‘Bait-and-Switch’ Plaintiff Urges Denial of AT&T’s Motion to Stay
Robert Graham, who alleges AT&T’s handset upgrade exchange program was a “bait-and-switch scheme,” had “no contract” with AT&T, and so “no reason” exists to compel his dispute to arbitration, said Graham’s opposition Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-05155) in U.S. District Court for…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Northern Georgia in Atlanta to AT&T’s motion to stay his case pending the outcome of that arbitration (see 2303130002). Graham alleges AT&T “falsely and deceptively” sends customers new phone upgrades on new lines they didn’t order, but AT&T asserts he agreed to a “broad arbitration provision” when he renewed his contract with AT&T in October 2018 to upgrade his phone. Even if an arbitration provision were to exist, Graham’s claim about AT&T’s fraudulent activity “clearly falls outside the conscionable scope of an arbitration clause for telephone services and equipment provided,” said Graham’s opposition. If the issue “of the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure to perform it is raised,” either party “may demand a jury trial of that issue,” it said. “These are questions of fact for a jury to resolve,” and accordingly AT&T’s motion to stay should be denied, it said.