«

I also just read they're going back to court in a couple months because
the ridiculous settlement didn't satisfy anyone but Netflix and the
lawyers.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...lines-business

"wunnuy" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I also just read they're going back to court in a couple months because
> the ridiculous settlement didn't satisfy anyone but Netflix and the
> lawyers.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...lines-business
>

That is always the case with any Class Action suit.

wunnuy wrote on [11 Feb 2006 08:18:56 -0800]:
> I also just read they're going back to court in a couple months because
> the ridiculous settlement didn't satisfy anyone but Netflix and the
> lawyers.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...lines-business
>

What class action suit actually satisfies the customers? I've never
received more than say, $14 from the recording industry for price
fixing.

Justin wrote:
> wunnuy wrote on [11 Feb 2006 08:18:56 -0800]:
>>
> What class action suit actually satisfies the customers? I've never
> received more than say, $14 from the recording industry for price
> fixing.

Basically this whole result seems to smack of more of Netflix's
sleaziness. People have to sign up for the free month of an "extra"
disk, but also have to then sign out for it. In other words, if you
don't turn it off after a month, they start charging you and that is
absolutely Netflix's goal here; to get people to start paying for an
extra disk that they didn't intend to get. Netflix could absolutely set
it up so that the free month turns off by itself (or send a reminder
out or something) but they make it so it doesn't so millions of people
will be paying for that extra disk when the second month of it starts.

wunnuy wrote on [13 Feb 2006 07:37:41 -0800]:
>
> Justin wrote:
>> wunnuy wrote on [11 Feb 2006 08:18:56 -0800]:
>>>
>> What class action suit actually satisfies the customers? I've never
>> received more than say, $14 from the recording industry for price
>> fixing.
>
> Basically this whole result seems to smack of more of Netflix's
> sleaziness. People have to sign up for the free month of an "extra"
> disk, but also have to then sign out for it. In other words, if you
> don't turn it off after a month, they start charging you and that is
> absolutely Netflix's goal here; to get people to start paying for an
> extra disk that they didn't intend to get. Netflix could absolutely set
> it up so that the free month turns off by itself (or send a reminder
> out or something) but they make it so it doesn't so millions of people
> will be paying for that extra disk when the second month of it starts.

Once again, class action suits never or if they do, rarely help the
claimaints.

Justin wrote:
> wunnuy wrote on [13 Feb 2006 07:37:41 -0800]:
>>
> Once again, class action suits never or if they do, rarely help the
> claimaints.

I think the point is they did in fact lose - and they admit they
throttle. In the end their sleazy practices will hurt them. I believe
this whole thing is far from over.

wunnuy () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > Once again, class action suits never or if they do, rarely help the
> > claimaints.
>
> I think the point is they did in fact lose - and they admit they
> throttle.

Actually, they settled and admitted nothing.

--
Jeff Rife | Coach: What's doing, Norm?
|
| Norm: Well, science is seeking a cure for thirst.
| I happen to be the guinea pig.

Jeff Rife wrote:
> wunnuy () wrote in alt.video.dvd:
> > > Once again, class action suits never or if they do, rarely help the
> > > claimaints.
> >
> > I think the point is they did in fact lose - and they admit they
> > throttle.
>
> Actually, they settled and admitted nothing.
>

You might want to go back and take a look. Netflix has absolutely
admitted to throttling.

In article <. com>,
wunnuy <> wrote:

> Justin wrote:
> > wunnuy wrote on [13 Feb 2006 07:37:41 -0800]:
> >>
> > Once again, class action suits never or if they do, rarely help the
> > claimaints.
>
> I think the point is they did in fact lose - and they admit they
> throttle. In the end their sleazy practices will hurt them. I believe
> this whole thing is far from over.
>
To end the practice would kill the company, so I don't see it hurting.
They'd make more money if those being throttled quit then having them
stay but get more rentals.

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

Invid Fan wrote:
> In article <. com>,
> >
> To end the practice would kill the company, so I don't see it hurting.
> They'd make more money if those being throttled quit then having them
> stay but get more rentals.
>
>

No. It wouldn't kill the company. They've probably lost far more
business because of it than they ever would have by stop deceiving
their customers and send disks out like they claim they will.