The Do Not Call Registry, managed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation's consumer protection agency, offers registration for consumers to stop for-profit commercial telemarketers from calling. Registration does not expire; telephone numbers placed on the National Do Not Call Registry will remain on it permanently due to the Do-Not-Call Improvement Act of 2007, which became law in February 2008.

Progressive Auto Insurance and other large for-profit companies are violating the Do Not Call law by continuing to call consumers who have had their phone numbers registered with the Do Not Call Registry for over 31 days. If you received an unwanted call after your number was on the National Registry for 31 days, or if you received a call that used a recorded message instead of a live person (whether or not your number was on the Registry), please contact the law firm of Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP to discuss your legal options.

This week, CNET reported on a growing problem for a number of consumers who have been wronged by their wireless data companies: their inability to sue these companies in a class action law suit. Last year, in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court upheld a company’s right to include a clause in contracts prohibiting subscribers from suing the company as part of a class action, meaning that consumers must choose between settling their dispute via mediation or pursuing their claim individually, most likely in small claims court.

"Companies should not be able to effectively insulate themselves from liability when they rip off their customers," said Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.), who has sponsored a bill that would prohibit companies from inserting arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. "But that's what a recent decision by the Supreme Court has allowed them to do. Customers should have the option to bring a claim before our courts--including a class action claim--if that is the only way to get justice. If they choose to use arbitration, fine. If they choose to band together with other consumers and file a class-action suit, that's fine too. All my bill does is restore their right to make a choice." "

For the full article from CNET, click here.

Investigation has found that J2 Global Communications, Inc., recently stopped offering voicemail retrieval services to its JConnect Premier customers without any notification, even though the JConnect Premier service includes voicemail retrieval services.  The voicemail retrieval services allow retrieval of voicemail through email and retrieval of emails by calling toll-free numbers.  J2 Global Communications continues to charge its JConnect Premier customers the yearly $165 fee.  If you or anyone you know is a JConnect Premier customer, please contact us to discuss your legal options.

The United States Supreme Court has sided with AT&T Mobility, in a case that is bound to pose a challenge to Los Angeles class-action attorneys.  The court has held that the company can enforce a provision in a cell phone contract that requires customers to settle their disputes individually through arbitration, instead of filing class-action lawsuits.

The lawsuit is related to a class-action lawsuit in which plaintiffs alleged that AT&T Inc. charges sales cell phones advertised as free.  In 2006, Vincent and Lisa Concepción filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T Mobility.  The company had charged the couple $30 in state taxes for what was supposed to be a free cell phone.  The couple filed a lawsuit alleging violation of California's laws.

AT&T argued that the couple was bound by a clause in their cell phone contract that required them to resolve disputes through arbitration, without any right to a class-action lawsuit.  Several lower federal courts in California agreed with the couple.  However, the Supreme Court has said that consumers are bound by arbitration clauses even when class-action lawsuits are supported by state laws.

It was a divided 5-4 ruling, along ideological lines.  The court’s four liberal members, including Justices Sonja Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, saying that if the ability to file class-action lawsuits was taken away, then it would discourage small dollar claimants from recovering compensation. 

The Supreme Court’s decision shouldn't be too surprising to California class-action lawyers considering that the Supreme Court typically favors arbitration processes laid down in the Federal Arbitration Act.