(Photo: Beach Peanuts)
As if Citizens United, which unleashed unlimited piles of cash for donations to influence political campaigns wasn't bad enough, yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court dealt yet another blow to actual "citizens" and gave businesses another big advantage over consumers. Just like the Citizens United ruling, you can thank the "Bush five" ( John G. Roberts Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Antonin Scalia) for stacking the deck against individuals in favor of those big donor corporations.
This time the ruling deals with class action lawsuits, and potentially helps corporations avoid them altogether. The case involves a California couple, AT&T Mobility, and an objection to a $30 charge for what was supposed to be a free cellphone. Because of a contract the couple signed, they were forced to resolve any disputes against AT&T Mobility through arbitration.
The couple sought class action treatment, and a lower court allowed the case to go forward. In the Supreme Court ruling yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the lower court "failed to properly apply the Federal Arbitration Act, which overrides some state court decisions disfavoring arbitration."
What does that mean for consumers? Well, it's not good:
Though the decision concerned arbitrations, it appeared to provide businesses with a way to avoid class-action lawsuits in court. All they need do, the decision suggested, is use standard-form contracts that require two things: that disputes be raised only through the informal mechanism of arbitration and that claims be brought one by one.
“The decision basically lets companies escape class actions, so long as they do so by means of arbitration agreements,” Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, said. “This is a game-changer for businesses. It’s one of the most important and favorable cases for businesses in a very long time.”
Put another way, it basically says a business can force consumers to sign a contract that would bar them from filing any class action against that company, which in turn protects the company from liability. If you want to do business with companies requiring that you sign such an agreement, you're stuck. The company now has unfair advantage over you to do whatever they choose, say like charging you huge "fees" hidden in the fine print for a "free" product, like the couple who filed the original suit in California.
Sure, you have the option of not doing business with any company who requires that you sign away your rights, but think about that. What company would be left to you that hadn't jumped on board with a contract that would give them carte blanche with consumers rights? Corporations are in business to profit. What company would say "well, we really shouldn't require an unfair contract against an individual that would be advantageous to our bottom line. Let's give the little guy a break?" With all the money that is literally being bled into political campaigns even as I write this blog post, what are the chances of that happening?
Right. Zilch.
Welcome to the new world of corporate domination. Since Republicans and the Bush Administration have succeeded in politicizing virtually every branch of government all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, you, the voter and consumer, are just plain screwed. Citizens United merely opened the floodgates.
Still think your "one little vote" in an election doesn't matter?
It matters.
