The People's Lawyer Consumer News Alert
Center for Consumer Law
  Volume 72 Number 6

Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends

Helpful Links

Texas Consumer Complaint Center

Your Rights as a Tenant

Credit Reports and Identity Theft

Your Guide to Small Claims Court

Common Q & A’s

Scam Alert

Back Issues

Contact Us

http://www.peopleslawyer.net

1-713-743-2168

Unsubscribe

The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day

Voluntarily returning a car you can't pay for may not get you off the hook. In most cases, the car will be sold and you will owe the difference between your debt and what the car sells for. If you think the car is being accepted in exchange for release for your debt, get that agreement in writing.  Click here for more.


AT&T Continuing to Upset Consumers

Over the past two weeks, there have been numerous articles about AT&T taking steps to limit the data usage for "unlimited" users (here and here) to protect its network. Many have speculated that the "network strain" argument was merely a cover to push "unlimited" users to tiered pricing plans. AT&T responded by insisting the maneuvers were essential to managing the AT&T network. However, the savvy guys over at PC Mag poked some significant holes in the AT&T release. In fact, a team conducting a study on the AT&T network found that "unlimited" users were "not much"of a burden at all, while providing the statistics to back it up.




After initially promising to appeal a California small claims court ruling, there are now numerous reports that AT&T has attempted to quietly offer the iPhone user a settlement. In the settlement letter (sent after the user already won his case), AT&T threatened to shut off his phone service entirely unless he met with AT&T representatives. What is going on with AT&T? Click here for more.


Your Money

How much house can you afford? Click here for more.


For the Lawyers

Voluntary payment rule bars class action. The Sixth Circuit held that a customer’s voluntary payment of a Budget Rent-A-Car fuel service fee bars his consumer class action challenging that charge. Budget argued that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by Ohio’s voluntary payment doctrine because the plaintiff had paid the $13.99 fee when he returned his car. Generally, under the voluntary payment doctrine, one who voluntarily makes a payment to another cannot later sue merely because he was mistaken as to his liability to pay. The court here concluded that the doctrine applied to bar the plaintiff’s class action. Click here for more.

 

To stop receiving email news alerts from the Center for Consumer Law, please click here.