Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Verizon, Sprint Agree To Pay Combined $158 Million Over Cramming Charges

Posted by Soulskill on from the now-only-incredibly-profitable-instead-of-ridiculously-profitable dept.

mpicpp sends news that Verizon has agreed to pay $90 million (PDF), and Sprint another $68 million (PDF), to settle claims that they placed unauthorized charges on their customers's bills. The process, known as "cramming," has already cost T-Mobile and AT&T settlements in the tens of millions as well. Most of the settlement money will go towards setting up refund programs, but Verizon and Sprint will be able to keep 30% and 35% of the fees they collected, respectively. In response to the news, both companies issued vague statements about "putting customers first." They are now banned from charging for premium text message services and must set up systems to ensure informed consent for third-party charges.

66 comments

  1. That'll Show 'Em by tapspace · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No doubt these meager fines will deter such practices in the future...

    1. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, that's not fair. They worked hard for that money, it's not like the people with the phones will miss it, now is it? They didn't work hard for it, otherwise they would have been running their own businesses, rather than working for someone else. What right has the government got to be involved in private business, anyway? (Insert other such stupidies as required.)

    2. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      They should just pick a number, convert it all to nickels and make the CEO shove them all up his ass. In a televised venue. I bet no company would ever break the law again. At least, not after the first one.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    3. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Fwipp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Total revenue from cramming: $X
      Total fees: $X * 0.65
      Revenue after getting caught doing an illegal thing: $X * 0.35

      With penalties like these, there's not even a risk/reward calculation. If you break the law and don't get caught, you're way ahead. But if you break the law and get caught, you're still ahead. There's literally no reason *not* to be evil.

    4. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably made far more money doing this.

      "Driven by wireless and FiOS services, total operating revenues in first-quarter 2014 were $30.8 billion, a 4.8 percent increase compared with first-quarter 2013 and the company’s highest quarterly growth rate in the past five quarters."

      So, that roughly 120 Billion per annum.

      So if their fines were a percentage of income it would have been 0.075%

      Perhaps it Corporate fines were a decent percentage of their income, say up to 20%, THEN they would consider their actions.

      Fines are meant to act as a deterrent , the current fines do NOT do that for corporates, they probably come out ahead over all.

    5. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if their fines were a percentage of income it would have been 0.075%

      Perhaps it Corporate fines were a decent percentage of their income, say up to 20%, THEN they would consider their actions.

      Fines are meant to act as a deterrent , the current fines do NOT do that for corporates, they probably come out ahead over all.

      No, the fines should be 1000% of revenue earned through illegal means to be any sort of deterrent. Upon second offence the corporation should be seized by the government and all assets sold at auction with minimum reserve bid. All CXO-level executives sent to prison and their assets forfeited and used to fund the college and university tuition until such funds are exhausted.

    6. Re: That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've been doing that for years except with pennies!

    7. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You never know. It could become a favorite way for a board of directors to get rid of a CEO they don't like...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:That'll Show 'Em by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's literally no reason *not* to be evil.

      Well, there is the damage to their reputation

      .
      .
      .

      Just kidding!!!

    9. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total revenue from cramming: $X
      Total fees: $X * 0.65
      Revenue after getting caught doing an illegal thing: $X * 0.35

      With penalties like these, there's not even a risk/reward calculation. If you break the law and don't get caught, you're way ahead. But if you break the law and get caught, you're still ahead. There's literally no reason *not* to be evil.

      Thank you for that lesson, although I'm struggling to understand why you feel you had to explain it after the bank bailouts, as if their crimes were not several orders of magnitude worse.

      I'd say it's been pretty fucking obvious for years now that being evil pays well when you own the regulators.

      Now let's sit back and watch Verizon laugh at monopoly laws as they buy up AOL this quarter...

    10. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if their fines were a percentage of income it would have been 0.075%

      Perhaps it Corporate fines were a decent percentage of their income, say up to 20%, THEN they would consider their actions.

      Fines are meant to act as a deterrent , the current fines do NOT do that for corporates, they probably come out ahead over all.

      No, the fines should be 1000% of revenue earned through illegal means to be any sort of deterrent. Upon second offence the corporation should be seized by the government and all assets sold at auction with minimum reserve bid. All CXO-level executives sent to prison and their assets forfeited and used to fund the college and university tuition until such funds are exhausted.

      While that sounds very fair on the surface, I am genuinely curious.

      If your legal utopia were current law, would YOU continue to work your way to a CXO position, knowing full well that not only your career but also your freedom were reliant upon the integrity of other CXOs around you? Just how well DO you know your fellow executive team? Well enough to trust them with your freedom and way of life?

      Yeah, I thought so.

    11. Re: That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All the better if we can apply this to politicians as well.

      They should be scared.

    12. Re:That'll Show 'Em by wbr1 · · Score: 2
      Verizons NET revenue in 2014:9.625 billion [wikipedia]
      Damages 90M Percentage fees take from net profit = 0.9%

      Less than one percent of one years profit for fucking customers for years. Yeah, that'll teach 'em.

      As usual, this is a show and a sham. Bet some lawyers will make bank though.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    13. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So let me get this right,

      If I rob a bank and take $100 Million dollars

      a) There would be no prison time for the crime
      b) I get to keep $35 Million for my efforts

      So, if Corporates are people too, surely people can be corporates and treated "fairly" too

    14. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of "punishment" will have corporate boards DEMAND their companies follow their examples!

    15. Re:That'll Show 'Em by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I welcome our Goatse-inapired judicial overlords.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I don't agree that a fixed 1000% of revenue is the correct number, I do agree that it needs to be some meaningful amount over 100%. I disagree with your other claims, too. I believe there should be a risk of criminal charges for guilty executives, but not an automatic blanket criminalisation of all executives, innocent or guilty, due to a second offence from one bad apple.

    17. Re:That'll Show 'Em by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Even if it did, where are you going to go. Nice communications you've got there, it would be a shame...

      In practically any market in the US, there are only ~2-5 players, all of them collude on prices and service.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    18. Re:That'll Show 'Em by davester666 · · Score: 1

      You know they'll just start finding CEO's that like it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re: That'll Show 'Em by Greyfox · · Score: 2

      Oh god... I probably have some of your ass pennies in my pocket!

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    20. Re:That'll Show 'Em by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet, when the EU (which understands this and makes fines sufficiently large to discourage the behaviour) goes after a US corporation, there are cries of the EU just being jealous of the success of US companies and wanting their cut of the revenue.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:That'll Show 'Em by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      They should just pick a number, convert it all to nickels and make the CEO shove them all up his ass.

      Nickels are too small and smooth - Eisenhower dollar coins would be better,in uncirculated condition so that the reeding is nice and sharp.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    22. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, when the EU (which understands this and makes fines sufficiently large to discourage the behaviour) goes after a US corporation, there are cries of the EU just being jealous of the success of US companies and wanting their cut of the revenue.

      Maybe the corporate action that the state is retaliating against influences people's opinions of the enforcement as well?

        - you are charging too much in a discriminatory fashion that annoys people (roaming fees)
        - your bulk pricing of your operating system in a quantity beyond the computer manufacturer's capacity makes it impossible for them to refund users who don't want your os (ms monopoly)
        - our member states are setting up tax havens to reap windfalls at the Union's expense. This is your fault. Instead of taking advantage of them, you should voluntarily pay more tax. We're going to retaliate by making a special tax, just for you, that other companies who are less prominent in the news don't have to pay.
        - we would like to poll your competitors and help redesign your top web page to their advantage. Because we see your page every day we think our government ought to have a say in how it looks, to use it as a sort of corkboard for reaching our public. Do you want to hear our ideas? They're really good! You're not interested? You don't think we're smart enough? Ok, we'll force you to implement our ideas.
        - not that I have any authority, concrete plans, or basis, but I just want to start some gossip, about maybe breaking you up, just to, you know, make a news cycle, fuck with your stock and reputation, et cetera. Objective papers are free to point out that I'm a blowhard that's just fucking with you, but slanted populist rags are free to leave that out. Everybody wins! We love (European) commerce!

      Europeans have become petulant nasty little weasels. Their reaction to NSA is just as dumb:

        - let's host data outside the USA so it can be outside the NSA's jurisdiction. (Are you fucking dense?)
        - We're shocked! Shocked! that governments are spying on their people so recklessly! (Yeah, because all your spies were too cowardly or obedient to leak, we only know about your extensive cooperation with the NSA in anti-democratic spying because of an American leaker.)
        - But but what about industrial espionage? ([cough] FRANCE [cough] [cough])

    23. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The summary mentioned the premium text messages, these are messages that are sent by third parties and money from them goes to the third party, so it is more like a 150% fine, not 65% as some of the money from the premium text message went to the third party which doesn't have to refund the money.

      Unfortunately, the third parties were never forced to advertise that requesting these messages caused the fees at all.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    24. Re:That'll Show 'Em by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Well, this article's about Verizon & Sprint. Maybe you'll see me yelling about banks on a thread about banks.

  2. So out of All of the major mobile carriers, by rmdingler · · Score: 1
    it is unlikely I had picked an honest one.

    But, better than even money?

    This will not encourage the creation of an honest cell phone provider that football stadiums are frequently named after.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:So out of All of the major mobile carriers, by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      Use ting

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re: So out of All of the major mobile carriers, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The top four have all now paid similar fines.

  3. Am I right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I understand correctly (from another source) the revenue they get to keep far eclipses the fine. Really?

  4. Cramming in a data plan by tepples · · Score: 2

    Does "cramming" include the carrier itself adding a data plan that the customer doesn't want? One of their competitors is known to do that.

  5. Thank God for Gov't Oversight by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2, Informative

    Helping Corporations turn Crime into Billion Dollar Business Models. Can't wait to see what Amazing Verticals the Free Health Care Market comes up with.

    1. Re:Thank God for Gov't Oversight by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

      Oh shut the !@#$ up... It's all the government's fault, so you say. Yes. Bad corporate behavior is enabled by government. And I'm sure that without government around, they wouldn't have done it? B. !@#$ing S.

      You need to go back and look at history some more to see what companies got up to when there wasn't government insight. There's a nice little historical place in my home state, a canyon that held a mine. The workers in that mine were not paid very well, and they had to rent their barracks, and they had to buy food and equipment from the company store at inflated prices. There was only one way out of this canyon... and it had a gatling gun covering it, that conveniently pointed inwards.

      Now, I'm pissed as anyone else that I'd get years in prison if I stole this much, and let's not mince words here.... The phone companies STOLE, and someone should be in prison. But don't go blaming this on the !@#$ing government. That's just your own little petty hatred.

      When the cops aren't doing their job well enough, the solution is NOT to get rid of cops! Criminals will self regulate! Suuuuuuuure. No. The solution is to get rid of the dirty cops and get some cops that will do their job. I hate this !!@#$ing "government bad, let's get rid of it!" mentality. That doesn't work, and it should be !@#$ing obvious to anyone with half a !@#$ brain.

    2. Re:Thank God for Gov't Oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government created this mess with the barrel of a gun.
      corporatocracy = government = corporation.

      Otherwise there would be dozens of carries to choose from and any one carrier involved in this practice would be sued out of existence.

    3. Re:Thank God for Gov't Oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://politics.slashdot.org/story/04/09/20/1423219/libertarian-presidential-candidate-michael-badnarik-answers

      "Free trade," like any other term, is often coopted to mean something other than what it should. In the context of modern America and the globalization phenomenon, it is often used to refer to a web of regulations, restrictions, subsidies, government-created monopolies and privileges. That's not free trade.

      First, let's look at the nature of corporations. They come into existence with the grant of a government charter. They sell stock under the auspices and pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In court, they are treated as "persons" with "rights" -- and for purposes of liability, their stockholders are held harmless beyond the value of their stock itself.

      A market in which single proprietorships and partnerships must compete against what are essentially mini-branches of government, with all the attendant privileges and immunities, isn't a free market. It's a rigged game.

      I don't oppose growth or success. I support unrestricted trade across international borders, and I support companies developing themselves internationally. But the fact is that corporate growth today isn't natural market growth. It's growth encouraged and enhanced by government-dispensed privilege. It's artificial, and it distorts rather than serves the market.

      We need to restore justice to the system. Stockholders are owners, and should be liable for the consequences of that ownership like any other owners. I have no doubt that the market will come up with "portfolio insurance" to protect the stockholders from ruinous claims, but that in itself will provide a market check on unrestrained, unaccountable growth -- companies which act irresponsibly will find that their stockholders can't buy, or have to pay unreasonably high, insurance premiums, and therefore aren't interested in having the stock.

      Corporations don't have rights and don't face consequences. People do. Tinkering with that has been disastrous. It's time to get back to full responsibility for individuals instead of government privilege for corporations.

      It's that same perfect and awesome government that is letting these companies keep 30% of the money they defrauded from their customers.

    4. Re:Thank God for Gov't Oversight by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Now, I'm pissed as anyone else that I'd get years in prison if I stole this much, and let's not mince words here.... The phone companies STOLE, and someone should be in prison. But don't go blaming this on the !@#$ing government. That's just your own little petty hatred.

      You agree that they are COMMITING CRIMES -- yet you call me petty and hateful and to shut the fuck up when these CORPORATE PERSONS face no ciminal charges, pay a fine they can just as well pass on the customer and GET TO KEEP the ill got gains? Do you realize this is standard operating procedure in the US? That time and time again the Corporate Persons commit crimes that NET THEM HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IF NOT BILLIONS IN PROFITS and pay only a Percentage in fines? It's clear you have missed the point that Corporations have to only estimate the amount of fines they will have to pay vs the amount of profit to gauge wether or not to engage in Ciminal Behavior and that the current Government all but codifies the Criminal behavior of Corporate Persons. Wake up dipshit -- we live in a Fascist Police State where you and I are the only ones who live under the "RULE OF LAW" and the Elite and Corporate Persons can do as they please as longs as they can pony up cash when they go too far.

  6. They will still put their customers "FIRST" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt these meager fines will deter such practices in the future

    Whadaya mean by "deter such practices" when they gotta KEEP 30% OF THE ILLEGAL CHARGE??

    Exactly what kind of 'deterrence' is _that_?

    1. Re:They will still put their customers "FIRST" by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2

      Deter them from stealing so little. Next time they need to steal 3x that just to break even!

  7. They get to keep some? by NoKaOi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Verizon and Sprint will be able to keep 30% and 35% of the fees they collected

    WHAT THE FUCK? So pretty much they do something illegal, and only have to give part of the proceeds back?
    Found the question mark:
    1. Commit fraud
    2. Get caught
    3. Bribe^H^H^H Lobby politicians
    4. PROFIT!

    1. Re:They get to keep some? by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      This says so many things about the current state of affairs in this country, pretty sad isn't it? I wonder when we will see a spike in vigilante justice?

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    2. Re:They get to keep some? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Most notably, that the summarizer didn't understand the original article.

      The 30 - 35% refers to the amount of money that each company made from the premium text messages.

    3. Re:They get to keep some? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      What a shame to waste good karma. You are of course exactly right, and the article makes no mention of the amount of the actual amounts that the companies benefitted from due to cramming. One hopes they got fined more than they charged, but I kind of doubt it. As much as they were getting per cram, I have to think they made billions.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  8. Profit is profit... by bjwest · · Score: 2

    ...Verizon and Sprint will be able to keep 30% and 35% of the fees they collected, respectively.

    Both companies do something illegal and still get to hold on to 30% or more of the money? They should be paying that 30 to 35 percent in excess to the customers they ripped off, court costs and fees, 100% of lawyer fees, plus a hefty fine. The victims should be getting 130% of their money back.

    What kind of shit is this, DOJ? How in hell is this going to deter this type of behavior in the future? I'll tell you how - it's not. It will encourage it as just another revenue stream.

    --

    --- Keep the choice with the user..
    1. Re:Profit is profit... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Of course it gets better. They will use this fee to lower their income to reduce the taxes owed and they will just charge more for their plans to recoup the fees in the longer term. If you want to stop companies from doing this type of stuff then you have to hold the management and executives accountable. Get warrants, find out who authorizes these programs (though in cases like this where it's pretty much public knowledge you can go after the board for not stopping the practice at least), and at a minimum apply huge fines to them. Plus you have the law set up that the company is not allowed to reimburse the fines. Could be difficult to prove unless the company was stupid about it.

      Fining the company just means that those fees are going to be passed on to the customers. Do you really think that the shareholders are going to get a lower dividend to pay for them?

  9. 35% is not high enough! by MinamataHG · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some people above just realized there are actually living in a corporatocracy. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

  10. Jason Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Care to know who was one of the bigger players in this?

    Jason Hope.
    http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/05/12/2148203/verizon-sprint-agree-to-pay-combined-158-million-over-cramming-charges#

  11. Still waiting for my $250 refund from AT&T by Poisonous+Drool · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Good luck. AT&T crammed my bill for $250 and I'm still waiting for my check. It's been years.

    1. Re:Still waiting for my $250 refund from AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can prove that, file a lien on one of their properties.

    2. Re:Still waiting for my $250 refund from AT&T by antdude · · Score: 1

      Lawyers took it. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  12. Obviously by Pollux · · Score: 3, Informative

    Of course it will deter them! Obviously, when you admit that you did wrong and accept responsibility for your misdeeds, the guilt and shame must be overwhelmingly embarrassing! Let's see how hard the hammer of the FCC came down this time...

    This Consent Decree resolves allegations that Verizon charged consumers for third-party products...The Bureau...contends that Verizon violated the law...To resolve the Bureau’s investigation...Verizon will provide a total of $90,000,000 in payments and funds for consumer redress...the public interest would be served by adopting the Consent Decree and terminating the referenced investigation.

    Hmm...I'm confused...[CTRL]-[F]..."Guilty"...No Results Found? ...

    Serving the public interest my ass. Ninety million bucks says Tom Wheeler goes to work for one of these companies the moment he leaves office.

  13. 30 to 40%? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they say crime doesn't pay

  14. triple damages is law IF guilty by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Current law does allow for treble damages (triple) in a civil suit, IF the defendant intentionally engaged in wrongful behavior. So there could be a class action that could cost them much more the FCC settlement.

    It should be noted that the amount in this story is how much they agreed to pay, without a trial. Had they fought it in court, they may have had to pay more, or it could be found that they actually didn't do anything illegal.

    1. Re:triple damages is law IF guilty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know what? How many get to approach the bench and say...
      "Y'onour...I'm offering this much to make this all go away. You take it or we make this hard on you."

      No mortal gets to make such offerings, but for the elites this is just the cost of business.

      I'm not sure we're setting a precedent that actually makes it through the veil of dollars, and I'll be damned if we're making any difference whatsoever.

      You shouldn't be able to trump law just because you can pay the judge $100 million, but that seems to be where we're going. And fast.

  15. Hell Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where do I go to sigh up to commit a robbery, get caught, not go to jail, and keep 30% to 35% of the take.

  16. meaning if THESE companies guilty of THIS, NOW by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Of course we all know that phone companies are bad in general. By "if they guilty" I mean if all of these specific companies were proven to have committed these specific acts, during the specific time period covered by the allegations. None of which was proven in court, so that's one reason the penalty was lower than it would have been if the government had to prove anything.

  17. Fines=payola by Eugriped3z · · Score: 1

    It's corporate business as usual in America. These crooked companiez benefit regardless of the fines. Restitution isn't required, the executives who initiate these programs keep their bonuses and the companies' cash flow is enhanced by the use of ill gotten gains. Additionally, anything paid through credit cards fills the tills of big banks and the interlocked corporate directorships as well as the 'investors'.

  18. Are the individuals by no-body · · Score: 1

    ordering those kind of actions getting slapped in any way?
    Criminal investigation, putting those crooks in court - anything like that?
    No, company pays for it, and in end stockholders and customers.
    And, not to forget who else gets a cut on those deals? Any idea, like lawyers, negotiators, what their compensations are on those with those numbers - all behind closed doors for good reasons... Sure, they don't have to deal with minimum or living wage issues.

  19. Re:So let me get this right, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It gets even better !

    The fining organisation takes the $65 Million from the robber but doesn't give it back to the bank.

    The robber still has part of its, now legalized, robbed money.
    The fining organisation has got a nice bit of, all very legally gotten, pocket money.
    But the bank is still outof what was robbed from them ...

  20. Void all the contracts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be grounds for breaking your contract with them. I don't want to do business with dishonest companies.

  21. 'MERICA FUCK YEA!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sigh* /shrug

  22. Putting customers first by DrXym · · Score: 1

    But only under duress. And by implication it means that in other circumstances they're not put first.

  23. Damn It No! by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    When companies steal from their customers or anyone else they should be forced to pay far, far more than what they took in. If they stole two million fine them two hundred million and the nonsense will stop. Allowing any profit from wrong doing cause more crime.

  24. ?!?! Over 90% make deals by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > How many get to approach the bench and say...
    > "Y'onour...I'm offering this much to make this all go away.

    Over 90% of all criminal cases are settled. Trials are fairly rare in the US. FYI the companies didn't, and you don't, make the deal with the judge - you make a deal with the prosecutor or other entity bringing the complaint. Virtually ANY time you are charged with any crime the prosecutor will offer you a deal.

    Btw, the deal the prosecutor offers you is an opening bid. You can and often should negotiate, just like buying a car. In my most recent case, the offered to take $270 and a guilty plea to was driving without insurance, a class B misdemeanor. I didn't mind paying the $270, but didn't want a class B on my record, so I just told the prosecutor "I can $270, I can't pleae to a class B. I can take a class C." He had no problem with that, he just changed it to "driving without proof of insurance".

    1. Re:?!?! Over 90% make deals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not always. When I was arrested for DWI, the prosecutor refused to reduce the penalty at all, because the bitch felt she needed to be tough on drunk driving. She's still in office, despite commuting a number of felonies in those videos.

  25. Adding insult to injury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fraudulent charges = fees
    Conspiracy to commit fraud = cramming
    People's willingness to adopt euphemisms for corporate criminal activity = priceless

    All that is missing now is a senator or representative to apologize to the carriers for how they are being treated by the FCC.

    CAPTCHA: rectum

  26. Verizon has agreed to pay $90 million? by nickweller · · Score: 1

    That's 1/2252000000 of Verizon's entire Market Capitol ..

  27. fyi Gov Rick Perry defunded her to force her to re by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Fyi for anyone unfamiliar with the story, her term ends in 2016. Governor Rick Perry insisted that she resign. When she refused, he said he would veto funding for her office. So far that sounds like Perry was doing a good job, truing to get rid of a bad DA.

    However, her office, the public accountability office, was ALSO investigating Perry. So she claims that he wanted to get rid of her because she was investigating him. She got him indicted for the threatening to veto her funding and otherwise trying to get rid of her.

    It seems to me that probably both sides are true. Perry would have liked for her to go away because he was a thorn in his side, then she did things that gave him very good, legitimate reasons to try to get her out of office.