Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Charged Marine's Widow an Early Termination Fee
In a decision that was reversed as soon as someone with half a brain in their PR department learned about it, Verizon charged a widow a $350 early termination fee. After the death of her marine husband, Michaela Brummund decided to move back to her home town to be with her family. Verizon doesn't offer any coverage in the small town so Michaela tried to cancel her contract, only to be hit with an early termination fee. From the article: "'I called them to cancel. I told them the situation with my husband. I even said I would provide a death certificate,' Michaela said."
Why would a corporation care about a grieving widow, unless there was some sort of bad publicity to arise out of... oh dear.
I purchased a Motoroal Droid when it came out last year. Shortly after mentioning my purchase, I got a number of warnings about their billing department. Concerned, and also pissed at Verizon, I decided to return it for a full refund (it was well within two days of buying.) Shorty after, I got a huge termination fee, coupled with data charges in the megabytes (I literally never even used it with any 3G service.) and activation fees, even though it was clearly stated I wasn't supposed to be charged. It took upwards of four calls before the charges were removed from my account. Needless to say, I'm glad I did it, especially after seeing more bologna like this. Maybe one day they will realize that for each angry customer like me who cancels, they lose far more than the $350 termination fee.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
This is why its bad to give zero authority to the peons at the bottom of your organization. In an effort to restrict decisions to higher-ups and make low-level decisions 95% predictable, you get bit in the ass with bad PR that can cost millions in damages, only because the first two or three people closest to the customer aren't allowed to make braindead obvious decisions.
You can almost always tell a corporate culture by calling their customer support.
Talk about playing the sympathy card.
Now, I'm sure Verizon should have been more flexible here, but not because she was a widow. Because the early termination fee is unfair in this circumstance. Do others get to be treated unfairly because they haven't had a bereavement?
Death is a form of early termination. Doesn't death let you out of any contracts you are in by law?
"She should have predicted this when she signed up for Verizon"
--
BMO
The issue isn't that the guy died and the widow wanted to cancel the contract. If that were so, I'd totally be with her.
It's that she decided to up and move and canceled the contract because where she decided to move didn't have service. That, is her fault only.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
>unilateral contract change, effectively a contract of adhesion
A customer cannot unilaterally change the contract with Verizon.
What gives Verizon the right to play Calvinball with contract law?
--
BMO
Yeah man, this is America. Pay up.
No, no, I don't care if your husband just died defending my freedom, and the loss of his income changed your lifestyle. Hell, I don't care if you're homeless and struggling to make ends meet. I don't give a shit if the taxes you or your parents paid in 10 years ago helped fund the infrastructure that enabled me to make this money in the first place.
This is America. I am a corporation with infinite rights. You're just a speck on my quarterly report.
Pay up.
She has cost the phone company a certain amount for the phone they fronted her. This has no remaining value for them.
Does she also get away without paying her credit card bills? Perhaps she bought something for her husband. Will Visa refund that one since she no longer needs it?
Early termination fees are simply part of the way service providers effectively finance equipment purchases at above market prices and at exorbitant rates of interest, while hiding that fact from the user as much as possible.
Someone made an observation last week that I thought was especially telling (wish I could credit the source). I'm basically paraphrasing here ..
I get through the 2 year contract which pays for the phone. So how come my rates don't go down in the third year if I keep the same phone?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I feel sorry for her loss. However, I'm a bit unclear about the reasoning behind this. For which fees, financial obligations, and loans is it unpatriotic to ask for repayment?
Waiving such fees is a nice thing to do; it expresses gratitude for the sacrifices that our military makes.
However, I start feeling uncomfortable when members of the military start talking about it as if it were an entitlement or obligation.
But the person involved in this case _didn't_ die. She's alive and well. She wants to move because her husband died. Her husband didn't have a Verizon contract, she did.
Oddly, when I moved overseas, I was able to cancel my contract with no fee because VZW didn't provide service where I was going. Had they provided service, I would have had to pay. I expected to pay though, and when the rep told me I didn't I was pleasantly surprised. Granted, I believe the $350 in her case was the subsidized cost of her phone, so VZW might be losing money here, depending on how long she had the contract/phone. My cheapie had been long since paid off, and I only had a few months remaining.
First of all, she shouldn't need a fucking dime. Why are we paying $300,000 for a Blackwater mercenary and paying every real soldier a tenth of that? Why aren't we providing end of life payouts to widowed military wives? If we can't do that for people who have literally died for the country, what chance does anyone have? This is like when McCain fought education benefits for veterans. It's appalling, regardless of what I think about the true purpose of the war.
We have literally got to the point in this country where even the immediate families of dead soldiers are treated like shit if they haven't got money. Visa and Verizon are raking in record profits, and the could afford to forgive debts to dead soldiers if they wanted to. But it's far more important to bonus their board of directors for continuing to shit on the population at large.
So, should everyone whose spouse dies be let out of such contract, or only the spouses of Marines?
Maybe only those who died serving the public - firefighters, police, military, etc? What about private "military contractors"? They kinda do the same thing (you know, defend Freedom, Justice, and the American Way), just for more money.
Maybe only those who were married to someone who's nice?
I'm fine with it either way, really, I just need to know what the rules are.
sic transit gloria mundi
As a general rule, most contracts have a military clause that extends to the spouse/family of the military member. The reason this clause exists is to protect them should they be required to move without notice, relocate to another area, or lose their spouse. This applies, to homes, cars, and many other things.
It's a good policy, and Verizon screwed up by choosing to ignore it. If Verizon stuck to their guns, she could easily have gone to family advocacy department in the USMC and they would have helped correct Verizon.
If nothing else, it highlights how we little people get treated by corporations in America every day.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
I had my sister on my T-Mobile account and she had purchased a new Android phone through the T-Mobile store. She died last year and it took me a few months to get around to calling T-Mobile to terminate the contract on her phone.
The T-Mobile customer service representative was very understanding and sympathetic and waived any disconnect penalties or outstanding balance on the phone purchase. She had even offered to see if she could backdate the service termination a few months. I told her that was not necessary as it was my own reticence to close the account (you know, the finality of death and wrapping up the details of someone's life).
Over the years little experiences like that with T-Mobile have made me a very loyal customer. It seems that someone still remembers how to treat their customers.
Tisha Hayes
Verizon does, too. They reneged on all of their signed contracts in April when they announced that they would no longer honor that clause.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
The important part isn't the death. The important part is that the contract she signed didn't have an ETF if she moved to an area without coverage. In April, Verizon announced they were reneging on their contracts and would no longer honor that clause. Their reason: "We have perfect coverage so not honoring our contract should not make any difference". This woman is moving to an area without coverage, which her signed contract says is allowed with no ETF. Verizon is refusing to honor the contract and sending collections agencies out for blood.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
So, you think that because her husband died, she should be allowed to skip out on paying her bills? Hey, cancel her credit cards, her mortgage, student loans, car loan - all of her debt is vanished because her husband died! That's not how it works, nor should it. A bill specifically relating to service for him (such as his personal cell phone) should be (and legally is) voided because he's dead and not using the service anymore. However, since the bill she wanted (and got) waived had nothing to do with him, she should be required to pay it.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson