melax
Well-Known Member
She really really reaaly likes TV ...
http://roadwarriorvoices.com/2015/0...llion-after-her-in-flight-directv-didnt-work/
http://roadwarriorvoices.com/2015/0...llion-after-her-in-flight-directv-didnt-work/
UNITED sued by woman over non working Direct TV $5M !
- Thread starter melax
- Start date
FloridaLarry
Well-Known Member
Her lawyer is clearly hoping for his share of the settlement.
Perhaps the Judge will give him 37 minutes of the movie.
Perhaps the Judge will give him 37 minutes of the movie.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I'm betting there's something about it buried in the Contract of Carriage. You ever read one of those things? It covers pretty much everything under the sun.
Matt13C
Well-Known Member
The article says the customer is alerted numerous times and shows examples of the language. Seems pretty clear to me. The only grounds I could see is maybe United should find a way to lock out the service if not over US soil.
“In our experience, for whatever that’s worth, the terms have been clear, and the website, though clunky (and likely irrelevant in this case), does its best to make the limitations of these services clear over and over again.....We believe this suit is without merit both factually and legally. On our DirecTV-equipped planes, we clearly inform our passengers in writing on the screen before they confirm their purchase that ‘Live DIRECTV programming is not available while the aircraft is outside of the continental United States’ and that ‘Wi-Fi service is available over the continental U.S.’”
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
Many countries have a fee structure for lawsuits such as this. You want to file a lawsuit asking for $5 million then you pay the fee. In China it is 1 to 2% (so that would be $50,000 to $100,000 for this suit, just in court fees). In the UAE it is 7% up to a maximum of 30,000 Dirhams (about $8000), but class action is not allowed so that would be per person. Keeps frivolous lawsuits to a minimum that way.
Granted that prevents some people from being able to afford a justifiable suit so it may not be a perfect system. I was burned in the UAE. Lost 200,000 Dirhams on a property deal gone bad. It would have cost me over 50,000 Dirhams in court fees and lawyer fees to take a suit to court. I would have won, but no real chance of getting the money returned so it would have been a hollow victory. Plus I made 1.4 million on two other property deals so just looked at it like stocks. You win some, and you lose some.
Typhoonpilot
Granted that prevents some people from being able to afford a justifiable suit so it may not be a perfect system. I was burned in the UAE. Lost 200,000 Dirhams on a property deal gone bad. It would have cost me over 50,000 Dirhams in court fees and lawyer fees to take a suit to court. I would have won, but no real chance of getting the money returned so it would have been a hollow victory. Plus I made 1.4 million on two other property deals so just looked at it like stocks. You win some, and you lose some.
Typhoonpilot
Last edited:
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
typhoonpilot said:
It also limits the rights of citizens to seek redress. I think our system is much better.
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
You may think it's "her cry baby issue." I see it as the airline being allowed to charge for a service that people didn't receive, as ridiculous as it may seem. Add up the money they made, and the amount of passengers who paid for what they didn't get, and it would add up to quite a substantial amount I'm willing to bet.
Matt13C
Well-Known Member
She did receive the service, and if she read the details she'd understand that she had access to recorded shows and movies and while over the US, live TV. I am sure there are some other services people pay for and truely can't use, but this doesn't seem like a misrepresentation of an available service. Don't see it any different than say buying a cell phone and not having coverage in all locations. Will people be able to sue for the time they are out of range of a tower? Cell phone companies don't hand you a map and say please sign here to recognize that you won't have 100% coverage.
"Since the programming is live from DIRECTV®, a flight may take you out of the satellite coverage area. If this happens, recorded TV shows and premium movies will still be available."
BravoHotel
Well-Known Member
Perhaps it's my thinking process. I do not understand how people arrive to these conclusions. I could see disputing said charge on your credit card, or seeking a refund from higher authority. But it is eight dollars. How this turned into a five million dollar suite is beyond me. I guess there are people looking for that winning lottery ticket and they will do almost anything to get it, as proved by this case. Time to file a law suite against the silverware industry for making Americans fat.
Billable hours, man.
FloridaLarry
Well-Known Member
Derg Said:
Au contraire, Great Leader. This kind of suit is usually undertaken for a percentage of the award. This is the marketplace guardian against frivilous lawsuits.
This guy failed Sim.
Au contraire, Great Leader. This kind of suit is usually undertaken for a percentage of the award. This is the marketplace guardian against frivilous lawsuits.
This guy failed Sim.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I'm doubting someone took this on contingency.
Oxman
Well-Known Member
Having three friends that are lawyers at Jones Day I should have known that.
Cal Goat
Prestige Worldwide™
I am genuinely shocked that people will slide a credit card to watch Direct TV on an airline seatback. Personal mobile media or a book is the best strategy to ensure entertainment satisfaction on long flight. I have never even been tempted to purchase airline entertainment programming. You have to figure their content is heavily edited and neutered anyway.