sirius xm class action suit
- Thread starter dan188
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 24
- Views 6K
I found this anti-trust lawsuit that was just approved in March as a class action. Sirius XM Antitrust Lawsuit Approved for Class-Action Status - Bloomberg
However, they just settled it for almost nothing. SiriusXM Settles Class-Action Antitrust Suit - 2011-05-16 15:28:43 | TWICE
I just got this in my inbox. Sounds like quite a deal for SiriusXM... I don't see how any of us benefit.
I think the only thing it does for current subs is give us the same rate as our last renewal.
So I have the half price for a year of XM+BOS, which was around $98 or so. Does that settlement mean they have to offer me that same price at renewal next month. I planned to call and demand it anyway, but hey, maybe it will save me a phone call
What a legal system, the lawyers get $13M, and I get to save a phone call.
So I have the half price for a year of XM+BOS, which was around $98 or so. Does that settlement mean they have to offer me that same price at renewal next month. I planned to call and demand it anyway, but hey, maybe it will save me a phone call
What a legal system, the lawyers get $13M, and I get to save a phone call.
This is a horrible settlement. If others agree, please take the time to let judge Baer know that you think it sucks.
From the FAQ:
How do I tell the Court that I do not like the Settlement with Sirius XM?
ANSWER:
If you are a Class Member (and have not excluded yourself), you can object to the Settlement if you do not like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter via First Class U.S. mail stating that you object to the proposed Settlement in Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Civil Action No 09-CV-10035 HB. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, your signature, and the reasons you object to the Settlement (and any evidence in support of your objection). Mail the objection to each of the following:
Class Counsel
Court Clerk
James J. Sabella, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Your objection must be postmarked no later than July 11, 2011. Do not send your objection to Judge Baer.
From the FAQ:
How do I tell the Court that I do not like the Settlement with Sirius XM?
ANSWER:
If you are a Class Member (and have not excluded yourself), you can object to the Settlement if you do not like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter via First Class U.S. mail stating that you object to the proposed Settlement in Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Civil Action No 09-CV-10035 HB. Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, your signature, and the reasons you object to the Settlement (and any evidence in support of your objection). Mail the objection to each of the following:
Class Counsel
Court Clerk
James J. Sabella, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312
Your objection must be postmarked no later than July 11, 2011. Do not send your objection to Judge Baer.
Finally got my email about this yesterday. Didn't even bother to read anything about it, just deleted it. I never had, and never will have interest in participating in class action lawsuits. These things are total scams. Some greedy crybaby consumer cries and whines because they feel ‘wronged’ in some way. A CAL is filed, if the company loses, the lawyers make millions, everyone else gets something minimal and then if the not too distant future everyone suffers as prices will increase to make up for whatever the CAL settlement costs the company. No thanks.
So you think it's OK for Sirius to blatantly ignore the antitrust clause in the merger that said they are not allowed to raise prices? Even though the core price didn't go up, they raised the family plan price, started charging for streaming, and tacked the royalty fee onto our subs. So yes, the settlement is a total joke, but Mel needs to be held responsible. I think rather than a CAL, the FCC should haul his ass in front of an investigative panel and make him answer for breaking the antitrust agreement, and we should get refunded the fees we paid which were nothing more than a price hike in disguise.
I understand that you are angry but they are not blatantly ignoring the restrictions placed upon them. The increases were all allowed under the terms of the merger. i don't like them either but let's describe it accurately.
Uhh ok. So let me get this straight. Mel Karmazin sat before the congressional committee and said (and I quote): "the combined company will not raise prices, and a merger would actually result in lower prices and more choice for the consumer", and the DoJ and FCC approved the merger (in the face of all antitrust laws) contingent on them not raising the prices. So you're telling me that just because they didn't raise the core price and did it by adding 'line items' that it's allowed? What cost $12.95/mo before the merger now costs $18 and change (including internet streaming and the stupid 'royalty fee' [which XM was fighting the increased royalties up until the merger, but Mel just bent over and took it]).
Innocent people/companies don't offer settlements. They know they violated their agreement and they put up this half-assed offer to make it go away.
Innocent people/companies don't offer settlements. They know they violated their agreement and they put up this half-assed offer to make it go away.
So you think it's okay for a bunch of lawyers to make millions and the subscribers who were 'wronged' get jack? Mark my word, the number crunchers at Sirius XM have already calculated exactly how much this will cost them, and will make that back up in no time. I am extremely pro business, ten out of eleven times I will side with a business over a consumer. And I do not see the reason for the complaints. So now they unbundle the Music Royalty Fee and they raised extra radios by a buck, big deal! Did it ever occur to anyone that perhaps if people didn’t STEAL from Sirius XM by threatening to cancel and taking those retention deals maybe the prices would have stayed the same? Businesses will not and should not take loss of revenue, that is completely unacceptable in any form of business. If Sirius XM loses $2 a month for X amount of subscribers, they have to figure out how to make that money back from other subscribers. And if raising rates in a roundabout way is how that needs to get done, then so be it. I am by no means of fan of the merger or it’s outcome, but if I was running the company, I would not have done a damn thing different. All the people that bitch and complain about the ‘evil corporations’ there’s a reason why you’re working for one, not running one, because you have no business sense and you’d go bankrupt in seconds.
As much as I dislike what Mel has done, if you want to blame someone, don't blame him, blame those that have called up and threatened to cancel.
Steve the whole freeloader, slacker, socialist, anti-corporate, anti-capitalism rhetoric has simply taken over this entire country. A bunch of complaining, whining, no personal responsibility, overly-PC folks have all but flushed us down the proverbial toilet. Eventually they will have us join the EU.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! THEFT BY RETENTION DEAL??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME????
Wow. Just seriously wow. It's one thing to actually steal service (which is absolutely impossible with satellite radio, BTW, it is unhackable). But to call a retention deal theft is just way beyond retarded. Do people play the system? Absolutely. Do you think it's not noted in the account who gets what deals? If the company continues to give them to someone, that is the company's business. And if you think the retention gamer is the reason for their losses, you need to get your head out of your ass. I don't blame the retention gamer at all, because it wouldn't take much for the CSR to say, "Ok fine, how soon would you like the service stopped?" instead of offering the deal. I blame the person who thought it was a good idea to pay a washed up has-been the likes of Howard Stern nearly a billion dollars to do a 3-4 day a week excuse for a show with 20 weeks of vacation.. And all the other lucrative contracts that they handed out to talentless assclowns like Martha Stewart, Eminem, Bam Margera, etc.
And it STILL doesn't change the fact that Mel Karmazin sat before the FCC and the DoJ and LIED about not raising prices! See the whole point of having antitrust laws is to encourage a fair market. You can't have a fair market with only one player (hence the FCC banning Mel from raising prices). The fact that the FCC and DoJ bought Mel's load of bullsh*t that they 'compete' with OTA radio and itunes doesn't change the fact that there is now only ONE satellite radio service that holds BOTH of the bandwidth licenses that were assigned, essentially blocking any competitors from entering the market.
Wow. Just seriously wow. It's one thing to actually steal service (which is absolutely impossible with satellite radio, BTW, it is unhackable). But to call a retention deal theft is just way beyond retarded. Do people play the system? Absolutely. Do you think it's not noted in the account who gets what deals? If the company continues to give them to someone, that is the company's business. And if you think the retention gamer is the reason for their losses, you need to get your head out of your ass. I don't blame the retention gamer at all, because it wouldn't take much for the CSR to say, "Ok fine, how soon would you like the service stopped?" instead of offering the deal. I blame the person who thought it was a good idea to pay a washed up has-been the likes of Howard Stern nearly a billion dollars to do a 3-4 day a week excuse for a show with 20 weeks of vacation.. And all the other lucrative contracts that they handed out to talentless assclowns like Martha Stewart, Eminem, Bam Margera, etc.
And it STILL doesn't change the fact that Mel Karmazin sat before the FCC and the DoJ and LIED about not raising prices! See the whole point of having antitrust laws is to encourage a fair market. You can't have a fair market with only one player (hence the FCC banning Mel from raising prices). The fact that the FCC and DoJ bought Mel's load of bullsh*t that they 'compete' with OTA radio and itunes doesn't change the fact that there is now only ONE satellite radio service that holds BOTH of the bandwidth licenses that were assigned, essentially blocking any competitors from entering the market.
Last edited:
Exactly! Consumers want everything for nothing and will do whatever measures necessary to cheat a company out of a few bucks, but what if someone did that to the company that you worked for, or even owned, how would you feel? What if you didn’t get a raise last year, or what if you got laid off because of the company not having enough money due to giving away stuff for free. What comes around goes around. You may save two bucks now, but it will cost you four down the road.
Unhook your radio, call up and cancel it. Turn it back on.
From another thread from a moderator here:
http://www.satelliteguys.us/sirius-xm-radio/256480-sirius-xm-freeviw-former-subs-5-a.html
Receiving a signal that is meant to be paid for then intentionally circumventing it's deactivation all while not paying sure sounds like theft to me. While you won’t be prosecuted for it, passive theft is still theft.
... and just like I said in another thread about another service; those that cheat the system, regadless for how much or how little, will ALWAYS find ways to rationalize THEIR actions since they are in fact the cheats.
...sadly and like it or not, the entire "promise not to raise subscription fees" would have very likely passed the "LAW test", even if it didn't pass the "SMELL test". The fact they did not raise the basic subscription for the 1st unit owned may very well have been enough to prove they followed through with all they promised. The new fee and the raise of a 2nd unit price may very well NOT have been taken into account toward the agreement; nor the separation of the internet based streaming. Do we like it? NO! But we all are well aware what loopholes are and if it was never specifically spelled out word for word and line for line in the FCC papers, then shame on the FCC and bravo (sarcastically) to Sirius for sneaking that past them. This boils down to the people (the class) being pissed off but knowing they can't go after the FCC; so they in turn get some lawyers to go after Sirius thinking they will get something; anything. BS ON THAT! It will get us ALL nothing more than even higher prices they what they were bitching about in the 1st place. Sirius settled fast to keep this from dragging on and on and on and costing them more time and money and the class will get the feeling they won; at least it was a feel good victory. ???? Smart consumers expected all this anyhow because of what I said before; NOTHING detailed was ever laid out specifically and in any detail. Sirius seemingly knew that going in. I blame the FCC; plain and simple. But I did vote with my wallet as opposed to a stupid lawsuit and dropped my 2nd and 3rd units AND streaming. I just have my one original unit and guess what; it doesn't cost me any more than it did before the merger.
I didn't get a raise last year because the corporate stuffed suits did. If you think retention deals cost companies money when they are doled out responsibly, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A retained customer paying less is worth a lot more to the company than a lost sub. Losing subs = lost company/stock value. Like I said, all they have to do is say "No" if they get a call from someone with previous retention deals on their account. There is a very high probability that person won't cancel even if not offered a deal, because they don't want to be without service for the couple months it'll take to get a winback offer. The fact that they are giving the retention and discount offers out freely means they are not hurting the bottom line to the extent you claim they are.
Haha nice try, that only works with Sirius radios because they always had the inferior system (FWIU they have changed that though, and they are keeping the kill signals in constant rotation now) . XM you may beat the kill signal (which stays in the stream for several weeks) but in that time the encryption keys expire and you would need a refresh to get it off Channel 1 - which you can't get without a paid subscription.
I think these people will be quite disappointed when they think they're in the clear and their radio gets nuked. Sirius knows all about this little game and now they are being proactive in stopping it, Mr. Morals.
Uhh yeah. Ok. So you're on this tool's side saying its the fault of the retention gamers that the company is in the position that it's in. We get it. It has nothing to do with Howard Stern or the NFL or any of the other bloated contracts that Sirius had no business paying what they paid for. And of course lets not put ANY blame on Mel, who is only interested in his golden parachute as he drives the company into the ground.
Last edited:
I have gotten the deals at XM-Sirius and not ashamed to admit it. I basically only have it for the NHL Hockey Coverage on the Home Ice Station. Not Howard Stern and not DJ's on Music Stations supplemented by commericals. To be honest with you, I did call to cancel my account in July 2009. They encouraged me stay with them. XM-Sirius is not worth $12.95 a month. The 5 month deal of $20 plus fees, is worth it and I will keep it, as long as they continue to offer me this type of pricing. Otherwise, they can cancel my account and I will find plently of the programming I want online and/or from other sources.
Clear Channel Extends Reach of Iconic Radio Brands via XM Satellite Radio
- Scott Greczkowski
- Replies: 10
