Slashdot Mirror
Verizon, Sprint Agree To Pay Combined $158 Million Over Cramming Charges
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.
No doubt these meager fines will deter such practices in the future...
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
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.
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.
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!
...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..
Some people above just realized there are actually living in a corporatocracy. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
Deter them from stealing so little. Next time they need to steal 3x that just to break even!
Good luck. AT&T crammed my bill for $250 and I'm still waiting for my check. It's been years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
But only under duress. And by implication it means that in other circumstances they're not put first.
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.
> 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".
That's 1/2252000000 of Verizon's entire Market Capitol ..
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.