magicJack  and magicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks

magicJack and magicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks

magicJack and magicJack Plus Unofficial Technical Support. Your Magic Jack and Magic Jack Plus phone service information resource
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    magicJack and magicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks -> magicJack News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
laserjobs
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 669

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 10:34 am    Post subject: NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
IF YOU RENEWED A SUBSCRIPTION TO MAGICJACK TELEPHONE SERVICE AT ANY TIME SINCE JUNE 24, 2007, AFTER YOUR PRIOR SUBSCRIPTION EXPIRED, BUT LESS THAN SIXTY DAYS AFTER THAT PRIOR TERM EXPIRED, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
THIS IS A NOTICE OF A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF, AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS, AS DESCRIBED BELOW.
YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS NOTICE BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING A MEMBER OF THE CLASS OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU ULTIMATELY MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE BENEFITS PURSUANT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED HEREIN.
This is not notice of a lawsuit against you. You have not been sued.
CLASS DESCRIPTION
TO: All persons residing in the United States of America (i) who, at any time on or after June 24, 2007, purchased and paid for a one year renewal of their subscription for the magicJack telephone service after their prior subscription term expired, but less than sixty days after that prior subscription term expired, (ii) whose renewal subscription terms were deemed by Defendants to have begun on or about the expiration date of their prior subscription term, and
(iii) whose subscription terms expired before Defendants revised their Terms of Service on April 22, 2011.
If you need assistance or additional information, please call the attorneys who have been appointed by the Court as Class Counsel. The toll free telephone number for Class Counsel is (800) 948-9617.
INTRODUCTION
On June 24, 2011, the named Plaintiff, Surinder Aggarwal (referred to in this Notice as ?Plaintiff? or ?Aggarwal?), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the named Defendants, magicJack LP andYMax Communications Corp. (referred to in this Notice as ?Defendants?), violated the laws of the State of Florida by not disclosing their practice when a customer renews a subscription for his or her magicJack telephone service after the prior subscription expired, but less than sixty days after expiration, of beginning the new subscription from the date the prior subscription expired and not the renewal date.
Aggarwal and the Defendants have agreed to settle the class action lawsuit. Pursuant to its Order dated April 5, 2012, the Court that is overseeing the class action lawsuit filed by Aggarwal conditionally certified the class, as described above, for settlement purposes, and directed the provision of this notice to class members. You have received this notice because you were identified as a person (i) who renewed your subscription for the magicJack service after your prior subscription expired, but less than sixty days after that prior subscription expired, (ii) whose subscription expired before Defendants revised their Terms of Service on April 22, 2011, to disclose the practice clearly, and (iii) whose renewal subscription was deemed by Defendants to have begun to run for one year from the date that your prior subscription expired rather than from the date that you renewed your subscription.
This notice describes the proposed settlement and what actions, if any, you may want to take prior to the hearing, set for July 23, 2012 at 3:00 p.m., at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, located at 205 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, at which the Court will consider final approval of the settlement (the ?Fairness Hearing?).
IF YOU QUALIFY AS A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, THERE ARE SOME CHOICES YOU MUST MAKE AT THIS TIME:
FIRST: You must decide whether you want to remain a member of the class so as to become potentially eligible to receive a distribution of settlement money, as described below. If you want to remain a member of the class, you do not need to do anything to participate in the settlement.
SECOND: If you do not want to be part of the proposed settlement, you must opt-out of the class, in writing in accordance with the requirements set forth below, by June 29, 2012. Otherwise, you will be bound by all the settlement terms if the Court approves it. If you choose to opt-out, you will not be eligible to receive a distribution of settlement money.
THIRD: You must also decide, before June 29, 2012, whether you wish to object to any aspect of the proposed settlement. You cannot both opt-out and object.
IF YOU DO NOT OPT-OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION, THE SETTLEMENT WILL AFFECT YOUR RIGHT TO START OR CONTINUE ANY OTHER LAWSUIT OR PROCEEDING RELATED TO THE ISSUES IN THIS ACTION. THE CLAIMS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED ARE SET FORTH IN THIS NOTICE.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Service at Issue:
Defendant magicJack LP markets the magicJack? telephone device, which uses Voice over Internet Protocol technology to allow customers to talk on a standard telephone using only their magicJack device and a broadband Internet connection, without a telephone line. Defendant YMax Communications Corp. provides networking capabilities and infrastructure that allow users of the magicJack to make and/or receive phone calls. The initial purchase price for the magicJack includes the price of the magicJack telephone device itself as well as the cost of a software license which enables customers to use the magicJack telephone service. In particular, the applicable Terms of Service grant the customer a license to use the magicJack device and certain related software for a specified period of time.
Prior to the end of the license term, the customer must renew his or her registration for additional terms at then-applicable license fees. The renewal fee for an annual subscription is currently advertised, and has historically been advertised, to cost $19.95.
Summary of Plaintiff?s Contentions:
Plaintiff Aggarwal filed this class action lawsuit, contending that the Defendants violated Florida law by failing to disclose their practice when a customer renews a subscription for his or her magicJack telephone service after the prior subscription expired, but less than sixty days after expiration, of beginning the new subscription from the date the prior subscription expired.
For those customers who renew their subscriptions after the expiration of their prior subscription term, but less than sixty days after the expiration of the prior subscription term, Defendants have the renewal subscription run from the date that the prior subscription expired rather than from the date of renewal. By way of example, if a customer?s prior subscription expired on May 1, but the customer does not renew until June 1, the renewed subscription would run for one year from May 1.
Aggarwal?s lawsuit, which is brought as a class action, alleges that his annual subscription expired on December 21, 2010, and that he renewed his subscription for the magicJack telephone service on January 10, 2011, expecting that he would receive another year of service that began on January 10, 2011. However, after paying to renew his subscription for the service, Aggarwal checked his subscription and discovered that, rather than running for a year from January 10, 2011 to January 9, 2012, his renewal subscription for the service was treated by Defendants to expire on December 21, 2011, less than a full year from the date of his renewal on January 10, 2011. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of this, Aggarwal paid a subscription fee for a 52 week period, although he received two weeks and five days less of full subscription privileges in return. In other words, the lawsuit alleges that even though Aggarwal paid for a full 52 weeks of magicJack telephone service, he only received 49 weeks and two days of the full service.
Aggarwal?s lawsuit alleges that Defendants? practice of ?backdating? these subscriptions was not disclosed in any way to the magicJack customers. It alleges that the practice was applied by Defendants to all members of the class described at the beginning of this notice in the section entitled ?Class Description.? The lawsuit alleges that, by not disclosing the practice, Defendants violated Florida law. The lawsuit seeks damages for those customers whose renewal subscriptions were so ?backdated,? and also seeks an Order of the Court requiring that Defendants cease violating Florida law.
Summary of Defendants? Contentions:
Defendants deny the allegations and claims asserted in this action, including all charges of wrongdoing or liability arising out of the conduct, statements, acts or omissions alleged in this litigation. When a customer fails to renew a license to use Defendants? telephone service upon its expiration date, for sixty days thereafter that customer nevertheless continues to receive certain phone service from Defendants (such as the ability to make 911 calls, accept inbound calls, and contact other magicJack users) and to retain his or her phone number. At the end of that sixty day period, the customer loses those services and the ability to retain his or her phone number. If that customer renews the license within the sixty day period (during the period in which he or she still receives certain services), the customer?s renewal subscription begins on the date that the prior subscription ended. However, if the customer renews after that sixty day period, then the customer?s renewal subscription begins on the date of the renewal. On April 22, 2011, Defendants revised their Terms of Service to explain this practice clearly.
Defendants deny any liability to Class Members and are prepared to defend this case vigorously. By agreeing to the terms of this settlement, Defendants do not admit to any fault, liability, or wrongdoing, and continue to deny any wrongdoing in any way associated with this action.
REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT
The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiff or Defendants, nor did Defendants admit any wrongdoing or legal liability. Instead, the parties agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the expense and uncertainty of litigation. Plaintiff and Class Members may receive compensation under the terms of the settlement, and Defendants have changed their terms of service to make clear that, if customers renew after their prior subscription expires but less than sixty days after their prior subscription expired, their renewal subscription will run from the day that their prior subscription expired.
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
This notice is directed to you because you may be a member of the Class on whose behalf this action is pending and which is now the subject of the proposed settlement set forth below. You should draw no conclusion with regard to the merits of the litigation from your receipt of this notice. The Court has not addressed or made any findings with respect to the allegations made by any party, including with respect to liability, causation or damages; and, in arriving at a settlement, no party has admitted or conceded any allegations made by the other. Nor has there been any finding that provable damages have occurred or could be measured.
In order to carry out the settlement, the Court hearing this class action case has conditionally certified a class of claimants as is described on the first and second pages of this Notice under the section entitled ?Class Description.? The Court has also appointed the plaintiff, Surinder Aggarwal, as the class representative, and has appointed his attorneys as ?Class Counsel.? His attorneys are the law firms of Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C. and Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
The terms and condition of the proposed settlement are summarized in this notice. In summary, the proposed settlement provides as follows:
1. Defendants will seek to pay the 60,430 customers who previously received less than a full year of full telephone service when they renewed their subscription after the expiration of their prior subscription term but less than sixty days after their prior subscription expired, and whose subscriptions expired before Defendants amended their Terms of Service on April 22, 2011, in a prorated amount for each day of the service less than the full year of service received. The monetary benefit to the 60,430 customers is estimated to be $55,014.12. To the extent feasible, these payments will be made as a credit on the payment card account that the customer used to purchase the magicJack service, or on an alternative payment card account identified by the customer if the customer no longer has the payment card account that he or she used to purchase the magicJack service.
2. Defendants have amended their Terms of Service to now explain clearly that if a customer delays renewal and renews his or her subscription after the expiration of the subscription, but before sixty days after expiration of the subscription, the customer's new term will begin as of the expiration date and will continue up to the anniversary of that expiration date. Defendants changed the Terms of Service as part of this class action settlement. The amended terms of service as they have been changed as a result of this class action settlement are posted by Defendants on the magicJack website, www.magicjack.com/tos.
3. Defendants will cover the cost and expense of administering the settlement, including administering and publishing this notice to the Class Members and the cost and expense of processing the payment to the Class Members.
4. Upon final approval of the Class action settlement, Defendants will pay Aggarwal an incentive or enhancement award in the amount of $2,500.00, to compensate him for his services as the class representative.
5. Upon final approval of the class action settlement, Class Counsel will petition the Court for an award of attorneys? fees and costs. Defendants have agreed not to oppose an award of attorneys? fees and costs up to and including the amount of $40,000.00, which amount will be paid by Defendants in addition to the amounts that are being paid to the Class Members. Defendants intend to oppose any award over that amount.
6. After the Court provides its final approval of the class action settlement,
Defendants will, within sixty (60) days thereof, pay the 60,430 customers who previously received less than a full year of magicJack service when they renewed their subscription less than sixty days after their prior subscription expired, in a prorated amount for each day of service less than the full year of full service received. The payments to the Class Members will be made as a credit on the payment card account the customer used to purchase his or her magicJack service, or on an alternative payment card account if the customer no longer has the payment card account that he or she used to purchase the magicJack service.
RELEASE IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS A
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
crackerjack
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 16 Nov 2007
Posts: 784

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:22 pm    Post subject: Class Action-Reader's Digest Version

60,430 possible affected customers share an award of $55,014.12

60430/55014.12=$.91

I can't wait till I receive this windfall

Hurray for Surinder Aggarwal, even though he, too, is a scum-sucking attorney in real-life.


Last edited by crackerjack on Mon May 07, 2012 4:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 3:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Class Action-Reader's Digest Version

crackerjack wrote:
60,430 possible affected customers share an award of $55,014.12

60430/55014.12=$.91

I can't wait till I receive this windfall

Hurray for Surinder Aggarwal!!!!!!!


He/she is getting $2,500 for being the lead plaintiff, and the attorneys get $40,000, so there are a couple of happy campers, which is usually the way it always works.

If I was one of the 60,430 I would assign my 91 pennies to you, so you could double your windfall, but unfortunately I'm not eligible. It used to be you could double your money every 7 years in a decent interest bearing account. But with today's interest rates it might take 50 years. Either way, spend your money wisely, these bonanzas only happen rarely.

Of course, since the awards will be prorated on the amount of time you were screwed out of, some will get more than 91 pennies, some less. I cannot imagine how pissed off it would make me to get a couple of cents credit on my credit card statement from this. All it would do is remind me all over again how I thought I was screwed by MJ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 4:53 pm    Post subject:

While the settlement amount is clearly ridiculous it was the a good thing that it happened. The state law is very clear on that issue and Dan decided- like he has been doing over years- to ignore it and squeeze out a few pennies extra out of his customers.
Was it such a big deal to put one extra sentence into the TOS?
Unfortunately, this will not make any lasting impression on him. Since the Supreme Corporate Court effectively eliminated the possibility of filing such law suits, there is very little danger that he gets any more problems in the future.
That's what class action law suits were intended for- to prevent that corporations tries to steal 91 cents from you and millions of others again and again unpunished.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 5:27 pm    Post subject:

cell14 wrote:
Unfortunately, this will not make any lasting impression on him. Since the Supreme Corporate Court effectively eliminated the possibility of filing such law suits, there is very little danger that he gets any more problems in the future.


Nonsense. The Supreme Court decision was in April of last year. This lawsuit was filed in June of last year, AFTER this supposed horrendous decision limiting the ability to file class action lawsuits. Didn't stop this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conniemadagain
Dan isn't smart enough to hire me


Joined: 31 Mar 2009
Posts: 396

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 7:12 pm    Post subject:

I could almost buy a burger w/.91 ...

Mr. Green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 7:18 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
Nonsense.
Rolling Eyes
Quote:
The Supreme Court decision was in April of last year. This lawsuit was filed in June of last year, AFTER this supposed horrendous decision limiting the ability to file class action lawsuits. Didn't stop this one.

Maybe that's because the decision does not prohibit class action law suits, rather lets contractual provisions which prohibits the contract parties to use class action law suits prevail, even in cases where the state law specifically makes such contractual provisions unenforceable. Which means that if the old TOS of MJ did not contain such a clause that guy could file a class action laws suit and win it. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 7:30 pm    Post subject:

cell14 wrote:
Quote:
Nonsense.
Rolling Eyes


Roll your eyes all you want. You said the SC decision "effectively eliminated the possibility of filing such law suits". That logically appears to be nonsense.

And in the end, if I read it right, MJ isn't changing a thing about how they are dealing with renewing expired subscriptions. You still only get the year from when the subscription expired, not from when you renew it. All they did was change their TOS, which 99% of users don't read anyways, to disclose it. So any users who fall into that situation still will think they are getting screwed over by MJ.

So the end result is the lead plaintiff gets some cash, the attorneys get more, and MJ continues to collect the 91 pennies that customers don't think they deserve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kedwards
MagicJack User


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 48
Location: Suffolk, VA

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:19 pm    Post subject:

Seems pretty silly, to me. By my rough calculations, the named plaintiff was suiting over about $.75, since he re-upped about 19 days after his subscription expired...

Keith
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:58 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
You said the SC decision "effectively eliminated the possibility of filing such law suits". That logically appears to be nonsense.

How so? After this decision, just about every corporation with a lawyer who deserves his fees puts the appropriate clause in their contracts, examples plenty. Even worse,not just into sale/ service contracts, but also e.g. into employment contracts.

Quote:
All they did was change their TOS, which 99% of users don't read anyways, to disclose it.

And that's perfectly fine ! The law does not prohibit them to make as much money as possible, it just prohibits them to steal.
And now the really sad part. If things were half way right in our corrupt facho
state, it would have been the FL attorney general who would have taken action like it used to happen in somewhat better days way back and there would be no ridiculous 91 cents law suit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:23 pm    Post subject:

cell14 wrote:
nailgunner wrote:
You said the SC decision "effectively eliminated the possibility of filing such law suits". That logically appears to be nonsense.

How so?
How so? Because a class action lawsuit was filed against MJ AFTER the Supreme Court decision. You didn't have any if's and's or but's in your original statement, which I did and still do classify as nonsense. If you want to LATER qualify your statement, and state that it only applies to TOS and activity after after the SC decision, feel free, that's a very lawyerly thing to do.


cell14 wrote:
nailgunner wrote:

All they did was change their TOS, which 99% of users don't read anyways, to disclose it.

And that's perfectly fine ! The law does not prohibit them to make as much money as possible, it just prohibits them to steal.
Which this class action lawsuit did NOTHING to change. They are still "stealing" the extra time from their customers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:30 pm    Post subject:

kedwards wrote:
Seems pretty silly, to me. By my rough calculations, the named plaintiff was suiting over about $.75, since he re-upped about 19 days after his subscription expired...

Keith


It's very silly, but it's all about the principle of the matter and teaching Dan a lesson, don't you know.

I do come up with a slightly different amount that the original guy was out. The renewal rate for a year was $19.99 back then. So I get 19 days coming out to $1.04, based on a per day calculation (19.99/365*19).

Either way it's a waste of court time. Wouldn't be surprised if the guy who sued had a golfing buddy or his brother-in-law working at the law firm.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:34 pm    Post subject:

cell14 wrote:
Was it such a big deal to put one extra sentence into the TOS?


And btw, per the lawsuit, MJ changed their TOS on the issue 2 months before the lawsuit was filed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 12:54 pm    Post subject:

Quote:

And btw, per the lawsuit, MJ changed their TOS on the issue 2 months before the lawsuit was filed

That does not change a thing. It should have been in their TOS from the beginning on, as mandated by law.
Quote:

All they did was change their TOS, which 99% of users don't read anyways, to disclose it.

And that's perfectly fine ! The law does not prohibit them to make as much money as possible, it just prohibits them to steal.
Which this class action lawsuit did NOTHING to change. They are still "stealing" the extra time from their customers.

No, they are not stealing any more, now they are just making money in an unscrupulous, but legal way. The consumer can read their TOS and act accordingly. THAT was the purpose of the provision in FL law which they violated.
Quote:
...that's a very lawyerly thing to do.

Do not owe you me some money then ?
Twisted Evil
Quote:
Wouldn't be surprised if the guy who sued had a golfing buddy or his brother-in-law working at the law firm.

Off course.That's the spirit of entrepreneurship. Can you imagine how many companies here pray for a catastrophic hurricane ? Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:19 am    Post subject:

This is about as productive as counting how many lawyers will fit on the head of a pin. When they are sitting because they are too tired to stand from chasing ambulances.

I am no fan of how Dan runs this business and some of the practices they employ. There could very well be more lawsuits in the pipeline, but of all the things they do and have done, this has to be about last on the list of things they should have been sued over.

I found an old MJ TOS, dated 9-2-2008:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5447043/magicJack-TOS

At that time, MJ didn't even offer the 60 day window for keeping your number after you let your subscription lapse. In theory, the day after you forgot to pay your new year you lost your number. Whether or not they followed through with that strict policy, I don't know.

Also, unless they originally had the 60 day window policy, changed it to the immediate loss of number with the above TOS, and then changed it back again to the 60 day window almost immediately, it looks like the judge goofed in allowing MJ users from June 24, 2007 to whenever the 60 day policy was implemented, to even be included in the allowed class of "injured" customers, since they were never subject to not having the 60 day policy being disclosed to them.

Regardless, Mr. Defendant comes along and forgets to renew his new year. Instead of being happy when he finds out that they didn't have the old policy of taking his number back, he gets pissed off that they want to continue on the same annual cycle he had, if he wants to keep his number.

A normal, logical, person would agree that there is a cost to a company of keeping that number available for his forgetful ass for 60 days and be thankful that he doesn't have to get a new number. But this guy decides to talk his brother-in-law into suing for the $1.04 he is out.

If last years Supreme Court decision has put an effective end to this kind of nonsense class-action lawsuit, I'm thrilled. If it means that a few legitimate ones can't be filed now, the lawyers have no one to blame but themselves for their reduction in fee income.

But, if you look at that early TOS, MJ seems to have always had the clause requiring binding arbitration in their TOS. I'm assuming that since they didn't specifically exclude class-action suits, which really shouldn't be necessary if both parties have already agreed to binding arbitration, they were still subject to class-action suits. I have all the confidence in the U.S. legal system that if attorneys could still file class-action suits under that scenario, they will find a way to continue doing so now. They will get some judge in Mississippi (no offense to MS) to rule that the clause in the Supreme Court decision had a comma that companies have later taken out, so their decision doesn't apply to the "new" clauses. Or some such legal nonsense, and it will be game on for a few years until the SC rules on the "new" clause.

As far as owing you money for legal advice? Both parties have to voluntarily enter into an agreement for any contract to be enforceable. Since I obviously have not done so, any legal advice you have provided has been done pro bono. Sorry. Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cell14
Dan Should Pay Me


Joined: 23 May 2009
Posts: 673
Location: South FL

PostPosted: Thu May 10, 2012 9:27 pm    Post subject:

Nailgunner, you right wing ideology unfortunately clouds your otherwise sharp judgment from time to time.
Obviously, somebody wanted to kick Dan's ass because he was upset about his dirty business practices only to find out that almost everything Dan does is legal. Now here he found a little loop hole which he used.
The SCC' decision is an absolute disaster. It effectively takes away the right to go to the court for anyone financially weak. Unlike a class action case , you will not find many good attorneys who would take a case on contingency in an individual law suit if the desired judgment is not in 6 digits. And even with all the money, who goes to court for let's say 100 bucks, especially if he has to face a big corporate attorney ? And the mandatory arbitration? A tasteless joke, considered who sits on the panels and the 98% success rate for the big corporate.
In spite of SCC's legislating from the bench( their decision effectively overturned a number of state laws once again ) I do not see long unemployment lines for the attorneys. Increasing number of them just thrive in the current right wing environment an the opportunities are growing together with their lobbying efforts. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nailgunner
MagicJack Sensei


Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 1548

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:49 am    Post subject:

I have no sharp judgement. Otherwise I would not have been in the position of getting excited over cheap phone service like MJ, and the now cheaper GVJack App.

I have no right-wing ideology. That accusation does however sound like the utterance from a left-wing ideologue who has to admit that the suit against MJ was silly, and has to justify it based on an "apparent" belief by the plaintiff that MJ was an evil company and deserved to be sued over something. For the record, I think both right and left wings, and their 2 major party vehicles, are broken beyond repair and dead from the head down. If I woke up one day and found that they both had shriveled up and blown away, I would be elated. My ideology is about 98% Libertarian.

If anything is a joke it is class action lawsuits, with this one being a prime example. I have received at least a dozen notices over the years that I was in an eligible class that was suing someone. Without exception, the only ones who benefited in the end were the attorneys, with in come cases very large fees, and the "injured" receiving basically nothing.

And the end result of all these lawsuits is what? 10 warnings on my ladder, including one not to use the back where there are no steps as a ladder. A warning on a bag of peanuts that they might have been processed with equipment that came in contact with nuts. And TOS agreements that have now expanded to the point where nobody reads them, until after the fact to look for a loophole so they can sue someone, because 98% of the time they did something stupid. It's to the point where no one knows what they are buying anymore because of the battles between attorneys to see how big they can make the agreements.

Gee, I don't want to use MJ's auto-renew, but since I forgot to renew, and they aren't giving me that number-parking time for free and I'm out $1.04, I'll sue. Take some personal responsibility and save the lawsuits for those that have something to actually sue about. If you have been "injured" that badly, you will find a way to sue. Out $100 and can't get it back? Suck it up, call it a life lesson and make sure others know what a rip-off the company is. MJ will eventually die of it's own weight if it treats it's customers badly. One doesn't need to clog up the courts because you THINK you have been screwed out of $1.04 and can get an attorney that bills at least $100 an hour to agree with you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    magicJack and magicJack Plus Support, Reviews, FAQs and Hacks -> magicJack News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB Ultra Turbo Extended Edition Live © 2001-9999, phpBB Group
magicJack and magicJack Plus are trademarks of magicJack LLP. This website is in no way affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by magicJack LLP, and is an unofficial forum for consumers to openly communicate regarding their experiences with the magicJack products.