ATTENTION: The glassBYTEs.com forum is being retooled and will return with a new look and functionality that will hopefully help our readers even more. Watch for an announcement when it will be ready, it will be a few months.
You can still stay up on daily news and comment on stories by signing up for the glassBYTEs daily e-newsletter at glass.com/subcenter. There is no charge. Hope to see you there!
well sounds like the judge was dirty to not see the facts of the matter , truth be told that there's a lot of people's ass' on the line if they were to get a solid judgement in our favor . Theyd have to admit theyre doing wrong which they basically did, but its ok ? huh , my story would end in bubba's cell getting sold for a pack of Newports if it was on this end, but big business gets a smack on the wrist and is home for thanksgiving.
I think IGA got took my a law firm not doing their home work. This is how or "JUSTIC SYSTEM" works. You must have standing and damages or you must change the law to stop the abuse of corp.$ outsmarting and taking calculated risk at the consumers loss. I am thinking of supporting their next try.
1. Safelite says that if you know their practices are deceptive, you should not be fooled by the deception, therefore you should not be harmed. No harm, no foul.
2. Safelite says also therefore, that if the customer or shop does not know that the practices are deceptive, they do not know they were deceived, therefore, not harmed. No harm, no foul again.
With this logic by the judge, extorsion is legal so long as the bank does not know the money is gone. However, if they do realize the money is gone, it's still not a crime because the bank should have been wise to the possibility of theft?
This is just too funny. However, it does lay the groundwork for the next step. This time, included will be named plaintiffs that WERE steered, therefore were harmed, shop and consumer both, and it opens the venue to a multitude of unnamed plaintiffs that don't yet know they were decieved by the apparently admittedly deceptive or misleading practices.
What is does show, is harm to the consumer is the key. Now, is that a surprise?
Still, IGA had to go through the motions, and I think, after reading the little warning about frivolous lawsuits Safelite made in their press release, they know that to dodge this bullet, they may have exposed themselves for another round.
Tell me why, after reading this judgement, it would be wrong to advertise that deceptive misleading practices exist by third party administrators and for consumers not to be fooled by these misleading and possibly deceptive practices? Why not use the words of the judge and just say "you are being lied to"?
"Tell me why, after reading this judgement, it would be wrong to advertise that deceptive misleading practices exist by third party administrators and for consumers not to be fooled by these misleading and possibly deceptive practices? Why not use the words of the judge and just say "you are being lied to"? "
I have been seriously thinking of doing just that. I am just not quite sure how to word it.