Comcast pulls ad criticizing GM, Chrysler to review claims
Commercial regarding GM and Chrysler's liability claims -- Click above to view the after the jump
A group called the Ad Hoc Committee of Consumer Victims of GM and Chrysler put together a commercial to run on Comcast throughout the weekend. The group numbers 460 people, 300 of whom are plaintiffs against GM, the rest against Chrysler, all of whom claim catastrophic injuries or the deaths of relations due to defective vehicles from the two companies.
The ad attacks the issue of New GM not being responsible for such liabilities. The claims, said to add up to about $1.25 billion for just the GM parties, would be addressed by the Old GM and lumped in with every other unsecured creditor's claims. That means that if the plaintiffs received anything at all, it wouldn't be much. GM is just following the government's orders -- it was the Administration that decreed post-bankruptcy Chrysler and GM won't be responsible for vehicles sold previous to bankruptcy.
GM's attorneys called Comcast, and Comcast explained pulling the ad by saying "We have temporarily stopped airing the ad while we conduct a review of the claims it makes." The commercial only asserts a few facts which could be easily checked, and makes a generalization about claims that won't be reported if people know nothing will come of them. Comcast hasn't given any timeline for that review, though. You can watch the ad after the jump and see for yourself.
[Source: Washington Post via TTAC]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
dukeisduke 3:36PM (6/26/2009)
Tort lawyers are huge contributors to the Democrats. How did this provision ever see the light of day?
Reply
Saxxon 12:27AM (6/29/2009)
The Obama administration know owns stake in GM and Chrysler with the bailouts and bankruptcies.
Do you seriously think a communist dictatorship government want people to criticize the decisions of their newly owned companies?
I, for one, am not surprised.
Ian 3:42PM (6/26/2009)
Shame Comcast aren't so keen on ensuring the accuracy of the rest of the advertisements such as those we were subjected to from other special interest groups and political parties.
Reply
Tyler 3:47PM (6/26/2009)
Jeff Smeltzer used tax-payer money to buy a house in the Philippines, where little boys talk in lips and don't wear pants. He wants to ban .60 caliber machine guns and make America vulnerable to terrorists. Just like little boys are vulnerable to him. He says he supports family values, but his wife is a harlot and has had 5 abortions. Come election day, don't vote for Smeltzer.
tankd0g 5:29PM (6/26/2009)
....and Fox News.
Mike Z71 1:30AM (6/27/2009)
nice gta4 reference tyler haha
Bird 8:40AM (6/27/2009)
.50 caliber. And what do you mean ban machine guns. They are so tightly regulated they are practically banned already.
Ian 8:45AM (6/29/2009)
What's really worrying is you guys are serious when say dumb things like trying to link the banning of machine guns and being safe from terrorists.
MOD and ANGRY 3:38PM (6/26/2009)
Most of these cases are frivolous, but it sucks for the few that are legitimate. I still think both companies should have dissolved and the assets liquidated...
Reply
Tyler 3:37PM (6/26/2009)
You just know that there is someone involved who spent more money on this cause than they themselves were 'owed' by GM or Chrysler.
What a malicious dummy. A fool and his money are soon parted, I suppose.
Reply
Who 'Dis? Who 'Dat? 3:45PM (6/26/2009)
WHAT THEY SAID: "We have temporarily stopped airing the ad while we conduct a review of the claims it makes."
WHAT IT MEANS: They weren't too concerned about the contents of the message prior to GM's legal beagles getting involved just as long as they got paid. *Ka-ching!*
Reply
GROM 3:44PM (6/26/2009)
This is nothing .... they are voting on cap and trade tomorrow and NO ONE read the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOgQ3cZ6dtI
God help us all.
Reply
Thomas 5:18PM (6/26/2009)
Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4
So much for buying an electric car to save the planet
Clay Garland 4:07AM (6/27/2009)
buying an electric car never was going to save the planet. With the exception of nuclear, the electricity to run your electric car requres as much CO2 to produce as burning gas in a ICE creates. It's a zero sum game. The electricity is cheaper because the coal used to fire the plants is usable straight from the ground.
awesomehobbes 3:21PM (6/28/2009)
An electric car is more efficient than an ICE to begin with which would create less carbon per mile. Plus, also all the energy that's used for converting crude oil into gasoline and then transported by vehicles to the stations would not need to occur anymore.
Regardless, the idea is to slowly move away from coal too in the long run.
MOD and ANGRY 3:49PM (6/26/2009)
I think it's so weird that AB posted about Farrah's death, since she was in Cannonball Run, but nothing about Michael's death... HE TURNED INTO A CAR IN HIS MOVIE!!! A kinda cool looking car actually, very DMC-esque....
Reply
LesPaul1 3:50PM (6/26/2009)
^ @MOD and ANGRY, do you know the percentage of which cases are/were frivolous? How many people with 'legitimate' cases do you think were affected by the D3's bankruptcy immunity? Important thing is not how many frivolous cases there are, but how many legitimate claims there are and how they will not their day in court.
Tyler, do you think people take murderers or rapists to civil court to profit? It's about punishing the person or company. That's what this is about. Not that I agree or disagree with it.
Reply
MOD and ANGRY 4:06PM (6/26/2009)
Do YOU know what that percentage is? I know people PERSONALLY that have received settlements from "slip and fall" suits. I'm sorry, if I see a liquid of some sort on the ground, I don't deliberately step on it and hope that I won't fall but KNOW that I WILL sue if I do. That is the mentality of the sue happy bunch.
People that ran a red light, became paralyzed, and sue GM for their injuries should be incarcerated for wasting taxpayer's money tying up our judicial system. The people who were in a fender bender and were killed due to seatbelt malfunction are a different story, but those cases are few and far between.
And if you had BOTHERED to read my post, I said it was still UNFORTUNATE for those people with legitimate cases.
tankd0g 5:34PM (6/26/2009)
I suggest you do some research,. none of these people are claiming anything so ridiculous as that. You know all those GM recalls, the many thousands of them, where they say in the NHTSA bulletin something like: ...has resulted in 4 reported injures or 2 fatal fires or 6 reported cases of loss of control? Well guess what, those numbers are people, people who deserve compensation.
MOD and ANGRY 6:11PM (6/26/2009)
Research? RESEARCH??? I can easily settle this with Audi and it's sudden acceleration suits... If you don't realize your foot is on the accelerator, even though the engine is suddenly revving very high, and you put it into gear mowing down your child in the process... Guess what, it's your fault for being a moron, not Audi's for not holding your hand while you put the car in gear. While I am a fan of "shift locks" on automatics (and that's obviously standard equip across the board now), Audi was in no way liable for those accidents because of the absence of those locks.