I am seeking to file a law suit against Verizon for some serious
fraudulent activities, but I cant find lawyers to take on the case. I researched this matter and came up with this gem of a Supreme court ruling, which in effect nullifies my right to bring large corrupt corporations to justice.

In a land mark decision last year, the supreme court ruled (5 in favor - 4 against) to prevent or limit filing of class action suits against large service provider organizations. It effectively limits a person to file a claim for his own redressal and NOT to seek remedy across the board for all the consumers who have been defrauded and make the corporation be held accountable and pay indemnity to everyone.

Meaning to say: if Verizon has a fraudlent system, by which it defrauds you of $40 a month for the last 4 months, and it has been using that fraudulent system to defraud millions of other consumers across the country as well, you are allowed to seek "Arbitration" - agreed on as per the fine print in the contract, for only the $160 ($40 over 4 months). But not file a "class action" suit which would make Verizon to be held accountable for the billions of dollars it has stolen from the millions of consumers.

This effectively nullifies your rights as a citizen to seek to correct and / or punish a corrupt corporate entity, since Verizon can now brazenly continue to defraud consumers since:
(1) You are suing for $160, which is an extremely small amount for them to consider changing their corrupt ways. The other consumers will continue to stay blissfully unaware.
(2) You cannot hire an attorney to represent you, because which attorney will possibly take up your case given the redressal sought is $160.


Indeed the points above were further elucidated by Justice Stephen Breyer when he said : "Where does the majority get its contrary idea — that individual, rather
than class, arbitration is a fundamental attribute of arbitration?" He
said that without class actions, minor frauds would not be remedied.
"What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions
in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?"




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. ___ (2011), is a legal dispute that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.[1][2] On April 27, 2011, the Court ruled, by a 5–4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class action lawsuits, such as the law previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of Discover Bank v. Superior Court.[3]
By permitting contracts that exclude class action arbitration, the high
court's decision will make it much harder for consumers to file class
action lawsuits.[4][5][6][7]
Background
In 2006, Vincent and Liza Concepcion sued AT&T Mobility over their mobile phone contract, contending that the cell phone company had engaged in deceptive advertising by falsely claiming that their wireless plan included free cell phones. Their suit became a class action. AT&T asked the U.S. District Court for Southern California
to dismiss the suit, because in their contract with the company, the
Concepcions had agreed to use an individual arbitration process, rather
than filing any class action lawsuits. The district court declined to
dismiss the suit, ruling that California law prohibits contracts that
unfairly exculpate one party from its wrongdoing, such as clauses that
do not allow class action lawsuits in consumer adhesion contracts
where the individual damages are small. AT&T appealed the case,
saying that the Federal Arbitration Act should preempt state law. On
October 27, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision. AT&T, represented by Andrew J. Pincus of Mayer Brown, then appealed to the Supreme Court.[4][5]
After the Supreme Court granted review, appellate lawyer Deepak Gupta
of Washington, D.C. was brought in to represent the Concepcions.
The Court heard oral arguments on November 9, 2010.[2][8] Justices Scalia and Sotomayor questioned Pincus (attorney for AT&T Mobility) about when unconscionability doctrines are made under state law.[9]
Pincus argued that the California law was not being applied uniformly.
Scalia challenged that assertion when he asked, "Are we going to tell
the State of California what it has to consider unconscionable?".[10]
Other justices questioned different procedural issues arising from the
unconscionability discussion and the scope of the rule AT&T was
proposing. Deepak Gupta, representing the Concepcions, argued that the
contract AT&T imposed on Respondents was clearly unfair. He asserted
that state law should be a guidepost in these questions. Some of his
arguments drew criticism from Chief Justice John Roberts. Gupta
concluded by arguing that California "has made a judgment that if you
preclude class-wide relief... that will gut the State's substantive
consumer protection laws..."[10]
Opinion of the Court
The majority opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
"Requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with
fundamental attributes of arbitration," Scalia wrote. "We find it hard
to believe that defendants would bet the company with no effective means
of review, and even harder to believe that Congress would have intended
to allow state courts to force such a decision."[6][7]
The dissent was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
Breyer stated that class arbitrations are appropriate ways to resolve
claims that are minor individually but significant in the aggregate.
"Where does the majority get its contrary idea — that individual, rather
than class, arbitration is a fundamental attribute of arbitration?" He
said that without class actions, minor frauds would not be remedied.
"What rational lawyer would have signed on to represent the Concepcions
in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?"[6][7]