Allright, so we have the following issues.... 1. Bogus case - As mentioned above, this isn't a contract case. No one really has a contract with in demand really. It would be a deceptive act. The case goes like this. 1. Company lies to consumer 2. Consumer relies on Company's lie to purchase item. 3. Consumer gets less than what company promised. I don't know what they advertised, but by the sounds of it, they advertised all local games. They gave you all less than what you were promised. Hence the suit. The case isn't bogus. Obviously though both sides have arguments. 2. $1.00 is not enough to fight over - I just want to know how many games they would need to cancel for one to actually be mad enough to do something about it? This is the last month of the season and these games were 3X more important than some of the earlier games. Plus the leverage of the class action law suit doesn't come from the fact that they would have to pay $1. It comes from the fact that they would have to pay $1 to all 100000+ subscribers (I don't know if there are this many or not, probably not, but I don't know) 3. MLS impact - If we as fans sue Indemand they will retaliate against MLS and they will no longer provide the shootout. Personally, if it is profitable they will offer it. If a lawsuit makes it not profitable to offer the package, then how does one fix it? Not subject yourself to liability by providing what you promise. Possible good things that can happen...... 1. Publicity 2. Hesitance in the future (with regards to what games will get cut) 3. Money for the attorney 4. Some reparation from the company ($1 or something else) I am not saying that it is worth it. I don't even have the package. But it should be considered.
Maybe, but the people clamoring for a lawsuit have very bad arguments 1) There aren't that many subscribers via digital cable 2) Even if there were, what lawyer's gonna take on a case for that piddling amount? Actually, I have a few ideas, but I wouldn't want any of them defending my side of an argument Cost/benefit analysis: If it's really profitable, they will offer it. If they have to spend money contesting a remarkably stupid lawsuit, it's not profitable. The last two sentences make absolutely no sense. Of course there wouldn't be a lawsuit if there was no breach of contract or whatever. Are all your men made of straw? 1. Great publicity I guarantee you'll get plenty of coverage on Rome 2. No hesitance because they'll stop offering the package 3. Great incentive (insert rollyeyed guy here). That may be the single stupidest reason I've ever heard anybody give for defending the merits of a lawsuit 4. If you want to jump through hoops for a dollar, you can wash my car So you're just a troll?
I think it's fun to educate TV people, in this case In Demand, just what demons we are. Unlike College Football Fans with whom we are sort of competing (and I am a college gridiron fan so relax), MLS fans want all 5 games on every week. Staggered start times would be nice, but hey, they have to be live for the fans at home during away ties. But overall, as a Burn fan I want to see every single MLS game if I can. I'll tape one or two and watch them during the week if I have to. And unlike gridiron, I can watch that many games and still have a job. Your average college gridiron fan watches their alma mater or nearest thing to it, and maybe one more game. There's no time to watch any more, even if you tape them. It takes too long. I am so psyched about this weekend--two games delayed to times that I won't be disturbed while watching them. And no little Viking is going to mess up my taping either, at that time of night.
Question... On my InDemand channels that have been set aside for the Shootout there is now a message that says "Not Authorized - to order call..." Now obviously this is becuase I do not subscribe to the college football package, but I am worried that when the soccer games come on tonight I will still see this screen. Last week I flipped on to see the KC game (I think) but did not get it even though it was listed on the guide as being on. I called TW and was told i should be getting it so they tried to do their magic to get it on but it didn't work (and I was actually heading out so I just gave up). So I guess my question is: a. Do you have the typical blue screen with the scheduled games. b. Or do you, like me, just have the "Not Authorized" message on each channel. c. Should I be worried (Customer service will be closed by the time the first game comes on (10PM est) Thanks, Scud
Actually, this is working out pretty well for me. I'm getting all the College Game Plan games for free. I tell you what -- this $49 on the Shootout may be the best $49 I've ever spent.
apparently the college football fans are having a problem with it as well. I was on a college football board and they are complaining that they are not getting a lot games they thought they would get. Someone forgot to tell them that CF games were being shown on MLS Shootout channels as well as Gameplan channels. Being the good person I am I didn't tell them otherwise. However, this just shows what type of company InDemand is.
I am no attorney but my sister was the Director of consumer affairs for the state. We had a verbal contract. Most of us, if not all, asked a few questions regarding what we will receive when we picked up the phone to order. I remember distinclty being told exactly what was on Indemands website. money is exchanged on those words. You can't have anyone selling you bogus anything. Telemarketing is a major issue with every state. I was sold this..an it is not what I was sold. We now have laws reagarding any phone sales. reagardless of which party contacted the other. If it's advertised and you call, they are liable. No, I didn't get her opinion....but will when she's back from the road. She was focsed on changing our laws regarding this very issue. BTW Leagel... there's a lot more money in law firms! I'm sure you realize.....unless you are into politics Leagel..another point in truth in advertising: I received a package before and after ordering the shootout. Of course, it was int he trash....but I read it carefully and it is in print as well. Additionally, I know every customer servicce rep at TW has WRITTEN memos on how to respond to questions...as well as manuels on training for all options they push. It's there.
don't we all? But, they stated they are playing them "tape delayed" whether that means next summer is in question isn't it? Their attorney had everything phrased so carefully, it's as if they think we'll just be happy. It should have been an offer....give us some cash back so we put faith in the next season...PROMISE when the games will be shown, and stick with the original plan. I was short with my response here, but...those things any PR expert would advise indemand...they are looking dumber by the minute IMO.
Scudley - wish I could help you. My screens are the same as usual and the games are showing up in my on-screen guide. The DC-NE game should be on PPV at 10 and the LA game is at 11 on PPV (pre-game at 11, game at 11:30.) MLS said they would continue working today to try and get the games live because they know the windows were there. The times haven't changed on my on-screen, but I will be checking at 7:30 and 8:30 just in case. Elizabeth- Maybe next time instead of positing legal theories and garbage like that, you should actually talk to the people involved so you can find out what the real story is. Please come up with facts before you start spouting here. Show me anywhere that bars them from tape-delaying games? Please, I beg of you to bring one fact to the table before you get into this.
BEFORE I get into this? I've talked to plenty of people ....and time Warner is aknowledging it could be a legal issue...their attorneys are all over it this week. And I'm spouting theories...this is the State of Ohio laws. Every state has their own laws governing telemarketing and verbal contracts, and truth in advertising which I am as much an expert on as any lawyer. these are not "theories". Secondly, nobody ever promised tape delayed games UNTIL...we made noise. Not once was that going to happen. They scrambled. What is your issue here anyway? Work for indemand or something? Get off this thread if you want to be a part of the problem and not the solution. And I suppose you want me to look up the latest legal opinion on the current telemarketing/advertising lawsuit? Do it yourself. I know the law...and I don't owe you more than this time because you are too ignorant on consumer affairs.
thanks, Brian. I tried calling knowing it would be pointless... and it was. I have a feeling since the KC game didn't come through last week, i am going to get screwed this week. the football game on the DC/NE channel gets over at 8:30 and the customer service closes at 9PM, so if I don't get that shootout package blue screen I will be calling again to see if there is something they can do (i.e., having me unplug the cable box and sending the signal, etc.). It is not every week I can see DC play so I will be upset if this doesn't work.
No problem. MLS was pretty mad that channel wouldn't be used right at 8:30 for one of the games. As of 3 yesterday, they were still hoping they could breakthrough. Next week is worrisome - five games on Saturday. I'd recommend pointed but not threatening e-mails. It worked this far. If you can, find out the head of programming for your division of TW and have e-mails waiting for him Monday morning. Elizabeth, Elizabeth, Elizabeth - whatever. I don't work for iNDemand. In fact, I think they suck. And MLS had something to do with at least getting tape-delay as well. Those guys are the ones making the deals - they deserve credit for putting pressure on iNDemand after getting blindsided last week. I'm part of the problem? The guy talking directly to people involved in the situation is part of the problem? The guy who has actual facts, not pie-in-the sky lawsuit ideas is part of the problem? Really, I'm just a reasonably smart guy who knows who to talk to and what questions to ask. I'm also intelligent enough to know that "Programming subject to change" will kick the ass of two lost games any time, any day. Does MLS have a lawsuit? Maybe. Do we? No way. Tell you what, you PM me who you've talked to and we'll see if it comes even close to stacking up to who I've talked to.
It is worse than I expected! OK, I can live with tape delay and I was happy to see the two games listed on the on-screen program listings, BUT, I am not receiving anything, just a black screen. I had a conflict and could not go to the Fire match, and I was relieved that I would be able to watch at 10pm not knowing the result, but AT & T or InDemand or whoever only has 20 minutes to fix it or I will have to sue for my 82 cents or whatever it cost.
Well I got screwed today. I just spent the last half hour+ talking to the idiots at AT&T. I flipped on the SPPV2 channel (422 for me) at 7pm for the game and I had nothing. Just the black screen saying "To order press OK." I call AT&T and first they tried to claim that there was a college football game on. I pointed out that their on-screen channel guide and InDemand's webstire said that there wass supposed to be an MLS game on. They reset my box twice, still nothing. Then he talked to an associate near him, who had somebody on thephone with the same problem. He siad that he could send somebody out to my place to check on the problem (When? 7pm on a Saturday? I doubt it, so how is that going to help with the seeing the games?) but he thought it was a satellite issue (so how would somebody coming out help me, much less explain why a 2nd person has the problem?). So I get no MLS this week it looks like. So much for that FULL-SEASON package promised to me by InDemand at AT&T. I'm sending a terse email to InDemand...
Yep, same problem here guys. I'm very close to the people who provide me my cable service, Adelphia. I've called them and they have no idea what the problem is. Since it's happening to everyone, it would seem In Demand is the problem, right? I'll contact some of the higher-ups within Adelphia on Monday to see if they can help. I'll also send a letter to MLS, and advise you all to do the same. MLS really needs to clear this up w/ In Demand asap, especially before the playoffs start... Mark Bushman www.onthesidelines.org
I got the games so I don't know what the deal is (I'm with Suscom). In the whole puzzel, iNDemand is the biggest problem from what I know, but there may be issues with them and individual cable systems that affected whether the games hit the air last night. What Mark said to do is right, especially coming up on a five-game weekend.
You are spot on...I've been calling Midcontinent Cable (ND/SD/NE) for the entire summer trying to get my soccer. I must have missed maybe 1/3 to half of the games I paid for. I've had the box reset, numerous times. I've had technicians out twice. Yet it still doesn't matter. Thankfully the folks at Midcontinent have been more than helpful. As I think it's been shown in this thread, the problem is with the a$s clowns at inDemand. My problem now is that I'm deployed and 10,000 miles away from home. It'd be nice if the fiancee could send me tapes of the MLS matches I paid for, something to boost the morale for the next 11 weeks. But I'm extremely skeptical that she'll be able to do so, though no fault of her own. Midcontinent was kind enough to refund half of the fee I paid for the Shootout package. So it cost me $24.50 this year. Hopefully MLS can get more games on national TV, or find some other way to offer them on PPV next year. Because I think we've all realised that we as MLS fans won't be giving inDemand another one of our hard-earned pennies. Good luck to you and all of you folks fighting on behalf of me and the MLS fans. Hopefully you can get this resolved.
I was able to see both games last night. I put another call into TW last night before they closed and they did the thing where I unplug the digital cable box, plug it back in, and then they "send a signal". I guess that did the trick since I missed the game last week, but got them this week.
Although I am not a lawyer, I believe that there are a number of myths floating around this thread, that need correcting. Myth number 1: you didn't sign anything, so you have no breach of contract claim. Apart from a few exceptions inapplicable here, a contract need not be in writing to be enforceable. An enforceable contract can be created through an oral agreement, or even through nonverbal acts (e.g. there's a sign on the door of the barbershop: haircuts $12, I walk in, sit down in the chair, don't say anything, get a haircut, and walk out without paying -- the barber can sue me for breach of contract, even though I never uttered a word, much less signed anything!). Myth number 2: if you don't have a contract claim, a lawsuit would be meritless. There are both state and federal laws that prohibit deceptive or misleading advertising quite apart from breach of contract. Even if the fine print says "we reserve the right not to show you a single game," if they they advertise a full season of live MLS games, then they may be liable for deceptive advertising. Myth number 3: no lawyer will take a lawsuit if the damages are only $1. One of the main reasons (although not the only reason) why class actions were developed, is so that it would be economically feasible to bring a lawsuit to prevent businesses from making money by inflicting a small injury on a large class of people. If there are 1,000,000 members of the plaintiff class, then you will have no problem finding a lawyer to represent you. Now there may not be enough shootout subscribers to make a class action profitable, but simply saying "but damages are only $1 -- you'll never find a lawyer" is just wrong. Myth number 4: a lawsuit is unproductive/inappropriate/frivolous/trivial because the only damages suffered were $1.00 per person. Misleading advertising inflicts a social harm by disrupting the efficient functioning of a healthy free market. Class actions serve a valuable purpose, in that they deter businesses from cutting corners by inflicting a small injury on a large class of consumers. I have to admit, I laugh when I get those notices in the mail telling me that I am a member of a plaintiff class entitled to $1 from my credit card company because they didn't credit my payment until the day after it was received (or something like that), but I'm glad that lawsuit was brought -- I don't want credit card companies screwing hundreds of thousands of consumers, even if it is only for a dollar each. I'm glad there's a way of keeping them honest. Misleading advertising hurts not only consumers, but also honest competitors, who lose business because consumers are diverted to dishonest businesses. The less misleading advertising there is out there, the better off we will all be. Myth number 3: inDemand will never deal with MLS again if we sue. inDemand has a very easy way of avoiding a lawsuit -- pay everyone $0.50 for every game that they don't show. Will this cause inDemand never to deal with MLS again? Well, as I see it, inDemand could avoid this problem in the future by honestly advertising its games. If inDemand wants to reserve the rights not to show games, then all it has to do to avoid a lawsuit is not advertise "a full season of live MLS games." Rather, it should advertise "if you pay us $45, we'll show you as many MLS games as we feel like" or something along those lines. If inDemand can do better and guarantee a minimum amount of live games per season, then it should advertise that. The point is that if a company can find it profitable to show MLS games only be engaging in misleading advertising, then purely as a matter of free market economics, the games should not be shown. If requiring inDemand to be honest in its advertising causes them never to deal with MLS again (and I hope it wouldn't), then screw 'em, I say. Now, all this is not to say that you should sue -- ultimately, you may not have a claim -- but to know whether you do or not, you'd have to see a real lawyer.
http://www.indemand.com/moviesandevents/viewProduct.jsp?page_sectionId=4&prodId=5692 A key part of the advertisement: "Programming subject to change." E-mail sports@indemand.com and let them know that you want to see all five games Sunday, right now only the 11 p.m. game is scheduled tobe shown at all. Let them know that PPV4 is open all day and can show a 7:30 game (there are 2 7:30s, an 8, an 8:30 and the 11.)
I got screwed not only this week but last week as well. Both times I couldn't be around to watch the games live but of course set my vcr. Both times while setting my vcr it said I had to purchase the games but it has said this in the past so I just set my vcr and expected to get the games. In none of the cases did I get the games, just taped the screeen which said I had to call Cox in order to get the game. Since I wasn't around, I couldn't even call to see if Cox could reset the box to get me the game. Regardless, I wasn't able to tape the games. Believe me, I will be continuing to read this thread and will definitely be calling Cox tomorrow to find out what is goign on and also to get a prorated refund. I am really hoping this gets worked out by next week. I know I am too much of a MLS junkie, but nonetheless it is extremely frustrating.