Massive Canadian Class-Action Cellphone Suit Is Approved

BeanBunny writes "A Saskatchewan, Canada court has ruled that a $12 billion class-action suit can proceed. The suit alleges that 'system access fees' that the cellphone companies have charged ($7-9 per month) are unfair and constitute price gouging. 'It is described as the largest class-action in Canadian history, potentially affecting every cellphone user in the country. Currently, there are 7,500 complainants signed onto the suit.'"

Comments

Classic Bait & Switch

[ivormi]

This is classic bait and switch tactics... Advertise one price, and then hit the customers with another. Their only real justification is that 'everyone else is doing it' and that not doing so would put them out of business. Its about time something like this came along.

no-win

[tomstdenis]

Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.

Wake me up when they stop charging $0.10 per SMS, or $0.05 per KB. I mean why is it they can afford me calling my friends after 6pm which uses roughly 9.6kbit/sec for FREE (well unlimited), but I can't send a 200 byte SMS without incurring a 10 cent charge no matter the time of day.

Cell phones are basically a license to print money. And since Rogers and Bell are basically monopolies they can charge [and do] whatever they want. If you look at Rogers previous earnings reports, the wireless division has been making tons of profit for a long time. So strictly speaking the high fees are NOT required to stay in business, they're just fucking greedy.

Re:no-win

[whoever57]

Assuming the lawsuit is successful, they'll just roll the $7 fee into the base price for ALL of their plans. So my $20/mo plan will become a $26.95/mo plan. Big whoop.

Maybe they will roll it in, maybe not. Thee is clearly an advantage in deceiving their customers, or they would not do it. If the current monthly cost is (for example) $30 (plus a fee of $7), how many fewer will sign up if the service is priced at $37/month? Clearly some will not sign up. Perhaps the companies will find it advantageous to charge something between $30 and $37/month.

In any case, I wonder how those 2 year contract (if that is typical in Canada like it is in the US) might come back to bite the providers if they have to keep providing service for the remainder of the contract, but MINUS the "access fees"?

Re:Just because I have to

[king-manic]

So thats what... $5, $6 American?

Currently just a few cents under parity. Wait a year and you may be looking at 1.25 greenbacks per loonie. As the trend has gone that way. We went from ~0.69 greenbacks per loonies to 0.98 greenbacks per loonie.

Re:Just because I have to

[trolltalk.com]

> Yep, and Canadian products will become more "expensive" to Americans (therefore, less goods are sold). Additionally, US products will become cheaper for Canadians (therefore, more of our goods get sold to you)....

You seem to forget, we're your #1 supplier of petroleum products. You really don't have a choice if we raise prices to match domestic prices, since we supply the equivalent of 1 Katrina of oil, and there isn't enough slack in the world, never mind enough oil tankers, to make up the difference.

You *could* stop using up so much of it, which is what will probably happen as people stop over-spending and are unable to borrow against their home's declining values.

Re:Just because I have to

[Dragon of the Pants]

1.00 CAD = 0.985699 USD Not even 1 and a half cents difference per dollar. And the way things are going, we'll be the ones making fun of the American dollar soon enough.

Re:Price control

[gurps_npc]

Your comment is not interesting, despite what someone tagged it. It is instead an off topic comment that tries to change the focus from the real wrong to greed.

Price gouging is not illegal except in certain circumstnaces. I.E. It is price gouging only if there is some kind of emergency going on.

Same for predatory pricing. To be predatory pricing it must be an attempt to remove a smaller competitor and the bigger company must be taking a LOSS on the price.

Price fixing only occures when an actual agreement occures not to compete on price. ---------------- But all of that is crap, because the lawsuit is NOT about the price Yeah, the consumers want the lower price, but that is not what the legal action is about at all. This particular case should really be called false advertising. They advertise one price and then really charge you a higher one. That is wrong ALL the time. No if's, no and's, no buts.