that's one more example of why one CS numbers are rising while the other's are falling.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

rubocop said:


> They did not terminate service when they agreed to do so. Any charges related to this termination should not be imposed. I have already been informed of a pending ETF. The ETF or any other charge to me will initiate civil action.
> 
> It is interesting to see some of you are very loyal to DTV.


Any lawyer worth his/her salt would have advised you to not discuss anything about the particulars of a potential lawsuit with anyone but him/her. Posting here about a potential case, or anything even remotely connected to it, is a very, very bad idea. (assuming you would like the lawsuit to prevail, should it come to that)

Good luck, by the way.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I agree with hasan here. Simply discussing this in an open forum is bad for your case, and we know that DIRECTV staff read this site. 

It seems to me there are three possible outcomes, not exclusive of each other; in other words one or all could apply. 

(1) DIRECTV could choose to waive the ETF which sets a precedent. The money they get from ETFs has to be gained elsewhere... ergo higher charges to subscribers. 

(2) DIRECTV could fight this with their team of lawyers. The money they pay the lawyers has to be gained elsewhere... ergo higher charges to subscribers. 

(3) DIRECTV could find an internal way through meetings and procedure briefings to waive the ETF without setting a precedent. The money used for that staff has to be gained elsewhere... ergo higher charges to subscribers. 

I am not a lawyer and I refuse to comment on whether the thread starter "has a case." That said I do not see any possible way where this will help all subscribers, past present and future; what I see is the possibility that one person will be helped while the greater mass will be harmed. 

And therefore I oppose it. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or the one.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> DIRECTV could fight this with their team of lawyers. The money they pay the lawyers has to be gained elsewhere... ergo higher charges to subscribers.


I don't think that this is a zero sum game. I'm sure that DirecTV has attorneys on staff, so they're paying for legal expertise whether the OP does anything or not.

Go along to get along is fine to a point, but if you take it too far everyone will end up walking all over you.


----------



## trackmannn (Feb 16, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I agree with hasan here. Simply discussing this in an open forum is bad for your case, and we know that DIRECTV staff read this site.
> 
> It seems to me there are three possible outcomes, not exclusive of each other; in other words one or all could apply.
> 
> ...


Thus, further exemplifying the theory that most Americans are like sheep.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> (2) DIRECTV could fight this with their team of lawyers. The money they pay the lawyers has to be gained elsewhere... ergo higher charges to subscribers.


While I agree with everything you posted, I have to question whether it would actually cost DirecTv anything to fight a lawsuit in court though. I am just guessing they have lawyers on their payroll, which wouldnt cost anything extra.


----------



## keith_benedict (Jan 12, 2007)

rubocop said:


> They have made many promises of many things to many people and then just didn't deliver. Like some large businesses they think they are able to get away with what ever they want. This isn't my first confrontation with big business and unfortunately most likely won't be my last. An individual by themselves most likely will have very little impact. I've always succeeded by getting many others involved. They don't like large numbers against them. I have the money, time and patience to fight back and I don't like losing. I also have a very good attorney who isn't an ambulance chaser and tells me like it is (which I've only had to use sparingly).


In other words, there's nothing really wrong with the Agreement. You're just pissed at Directv over their service, understandably, and you want to cancel, but don't want to have to pay the ETF that you agreed to pay if you left Directv before your contract was up.

Sorry, but any attorney will see, based on your posts here, that "i don't agree to the change in terms of service" is just a pretext for getting out of your contract with Directv.


----------



## trackmannn (Feb 16, 2009)

keith_benedict said:


> In other words, there's nothing really wrong with the Agreement. You're just pissed at Directv over their service, understandably, and you want to cancel, but don't want to have to pay the ETF that you agreed to pay if you left Directv before your contract was up.
> 
> *Sorry, but any attorney will see, based on your posts here, that "i don't agree to the change in terms of service" is just a pretext for getting out of your contract with Directv.*


Fair enough, but this is not a case that is being heard in the court of public opinion. It's a matter of principle, and if the OP wants to fight it, go for it.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Are you saying the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many?

As for DIRECTV's legal staff being able to handle this with no additional cost, common sense would seem to say that DIRECTV does not pay lawyers to sit idly waiting for lawsuits, so there would be some direct or indirect additional cost to any lawsuit as resources would have to be allocated. Again, I simply quote common sense not facts. 

And I do certainly agree that there are principles worth standing up for, and things worth personal sacrifice. However I stop far, far short of believing that engaging in this lawsuit is one of them. It is certain to cost far more than the ETF, just to prove a point of which I am uncertain is more than "they can't treat me like this"...

If I had enough money to engage in lawsuits that dealt more in principle than actual damage to myself, I might use some of that money to buy enough DIRECTV stock that my voice would be heard in the boardroom, and change the company for the better from the inside.


----------



## trackmannn (Feb 16, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Are you saying the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many?


No, what I am saying is that it is not a competition. The needs of everyone are equally important.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

keith_benedict said:


> In other words, there's nothing really wrong with the Agreement. You're just pissed at Directv over their service, understandably, and you want to cancel, but don't want to have to pay the ETF that you agreed to pay if you left Directv before your contract was up.
> 
> Sorry, but any attorney will see, based on your posts here, that "i don't agree to the change in terms of service" is just a pretext for getting out of your contract with Directv.


Exactly, which is why the OP has never specifically answered the question as to what part of the change he doesn't agree to. An answer of 'everything' more than likely means he doesn't even know what the changes really are.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"Stuart Sweet" said:


> I agree with hasan here. Simply discussing this in an open forum is bad for your case, and we know that DIRECTV staff read this site.
> 
> It seems to me there are three possible outcomes, not exclusive of each other; in other words one or all could apply.
> 
> ...


So D* would increase prices to consumers to "make up" for lost ETF fees and pay for lawyers even though doing so would resulting less revenue (that pesky whole supply and demand thing)?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Are you saying the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many?
> 
> As for DIRECTV's legal staff being able to handle this with no additional cost, common sense would seem to say that DIRECTV does not pay lawyers to sit idly waiting for lawsuits, so there would be some direct or indirect additional cost to any lawsuit as resources would have to be allocated. Again, I simply quote common sense not facts.
> 
> ...


 You would be very surprised how many company's, even townships, pay lawyers flat rate salarys on a yearly basis. 
I would not doubt for a second directv has lawyers on the payroll that settle these thousands of cases and don't even bother directv with the petty chit chat.
Now when your talking about the state of Florida sueing Directv, that my bring some additional fees and services.

But this case, Directv deals with this all the time. 26+ million customers I garentee you lawyers are on the payroll


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

raott said:


> So D* would increase prices to consumers to "make up" for lost ETF fees and pay for lawyers even though doing so would resulting less revenue (that pesky whole supply and demand thing)?


Yes they would increase prices to keep a profit margin. Whether your assumption of less revenue happes in just conjecture just like everyone's opinion of how they think this situation would play out.

At this point this thread is nothing more than entertainment because there's too much in the OP's posts that prove he doesn't understand how the process would really work nor what he should or shouldn't be doing. He did however get people riled up so well played OP.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

"Shades228" said:


> Yes they would increase prices to keep a profit margin. Whether your assumption of less revenue happes in just conjecture just like everyone's opinion of how they think this situation would play out.
> 
> At this point this thread is nothing more than entertainment because there's too much in the OP's posts that prove he doesn't understand how the process would really work nor what he should or shouldn't be doing. He did however get people riled up so well played OP.


Sorry, that is simply not how pricing works.


----------



## wahooq (Oct 19, 2011)

+1


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> Yes they would increase prices to keep a profit margin. Whether your assumption of less revenue happes in just conjecture just like everyone's opinion of how they think this situation would play out.
> 
> *At this point this thread is nothing more than entertainment because there's too much in the OP's posts that prove he doesn't understand how the process would really work nor what he should or shouldn't be doing. He did however get people riled up so well played OP.*


And with that, this thread should be locked....nuff said....LOL

:hurah::hurah:


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Davenlr" said:


> While I agree with everything you posted, I have to question whether it would actually cost DirecTv anything to fight a lawsuit in court though. I am just guessing they have lawyers on their payroll, which wouldnt cost anything extra.


They do have attorneys on the payroll, but only two are listed as having anything to do with litigation. And one of those also lists "consumer protection" along with privacy and anti-piracy. The other is actually litigation management.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

In order to cancel and get out of the ETF (or not agree to the new agreement), there would have to be a "materially adverse change of contract". This is clearly not the case here.


----------



## adkinsjm (Mar 25, 2003)

I didn't see anything in the rules here prohibiting petitions or trying to encourage class action lawsuits. What am I missing? I just think some people are dependent on a certain company and don't want to tick of the powers that be.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

adkinsjm said:


> I didn't see anything in the rules here prohibiting petitions or trying to encourage class action lawsuits. What am I missing?


It's in the DBSTalk User Agreement (Link).

_(g) disseminate off-topic messages on forums promoting any product, service, web site, charity, board or venture, or promote boards on the Service through unsolicited electronic mail messages to third parties. If a user continuously posts links to other forums or web sites giving the appearance of advertising that site whether on or off topic, it will be considered SPAM and the posts will be removed. Links to online *petitions or calls for class action lawsuits are not allowed*._​
Mike


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

adkinsjm said:


> What am I missing?


You really think that if a company changes their agreement to read "Box" instead of "receiver" that you should be able to get out of your contract without penalty?


----------



## adkinsjm (Mar 25, 2003)

"spartanstew" said:


> You really think that if a company changes their agreement to read "Box" instead of "receiver" that you should be able to get out of your contract without penalty?


Plenty of people got out of cell phone ETFs due to slight changes in an agreement.


----------



## wahooq (Oct 19, 2011)

snap!


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I think the OP just merely doesn't agree with the new terms of agreement and wants to cancel, but doesn't say anything about paying ETF fees if you don't agree with TOS so he wants a civil lawsuit that's all, sheesh people.


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

So did you have service for one day? Did you call to get service? Did a installer come out and install a system for you? Did you know what you were getting into? Have you done the same thing with a cell phone or car lease or on a apartment? Are you just out to get Directv?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

raott said:


> Sorry, that is simply not how pricing works.


When costs increase then you either need to reduce costs elsewhere or increase revenue to compensate for said cost increase. So yes a price increase would happen if cost expenditures went over budget and could not be made up elsewhere. Pennies per customer add up fast so even if 1 penny of the price increase went to something it would be a sizable increase in spending.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

You can't just cancel for not agreeing the TOS and not pay ETF, if that was the case everyone would do it, just like any tv provider always read the fine print and agreement before accepting anything.


----------



## tigerwillow1 (Jan 26, 2009)

IMO the point isn't what the OP disagrees with or if he is materially affected. The issue is if these one-sided "we can change anything we want, but you're locked in" contracts, demanded by "all" big companies, are enforceable if a consumer chooses to put up a good fight. Most customers don't want the hassle and will cave in to the big company's intimidation. My OPINION is that it shouldn't be legal for one party to change an agreement without the other's consent.


----------



## Jive Turkey (Sep 6, 2011)

rubocop said:


> I don't agree with any of the changes. Damages? Not relevant at this point.


Sadly, I don't have time to read this whole thread (it looks interesting), but I'm calling rubbish right now. There is no way you have a lawyer and "damages" are irrelevant. If you walk into court without concrete damages, the judge will toss you in 20 seconds and hold your lawyer in contempt.

I think you are making this whole thing up, trying to gin up angst towards D*.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

adkinsjm said:


> Plenty of people got out of cell phone ETFs due to slight changes in an agreement.


Yes they did but those slight changes were materially adverse, increases in fees or discount changes, etc.....something that increased the cost to the cell phone user. What is the material changes with this change by Directv???


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Jive Turkey said:


> Sadly, I don't have time to read this whole thread (it looks interesting), but I'm calling rubbish right now. There is no way you have a lawyer and "damages" are irrelevant. If you walk into court without concrete damages, the judge will toss you in 20 seconds and hold your lawyer in contempt.
> 
> I think you are making this whole thing up, trying to gin up angst towards D*.


While I disagree with the OP's premise, I think his damages are the ETF. It may just hold up in small claims...maybe. :grin:

Mike


----------



## Jive Turkey (Sep 6, 2011)

Mike Bertelson said:


> That's a very important point. This and the previous Customer Agreements require that if informal resolution between DIRECTV and the customer can't be reached that it be settled by arbitration.
> 
> IIRC, within the last couple of months The United Stated Supreme Court upheld forced arbitration in credit Customer Agreements. It would seem the OP has no standing to take DIRECTV to court and that they'll be at the mercy of whom ever DIRECTV chooses as the Arbiter.
> 
> ...


Exactly why I don't believe he has talked to a lawyer about this.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> While I disagree with the OP's premise, I think his damages are the ETF. It may just hold up in small claims...maybe. :grin:
> 
> Mike


What would be his damages though in regards to the changes by Directv that caused him to not agree with the new T&C.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> While I disagree with the OP's premise, I think his damages are the ETF. It may just hold up in small claims...maybe. :grin:
> 
> Mike


Exactly; his damages are the amount of the ETF.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

dcandmc said:


> Exactly; his damages are the amount of the ETF.


That's a result of him not agreeing to the changes....what are the damages caused by the actual changes that are causing him to not agree to the changes in the first place???


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

bixler said:


> What would be his damages though in regards to the changes by Directv that caused him to not agree with the new T&C.


He doesn't need to show damages to not agree with new terms and conditions. DirecTV's Customer Agreement specifically says that if a subscriber doesn't accept new terms and conditions (no reason needed), they can so inform DirecTV, which then "may" initiate cancellation. If that's all there is to it, no damages, no basis for a law suit, end of story.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

bixler said:


> What would be his damages though in regards to the changes by Directv that caused him to not agree with the new T&C.


There don't seem to be any but IIUC, the premise is that the OP is inappropriately charged the ETF and is the basis for suing...I think. :scratchin

Mike


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

adkinsjm said:


> Plenty of people got out of cell phone ETFs due to slight changes in an agreement.


Incorrect.

People have gotten out of cell phone contracts when there was a materially adverse change (i.e. text message rates increased, etc.), NOT for wording changes.


----------



## bixler (Oct 14, 2008)

dcandmc said:


> He doesn't need to show damages to not agree with new terms and conditions. DirecTV's Customer Agreement specifically says that if a subscriber doesn't accept new terms and conditions (no reason needed), they can so inform DirecTV, which then "may" initiate cancellation. If that's all there is to it, no damages, no basis for a law suit, end of story.


So when he walks into court and the judge says, sir what are the damages that Directv has caused by changing their T&C's that has in turn caused you to not agree to said changes in the T&C's and the OP says there aren't any.....you mean to tell me the judge is going to continue with the hearing? 

If I was that judge I'd laugh my ass off

I mean if Directv increased his bill 1 penny I would see the OP's side/case.....but NOT in this instance. He's looking for a free meal ticket out of ETF and it has NOTHING to do with the T&C changes.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> People have gotten out of cell phone contracts when there was a materially adverse change (i.e. tax rates increased, etc.), NOT for wording changes.


One of the few things I agree with is the fact that the Customer Agreement doesn't put any conditions on choosing to not accept the changes.

One could argue that the why is irrelevant and only the result of that decision is at issue.

Mike


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

acostapimps said:


> You can't just cancel for not agreeing the TOS and not pay ETF, if that was the case everyone would do it, just like any tv provider always read the fine print and agreement before accepting anything.


Everyone *is* doing it...well all the wolves are anyway. 

Besides, I read the fine print before signing, then they changed it a year later. That's what this is all about. If you do nothing, you're basically signing a brand new contract. Have you read the entire new TOS? Do you read every new TOS agreement from D* or your credit card company or your cellular provider each and every time you are notified?

Just to be clear--you're not canceling. They are. If you want to maintain service, but they refuse to continue to offer it, why should you pay the ETF for failure to maintain service?

The same argument is made if you've moved to a house or apartment without a Line of Sight. D* is now failing to provide service to you, they are failing to hold up their end of the contract, so they cancel your service and don't charge the ETF.


----------



## MarkG21 (Jan 4, 2010)

Not a lawyer here and I very well may be wrong,


The way I interpret on contract law,

One party can make changes to the contract at will without a breach of contract if it is immaterial and with proper notice. What is material and immaterial is subjective, and that is what you'll be fighting in court/arbitration for. If it is immaterial, then you should be bound to your contract or ETF whereas if material, you should have a right to not accept and no ETF. 

You still have to acknowledge acceptance for immaterial and failure to do so is a breach on you and subject to ETF. 

I think in this case, it is generally accepted that the T&C is very immaterial and nothing adverse.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

bixler said:


> So when he walks into court and the judge says, sir what are the damages that Directv has caused by changing their T&C's that has in turn caused you to not agree to said changes in the T&C's and the OP says there aren't any.....you mean to tell me the judge is going to continue with the hearing?
> 
> If I was that judge I'd laugh my ass off
> 
> I mean if Directv increased his bill 1 penny I would see the OP's side/case.....but NOT in this instance. He's looking for a free meal ticket out of ETF and it has NOTHING to do with the T&C changes.


The judge wouldn't question why he has chosen to not accept the new terms and conditions, because that's not what the case would be about. The Customer Agreement makes it perfectly clear that DirecTV has the right to change terms and conditions whenever it wants for whatever reason, and the customer has the right to refuse to accept the new terms and conditions, for whatever reason. The refusal or acceptance of new terms and conditions is not the issue; what is at issue is the conduct of the parties after DirecTV was notified that new terms and conditions are not acceptable.


----------



## gaperrine (Dec 8, 2002)

DirecTV says that they need all customers under the same agreement because they "cannot offer Service to different customers on different terms". Yet they allow customers to remain in grandfathered packages. Why not grandfathered TOS agreements?
Will their next email be to grandfathered package customers telling them to accept a new package or be cancelled?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"bobcamp1" said:


> Everyone *is* doing it...well all the wolves are anyway.
> 
> Besides, I read the fine print before signing, then they changed it a year later. That's what this is all about. If you do nothing, you're basically signing a brand new contract.


You're not signing a new contact, but agreeing to the TOS. Bug difference.


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

MarkG21 said:


> You still have to acknowledge acceptance for immaterial and failure to do so is a breach on you and subject to ETF.


No, a subscriber has the right to refuse any new terms and conditions, even when the changes are immaterial. The Customer Agreement sets no conditions on a subscriber's right to refuse.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

bobcamp1 said:


> Everyone *is* doing it...well all the wolves are anyway.
> 
> Besides, I read the fine print before signing, then they changed it a year later. That's what this is all about. If you do nothing, you're basically signing a brand new contract. Have you read the entire new TOS? Do you read every new TOS agreement from D* or your credit card company or your cellular provider each and every time you are notified?
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure by accepting the TOS you are also accepting changes in terms if you choose to accept but should notify you just like credit card companies do and if you don't agree they(Directv) can cancel service and abide by your remaining lease agreement(Contract) so it's better to read the TOS (at least the important part) before accepting anything like I said before.


----------



## MarkG21 (Jan 4, 2010)

dcandmc said:


> No, a subscriber has the right to refuse any new terms and conditions, even when the changes are immaterial. The Customer Agreement sets no conditions on a subscriber's right to refuse.


Yes, a subscriber has a right to not accept. Anybody and everybody has the right to break any contract. But doing so, the non breaching party has the right to go for damages (in DirecTVs case, the ETF fee, if applicable).

You have to accept the TOS inn order to get DirecTV service.

In the case of an immaterial change, your still bound by your commitment if you have one. By refusing, you will be the breaching party.

If it is a material change, Then DirecTV is the breaching party.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

And the OP accomplished everything he wanted here, to stir a pot that doesnt have anything in it. You notice he hasnt returned? All 12 of his posts have been nothing but rants and negativity.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

CCarncross said:


> And the OP accomplished everything he wanted here, to stir a pot that doesnt have anything in it. You notice he hasnt returned? All 12 of his posts have been nothing but rants and negativity.


That's ok at least we are all informed on how the new TOS should work for the uninformed (or at least didn't read the TOS correctly or don't have the time)


----------



## dcandmc (Sep 24, 2008)

MarkG21 said:


> Yes, a subscriber has a right to not accept. Anybody and everybody has the right to break any contract. But doing so, the non breaching party has the right to go for damages (in DirecTVs case, the ETF fee, if applicable).
> 
> You have to accept the TOS inn order to get DirecTV service.
> 
> ...


No. Acting in accordance with the terms of the contract does not constitute a breach of contract. The DirecTV Customer Agreement (the contract) provides the option for a subscriber to refuse new terms of service, without any conditions. A subscriber who chooses not to accept new terms of service is acting within the contract and is not in breach. They are not "breaking" the contract, because the contract contemplates and allows for such an action. Whether the new terms are a material change or not makes no difference.


----------



## HDSC (Jan 9, 2012)

CCarncross said:


> And the OP accomplished everything he wanted here, to stir a pot that doesnt have anything in it. You notice he hasnt returned? All 12 of his posts have been nothing but rants and negativity.


If you notice he registered after he ended his contract and submitted his complaint on this board and advised that he had retained an Attorney.

Whooped de Do!

Now here is an injustice:
HR20-700 HDMI port flickering
Replaced with HR21=200 and no ald21 (cause they don't do that anymore)_


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

MarkG21 said:


> Yes, a subscriber has a right to not accept. Anybody and everybody has the right to break any contract. But doing so, the non breaching party has the right to go for damages (in DirecTVs case, the ETF fee, if applicable).
> 
> You have to accept the TOS inn order to get DirecTV service.
> 
> ...


Are you in breech is the contract gives you the right to either accept or not accept the Customer Agreement?

I'm no lawyer but IIUC it seems to me that everyone has complied with the terms of the Customer Agreement. The OP refused to accept the terms as allowed and DIRECTV canceled his service per the terms of the Customer Agreement. There is no breech...I think. :grin:

However, it's apparent that DIRECTV considers the ETF applicable if a subscriber decides not to accept the terms. And, that's the bone of contention.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

gaperrine said:


> DirecTV says that they need all customers under the same agreement because they "cannot offer Service to different customers on different terms". Yet they allow customers to remain in grandfathered packages. Why not grandfathered TOS agreements?
> Will their next email be to grandfathered package customers telling them to accept a new package or be cancelled?


A programming package isn't a legal contract where as the Customer Agreement is. I'm guessing their legal department would rather not have multiple versions of the same contract running around.

Although, Dish's Customer Agreement does say they may allow the customer to remain on the old agreement. :grin:

Which is better...I guess that depends on who you ask. 

Mike


----------



## makaiguy (Sep 24, 2007)

Can't believe this thread is still droning on ...

:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

makaiguy said:


> Can't believe this thread is still droning on ...
> 
> :beatdeadhorse:


:lol::beatdeadhorse:


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

Lawyers lawyers everywhere #SMH


----------

