Class Action Arbitration Filed in New York
Kirtland & Packard, in partnership with a NYC law firm, filed a Demand for Class Action Arbitration in New York on January 20, 2005.
An arbitration usually gets relief much faster than a lawsuit. The firm is seeking, among other things, damages, updates to V710 phones sold to date for full Bluetooth capabilities, and to stop Verizon from selling V710s with disabled Bluetooth.
Anyone interested should fill out the form on this page:
http://www.kirtlandpackard.com/v710/ »
An arbitration usually gets relief much faster than a lawsuit. The firm is seeking, among other things, damages, updates to V710 phones sold to date for full Bluetooth capabilities, and to stop Verizon from selling V710s with disabled Bluetooth.
Anyone interested should fill out the form on this page:
http://www.kirtlandpackard.com/v710/ »
...
This sounds like a fun topic! I wonder if anyone has an opinion on something like this? 😉
...
🤣 Arbitration means that their lawsuit idea failed miserably, and now they're trying to get anything done for their efforts, the best they'll get is a $50 coupon. 🤣
...
Zaniphan said:
🤣 Arbitration means that their lawsuit idea failed miserably, and now they're trying to get anything done for their efforts, the best they'll get is a $50 coupon. 🤣
Actually it is the opposite. The Verizon customer service agreements in most states require arbitration to begin with. To have begun that process less than 30 days after the original Lawsuit was filed is great.
The Claimants will be "comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Motorola V710 cellular telephones sold by or on behalf of Verizon Wireless that lack the Bluetooth(R) capabilities necessary for wireless computer data transfer and interface essential to the meaningful use of the Bluetooth wirel...
(continues)
...
Exactly, the claimants realized that they are actually unable to bring Verizon to court over this matter, so they decided to fall back on arbitration.
...
Zaniphan said:
Exactly, the claimants realized that they are actually unable to bring Verizon to court over this matter, so they decided to fall back on arbitration.
Huh? Read the last post in this thread.
It is not a "fall back" position at all. It is a "move forward" action.
...
If they would have had a successful lawsuit, they would have gained a lot more than they will through arbitration, as in the moto antenna class action, nothing muched gained for the consumers, but I guess we will have to wait and see.
...
The action isn't really about money, winning a lawsuit or even really the V710. It's about buying a piece of wireless hardware and using it off the subscriber network the way it was designed. Headsets, car kits, PDAs and PCs should not have off-network restrictions placed upon them by the network provider.
Today's phone equipment is much more sophisticated than those of the past. Consumers are paying hundreds of dollars for equipment that is no longer a phone, but a portable computer. As a result, consumers expect a certain level of functionality out of these products and the same level of privacy they would receive if they purchased a laptop computer or PDA.
Laws have been passed in other countries banning the practice of locking m...
(continues)
Today's phone equipment is much more sophisticated than those of the past. Consumers are paying hundreds of dollars for equipment that is no longer a phone, but a portable computer. As a result, consumers expect a certain level of functionality out of these products and the same level of privacy they would receive if they purchased a laptop computer or PDA.
Laws have been passed in other countries banning the practice of locking m...
(continues)
...
Arbitration favors the plaintiff more than the defendant, so yes they are losing the battle in this situation.
Arbitration is an alternative to litigation. Judges have too many cases as it is, so any solution that gets the case off their back is a good solution to them. In this case, if it does get to litigation they want to rush through the case as fast as possible to move on. So they are always wanting the plaintiffs to get a settlement out of the defendants somehow.
You could guess, and it would only be a guess, that K&P couldn't get VZW to settle, so they tried to get them to agree for arbitration. For those who do not know what arbitration is:
K&P chooses party A.
VZW chooses party B.
A and B choose party C.
A, B, and C all si...
(continues)
Arbitration is an alternative to litigation. Judges have too many cases as it is, so any solution that gets the case off their back is a good solution to them. In this case, if it does get to litigation they want to rush through the case as fast as possible to move on. So they are always wanting the plaintiffs to get a settlement out of the defendants somehow.
You could guess, and it would only be a guess, that K&P couldn't get VZW to settle, so they tried to get them to agree for arbitration. For those who do not know what arbitration is:
K&P chooses party A.
VZW chooses party B.
A and B choose party C.
A, B, and C all si...
(continues)
...
mycool said:
VZW will most likely not go for this considering that the arbitrators hired by K&P could be buddies with companies such as Cingular trying to get their hands on useful info during the discovery process.
Ahh, the law is good. This is a bad sign for all those who were jumping with joy about the Bluetooth lawsuit, but a great thing for VZW.
For those familiar with the case, the American Arbitration Assocation has jurisdiction over this dispute pursuant to the section entitled "Dispute Resolution and Mandatory Arbitration" of the Verizon "Customer Agreement" between Verizon and the Class members. [Customers]
So actually, it is not very good for Verizon at all.
...
