SO YOU ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE A POTENTIAL OR PREVIOUS CLIENT ON THE LINE !!!!!!!!!
TPA assaults us with all of this rhetoric !
not affiliated, pricing agreement, out of pocket, check their warranty, cant stand by their work, not guaranteed, ...
Are we a dealership ???


After all this they ask the question ?


WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTINUE USING THIS SHOP ? ?

CAN ANYONE, ESPECIALLY THE TPA'S EMPLOYEES SEE HOW MORALLY WRONG THIS IS ?

HOW DO THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT ? ?

They sleep at night by taking pleasure in seeing their CEO having a nourishing lunch with Warren Buffet and then seeing their CEO demonstrating his charity with an ego enhancing Q & A.

ohm, whoever suggested to you that life is fair did you a disservice.

Ohm (resistance) - is this the same company whining and suing the AG/IC in a State (CT) that had to pass a law to protect "consumer choice" where they are so desperate to stop it because every day they cannot effectively steer a consumer away from a local business they lose money/credibility?

They also lose any remaining credibility because anyone who had a brain who looked at the statistics could see the impact to local businesses. You would think that the word "shameless" might have been used to explain it to their attorneys who continue to shout "commercial free speech." This attorney should be made to look like the village idiot if/when he gets in front of the Appellate judges.

Ironically, this is helping me "get my scent back" for returning to work.

Safelite’s attorney also claims the court noted “the possibility that some required factual disclosures could be so one-sided or incomplete that they would not qualify as ‘factual and uncontroversial,’ recognizing that a disclosure could ‘communicate a message that is controversial for some reason other than dispute about simple factual accuracy’ and thereby fall outside Zauderer’s scope. That ‘possibility’ appears in this case, where the compelled speech effectively communicates an endorsement of a competing business.”

I'm not sure Ohm, but those statements sure seem to be "so one-sided or incomplete that they would not qualify as 'factual and uncontroversial.'