Slashdot Mirror
NY Wrests $1 Million From Verizon Wireless
netbuzz writes "Unlimited really means unlimited, even in advertising. So says the New York State Attorney General's Office in squeezing a $1 million settlement out of Verizon Wireless for disconnecting 13,000 of its customers who had the temerity to believe that the unlimited service they were promised came with unlimited service. Verizon's statement explaining the settlement is a gem, too."
It's all about the lawyers. They'll be taking more than $8 each. Have you seen the ad they are running in magazines for the settlement over Herbalife? Max payout per person - $75 (it will be a lot less). Money going to the law firm - not including costs - over 2 million. Class action suits benefit the law firms and not anyone else.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Perhaps they think they've learned their lesson - but they think the lesson isn't "Do what's right" to you and me, but rather "How can we make our business plan legally defensible?"
Seems if they get a lot more specific, then they'd have a greater chance defending it in court.
And if all of us geeks go over to other carriers, will Verizon notice? We're a pretty small minority.
My blog
Class Actions are mostly to smack the company so it will stop doing whatever it's doing.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Are they still branding their wireless as "unlimited" to new customers? Existing customers that signed up for "unlimited" wireless should have exactly that - at least until their contract expires.
Despite their cute (though repetitive at this point) commercials, VZW is still a bad choice for a cell company in my opinion. T-Mobile OTOH seems to make good where verizon fails. Heck, they keep sending me free phones with a couple months of free service to try them out. Ok, so i'm a corporate customer but meh.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
I like turtles. Disclaimer: This does not mean that I like all turtles. I only like some turtles which I will not specify.
"You iknow, I'm a geezer; I don't remember businesses being run by thieves and sociopaths when I was young. Maybe my memory is bad, or I was naive. Or maybe we're heading for another world wide depression like tha 1930s?"
You grew up in the period between the 1930s and the 1980s? I'm sure there were corporate thieves and miscreants in that period, but the tale of the stats say they weren't as rampant as today. Not even close.
Before the 1930s, man, they were effin' brutal. These days, they're trying really hard to bring back those 'Good Old Days' of yankee 'caveat emptor' capitalism. Really really hard.
It's up to us, the people, to stop being so apathetic, turn off that stupid Nip/Tuck, and call for and vote in some corporate responsibility. Start with boycotts and then put pressure on politicians. Stop letting these people think we don't care.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Is it necessarily right or good to allow unlimited usage of a limited resource(cell spectrum bandwidth)?
Somebody using more than 5 GB is at the high end of the curve, likely costing verizon more than what they're paying; increasing costs for other users of the service.
Yes, a business has a right to at least attempt to make a profit. They shouldn't be required to sell money-losing products.
What they rightly got slapped for is false advertising - A service with a 5GB cap isn't 'unlimited' by any standard definition. Heck, draconian firewalls and QOS settings wouldn't meet my 'unlimited' standard. I'll bend enough to say that it's reasonable to bill a service as unlimited and still restrict illegal activities and have restrictions to prevent the spread of viruses/worms/spam.
I don't read AC A human right
The settlement was ONE million dollars. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the http://investor.verizon.com/profile/overview.aspx 88.1 billion they did in revenue last year, which they'll likely surpass this year.
That's 1/88,100 of their revenue. For comparison, if you're somewhere around the GDP per capita at PPP of the US at $40k per year, that's like charging you 45cents as a fine. Yeah, that's really going to modify some behavior.
The only people that got any real benefit from this situation were lawyers. Verizon isn't going to stop cutting off accounts that don't make money for them.
Instead, imagine that you receive 2 or more such mass mailings: law firm 1 promises to seek an $80 refund, whereas law firm 2, by lowering its fee, promises to seek a $100 refund. Now capitalism can work the way it's supposed to.
Of course IANAL so feel free to point out the flaws of this idea. Is there a reason this isn't done now, given that there are plenty of hungry lawyers?
I think it's fair to say that the present system of binding without consent is inadequate, and opting out of the class being a class member's only option (so they may pursue legal remedy as an individual).
One problem with having two law firms working on the same action is that the lawyers cannot guarantee an outcome. One cannot say guarantee $80, the other $100, until a settlement has been reached. In fact, you have to agree to be part of the class of one firm or the other before you know how much you'd get. As well, a defendant would never agree to a certain settlement until they know the number of people they are settling with.
The way the plaintiffs make decisions in the class action for the class members is unfair. Typically there is a class representative (or a couple reps) who tell the lawyers what to do. As you may imagine, these reps are often "guided" into making certain decisions, based on the lawyers' assessment, and these decisions are binding on the whole class. What I think would be better is if the individuals in the settlement each had a choice to agree with a particular settlement proposal.
Contrast bankruptcy. There is generally a sophisticated mechanism for determining the rights of creditors when an entity goes bankrupt. Typically, creditors are divided up into groups, and a majority of each group must agree to the settlement. This provides every individual with the opportunity to provide input, and reject the settlement if it is unfair.
I see little reason why this shouldn't apply to class actions. It would allow class members to decide whether they think the settlement is fair to them. It would also give class members the opportunity to assess the lawyer fees. All to say, I think it would be better than the present class representative-as-dictator.
Ever file anything in small claims court against a large company? Not so easy. Just "serving notice" can be a challenge.
Had disconnected 13,000 users, he'd be in jail.
A corporate executive does it, and gets off scott free.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Are you kidding? This is about Mobile Phones not Verizon Fios or DSL. And some of the stuff you mentioned is specifically called out in the legalize. You can download iTunes music. You can't p2p. Read the details Mr. Richard Cranium.
he forgot one other point of 'modifying corporate behavior': legal precedent. Now, it's been legally determined that 'unlimited means unlimited'. You now have a case to point to for future incidents. That's worth something.
Your all-you-can-eat buffet argument is actually quite apt. People's eating habits can be mapped, the limit being based on how much one person can physically consume, so restaurants rarely end up with problems.
Verizon should have played it safe, looking at their resources and the real limits, (a customer using the maximum bandwidth 24/7), and they should have charged appropriately for that service package based on their ability to deliver it. Promising unlimited usage to everybody was unrealistic. 10 or 20 people using the full bandwidth is a spike, but 13000 users is evidence of normal mass behavior which they obviously didn't plan for. --They made promises they couldn't keep and they lost the gamble.
The nature of contract law is that people and companies must be held accountable to the promises they make. Why should Verizon be treated any differently? When other companies fail to meet their obligations, the ideal model is to find some way to sever the deal in a manner which leaves the customer feeling that they were dealt with in good will, either through a refund or similar. Verizon handled itself without grace. They could have been up-front in saying, "Oops. We screwed up by signing a contract which we couldn't fulfill. To make it up to you, we'd like to offer the next two months at the same service level for the price you are currently paying, but after that we have to charge more. This will give you enough time to find another service provider. --Or if you want to cancel immediately, we'll give you back your money for the last two months." --Something like that would have shown good will and would have established new systems to avoid future problems with new clients. Instead they chose to act like dicks in the hope that nobody would sue.
I'm glad to see they lost that gamble as well.
-FL
This whole thing is talking about internet access over mobile phones. Not a single thing you posted is valid. if I had mod points i'd bitch slap this post.