How to Deal w/ Dubious 'Contracts'?

phorm asks: "It seems that for almost every service out there nowadays businesses want to fix customers into a contract. Some are pretty obvious (cellphone service, etc), but others are downright sneaky. About a year ago, my grandparents signed up for internet service with one of the bigger ISP's (Telus). They were offered an lesser rate for the first year, followed by $10/month more for following years, as well as their DSL modem for free (to be returned when service ends). None of the documentation received with the modem indicated that any 'contract' was being entered, nor were any documents signed. However, when they recently tried to cancel their service, Telus has indicated they will be charged a fee due to being within the 'contract'." Similar to EULAs, sometimes companies will enter you into a "contract" without providing anything to sign and will hold you to terms you may not even know about simply by your use of the service. How can you deal with companies practices, especially if dealing with their representatives becomes...difficult? "On first questioning of this, they believed that they had somehow been contracted by agreeing over the phone when initial service was setup (despite that they don't remember being told about such a thing). However, when I called the ISP to dispute this, they indicated that upon connecting the service they would have been presented with a dialog indicating the contract terms and had to click 'OK' online.

My assumption would be that this was done through their setup CD, which comes with the modem. However, the ISP's software is not installed on their machine (I don't trust it not to have snoop-ware), as I had their machine manually registered through a web-interface (which did not indicate contracts at that time, I am not sure about now).

Despite this, calls to their hotline have indicated that they will not rescind the cancellation fee. Moreover, the last operator from the 'Loyalty Department' I talked to refused to separate the internet bill from the phone bill despite being told they would no longer be authorized to bill the given VISA account (they said they will not change that billing process unless given another account, and refuse to just 'send a bill' in the mail). When I questioned the legality of this the operator told me to 'get a lawyer and have them contact the legal department.' Obviously, this is an option but seems rather to be a bit extreme and I'm sure the company realizes it. So what does one do when a big company is bilking pensioners with contracts they have no proof of? Certainly there are no signed documents, and whether a particular button was clicked or not seems to have no proof except in the ISP's say-so, as well as the dubiousness of button-click legality under local law. My next step will likely be to explain the situation to VISA but then things can definitely get ugly as the ISP is also the local telco.

By the way, this is in Canada, so Canadian law would apply, but I would definitely appreciate suggestions as such cases seem more and more common."

Comments

Re:You already have the answer.

[Mistlefoot]

With Telus, you MUST register your MAC address to use the service, whether or not you install any Telus software. Before you can browse you must visit http://oca.on.hsia.telus.net (substitute "on" with "bc" or "alta" if applicable). Pretty easy to have a once click "I agree" there.

But it wouldn't matter anyhow. Contracts are often made over the phone or computer. Have you ever made a change to your mobile service? Or added third party long distance? You are clearly not disputing the fact that you have an agreement with Telus, you are disputing whether or not you have a commitment.

As a Telus subscriber I can assure you that they are far from dubious. I was clearly "offered an lesser rate for the first year, followed by $10/month more for following years, as well as their DSL modem for free." I was also clearly advised that this would require a commitment. I chose not to take this deal as I WAS ACTUALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY SAID to me. I chose not to commit.

I notice that you have not suggested paying the $10 more per month that you saved. I noticed that you aren't suggesting you pay for the modem you have been 'renting'. When you were saving money each month over a Telus subscriber like me I'm guessing you never once considered Telus dubious.

Re:Here's what I've done...

[XorNand]

Even better, reread this classic gem that ought to be bookmarked by everyone: The Art of Turboing

Even better

[loraksus]

I talked to their legal department and a lawyer friend a few months ago about telus's contract and get this - even if they reduced the level of service, or implemented a drastically lower bandwidth limit, you would still be charged the cancellation fee unless you took them to court.
So while your prices may stay constant, the level of service would noticably be decreased. Lovely, eh? Sort of how sprint pulls a cell tower out of your neighborhood and all of a sudden you can't make calls without roaming, but oh, no, cancelling your contract will cost you $200*

As you may or may not know, about 4 months ago, both telus(dsl) and shaw (cable) started cracking down on bandwidth usage. First both started from ~100 gigs (which was an unofficial "you're abusing the network because we say so" limit) and then it started dropping gradually. At one point, shaw's service dropped to a pathetic 30 gigs a month, and telus dsl users were limited to 25 or so.
The interesting thing is that the bandwidth caps dropped very quietly - only a press release and a small change on the sales page (meanwhile, shaw continued to advertise unlimited service. Belive they still do actually, even though the cap is set at 60 gigs - you can pay another $10 a month to get back to the previous limit of 100 gigs). Also - when one company dropped the cap, the other would follow within days. Now - I'm not saying that there was collusion, but it sure as hell stank of something.
After a few months of this, they finally figured out that it cost them more to have a csr make a 15 minute call to the customer to discuss their bandwidth usage than it does to pay for a hundred gigs of bandwidth - so the bandwidth limits are now 40 for telus and 60 gigs a month for shaw (for the mid range personal accounts). BTW. It is impossible to get an account where I live that gives you more than 150 gigs of transfer a month.

Really, this isn't as big deal, the monopolies up here act like arrogant assholes and have the idea that contracts only apply to the users using their service - a bit better than BellSouth, but still annoying to deal with. Eventually, these bullshit "contracts" of adhesion will be challened in court just like their magical bandwidth limits and this will be resolved. Unfortunately, Canucks are less likely to sue, so it may be a while before this is resoved.

Good luck in your quest, although I honestly can't reccomend shaw. Shaw, at least doesn't block access to union websites during a lockout though.

* a hateful "I hope you fucks are all gunned down and shot in the knees" goes out to all the sprint employees.

Re:No signature = no contract

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello. I am an attorney licensed to practice in Florida. It is false to say, "If they don't have a signature or a recorded conversation where you agreed to this then you don't have a contract". The requirement of a signature passed some time ago (as did the requirement of a seal). Similarly, no recording of the conversation is needed for an oral contract to exist.

That having been said, enforcement of an oral contract is not the easiest thing in the world, and I would be surprised to learn of a ISP that uses one with its subscribers. I suspect the terms of the contract in this case were contained in a document such as the application for the account.

No, that's NOT how we do it in the USA

[wralias]

The USA seems still stuck at the point where your rights and protection are determined by whether you can hire a posse to fight for them. Only now it's the more expensive lawyers with ties and briefcases, instead of desperados with sombreros and Winchester guns. Most of the rest of the world moved over to more efficient model of having a centralized "police" equivalent.

Actually, we have offices in every state here in America, run by state / federal governments, to aid consumers with problems like these.

It's not America's fault that this guy is ignorant of their existence. A 2 second google search would have revealed this to him. Maybe that's the problem with America - we turn to Slashdot for legal advice.

Also, dude, you watch too much American TV.