Washington Supreme Court Strikes Blow for Telephone Customers

August 28, 2008

Today the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously held in a thirty page opinion that Michael McKee could sue AT&T.

Mr. McKee received this green flag from the court a number years after he filed his suit. He is suing for false utility charges on the bill and for illegal, usurious late charges. He made his claim a class action on behalf of others in Washington.

This of course is what class action suits were intended to do, make a company responsible to everyone it wrongs when it gouges a small amount of money form a huge number of people. Otherwise there is no effective way to get them to stop.

The reason I linked to this case is because there is so much publicity against class actions and consumer law suits. I thought it would be useful for you to see how misleading the publicity blitz is. The cards are heavily stacked against the consumer.

I believe the Washington Supreme Court deserves a lot of credit for this unanimous decision protecting the rights of Washington consumers.

When Mr. McKee signed his contract with AT&T his entered into a Byzantine world of conditions, stipulations, and waivers of rights which literally stripped him of his right to sue and left him without any of the rights we think that we have when we enter into commerce.

Our Court found many of these provisions unconscionable and unenforceable in affirming the basic right to sue.

Yesterday I talked about a medical malpractice claim that had been in the Courts for nine years without having gone to trial. While it is unclear from the Court’s opinion, this case appears to have been in court for four years, each of which was spent litigating pretrial procedures. The case could easily go on for years to come.

Read if you will the opinion and see what Mr. McKee has had to go through to just get his right to a trial confirmed.

Telephone Bills Violate Consumer Protection Act

January 31, 2008

The Washington State Supreme Court held in IndoorBillboard/Washinton, Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Washington, Inc. that Integra’s billing practices violated the Consumer Protection Act. After dispensing with a blizzard of procedural arguments attacking the Court’s jurisdiction, the Washington State Supreme Court found that Integra’s practice of assessing its Washington local exchange customers a surcharge known as a presubscribed interexchange carrier charge or PICC was actionable. This charge was assessed when there were no such expenses incurred by Integra and when the customer did not even purchase interexchange services. The mislabeling of this surcharge was found to be unfair and deceptive.