Woman Faces $9,100 Verizon Bill For Data She Says She Didn't Use (dslreports.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Woman Faces $9,100 Verizon Bill For Data She Says She Didn't Use (dslreports.com)

Posted by msmash on Friday September 16, 2016 @06:00AM from the insane-internet-pains dept.

A Verizon Wireless customer says she received a bill of $9,100 for hundreds of gigabytes of data usage which never consumed. The woman told the Cleveland Plain Dealer she was on Verizon's 4GB shared data plan, and like any normal person, the bill of $8,535 from Verizon for consuming 569GB of data in a matter of few days doesn't compute well with her. The problem, as DSLR reports, is that when she tried to find out what caused the data usage, Verizon website told her "the activity you are trying to perform is currently unavailable. Please try again later." She couldn't and switched to T-Mobile, after which Verizon charged her a penalty of $600.

39 of 209 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

New form of measurement? by Nidi62 · 2016-09-16 06:03 · Score: 5, Funny

If $600 is now referred to as a "plenty", what would the $9,100 be?

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
1. Re:New form of measurement? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 06:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  One and a half decaplenties.
2. Re:New form of measurement? by hey! · 2016-09-16 06:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This, folks, is why you should pay attention to who runs for state attorney general.
  Companies get away with this bullshit because private individuals can't hold them to account. It'd cost more than $9100, even counting your time as free, to fight this as an individual. So companies know they can do to you what they please.
  This is why we have consumer protection laws, to protect people from bullshit they can't afford to litigate. A shot across the bow from your state's consumer protection bureau counts for a lot more than an angry contract termination call. And if your state AG's office doesn't have a consumer protection division, or if there aren't consumer protection laws in your state, well you're SOL until someone changes that.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
3. Re:New form of measurement? by Mephistophocles · 2016-09-16 08:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Wow. Uh, no! First off, if she sues them (which is what I was clearly indicating should happen), SHE's the plaintiff. And no, even if they were to sue her, they'd have to do it in the county of her residence, or the court has no jurisdiction. You can't just sue someone in NY when your business is in CO and she lives in GA, because you think the NY court is going to rule in your favor.
  
  Secondly, regarding arbitration - even if they produce a contract that they can prove she agreed to (far from a certainty), they're probably not going to want to actually go through with arbitration on a $10K claim.
  
  Thirdly, your last comment is so asinine I'm not sure how to respond to it. The arbitrator is not biased against the litigant because there's some shady deal in which they make "millions" by Verizon bringing them cases. Verizon (and all major corporations) generally avoid actual courtrooms and arbitration whenever possible because it costs one hell of a lot of money (even if they win). So, no, that "obvious bias" doesn't exist except in your fevered imagination. If there's a bias (and I'm certainly not insinuating that the AAA is always as impartial as it claims to be) it wouldn't be for that reason.
  
  --
  Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
4. Re:New form of measurement? by hey! · 2016-09-16 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  Aversion to big government can be a consistent ideology. You assume that this woman needs government to solve her problem.
  It sounds like competition (T Mobile) has provided her an alternative. As for the bill, is it not big government that might cause this woman problems, if it sides with mega-corp to enforce some type of action against her?
  Top marks for the Randie impersonation!
  Err... you were being ironic, right? It's hard to tell these days.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
5. Re:New form of measurement? by MBGMorden · 2016-09-16 08:14 · Score: 2
  
  Wow. Uh, no! First off, if she sues them (which is what I was clearly indicating should happen), SHE's the plaintiff.
  What is she going to sue for? In order to bring a suit you have to state damages. If she hasn't paid the fine she hasn't been damaged. If she does pay it she's essentially agreeing to it.
  You can't just sue to "not pay a bill", unless she somehow wants to somehow claim that receiving the bill caused emotional distress for which she's due compensation (fat chance). She has the choice of ignoring it, and if so Verizon can sue for damages, in which case she'd need to lawyer up in response.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
6. Re:New form of measurement? by tsqr · 2016-09-16 08:39 · Score: 2
  
  This, folks, is why you should pay attention to who runs for state attorney general.
  Or maybe this is why you should learn to advocate effectively for yourself. Verizon tried to bill me for a data overage a little over a year ago. I called them, told the representative that I thought the bill was in error, and asked him to look at my data usage history over the previous two years. He did, and then not only reversed the overage charge, but gave me a "bonus" package that tripled my monthly data allocation for the next year to compensate me for my inconvenience.
  I've gone through similar exercises quite a few times with cable providers, insurance companies, and other businesses that have reputations for always wanting to screw over the customer, and I've found that a calm but resolute approach, in combination with a little data, works wonders.
7. Re:New form of measurement? by SeaFox · 2016-09-16 08:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If $600 is now referred to as a "plenty", what would the $9,100 be?
  She should just cut them a check for $91.00 -- they'll consider the bill paid in full.
8. Re: New form of measurement? by BarbaraHudson · 2016-09-16 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  Not true. She is free to sue for a declaratory judgment stating she doesn't owe the money.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"a plenty of $600" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 06:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Thank you for writing the needful.
Ignored Messages by bfpierce · 2016-09-16 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or did Verizon not send them. I get these constantly when I'm towards 90% of my monthly allotment.
1. Re:Ignored Messages by Solandri · 2016-09-16 07:12 · Score: 2
  
  Don't assume competence on Verizon's part. Almost a decade ago a friend of mine got an offer to save a few bucks if she would combine her Verizon cell phone bill with her Verizon DSL bill. She signed up for it, got the first combined bill, and paid it. A few weeks later she got a notice from Verizon Wireless that she hadn't paid her bill. She called to find out what was going on and got the run-around. After enough calls she got someone at Verizon (DSL) to investigate it. They insisted they'd fixed the problem so she figured it was resolved. Next month she got another past due notice from Verizon Wireless, with a warning that they would discontinue service if her past two months weren't paid. In a panic she called Verizon Wireless to explain she had a combined bill. No luck - Verizon Wireless claimed they had no way to check the payment status of a combined bill, and refused to call the number for the Verizon DSL rep who offered to help her clear it up. No amount of talking would get them to actually do something to fix the problem. In their minds, they made no mistakes and the only aceptable fix was for her to pay her "bill".
  Long story short, they cancelled her cell phone plan, gave her phone number to another customer, and screwed up her credit report.
2. Re:Ignored Messages by sycodon · 2016-09-16 08:00 · Score: 2
  
  My kid went to Mexico with her boyfriend and his family for the week.
  On Friday, I received three text messages. One stating that the Data limit had been used up and that they were adding more. They second said the data charge was over $1000. The third said that the charge was about $3000 and they turned off the data. All in the span of 3 minutes.
  They wanted me to pay them and I told they to go fuck themselves. It will be off my credit report next year.
  AT&T, fucking you over like no others.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
A link to the real article by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 06:13 · Score: 4, Informative

Instead of the crappy DSLReport blurb - http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/09/verizon_data_overages_other_ch.html
SpeedTest by Thelasko · 2016-09-16 06:17 · Score: 5, Funny

Now we know what happens to all of that data that's routed through /speedtest.

--
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Verizon Has Issues by JumbleGuy · 2016-09-16 06:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just about a month ago, Verizon was reporting that my wife had used some ridiculous amount (can't remember exactly how much) of data on her phone. It turned out that both their website & their phone app were reporting MB as GB. It took them several days to fix it.
1. Re:Verizon Has Issues by AntronArgaiv · 2016-09-16 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Just about a month ago, Verizon was reporting that my wife had used some ridiculous amount (can't remember exactly how much) of data on her phone. It turned out that both their website & their phone app were reporting MB as GB. It took them several days to fix it.
  Verizon should realize that it's unlikely an individual is going to pay an almost $10k data bill.
  So...why do they even allow you to run one up? By default, you should be shut off if you go over "n" times your limit (say your limit is 2G...after 6G, your data service is shut off). That way, Verizon gets their "nominal" overage charges, and nobody's all sue-happy. Why isn't this a thing? If you're some kind of commercial super user, you could sign away that protection, but for 99.44% of their users, it would eliminate this bad publicity.
Bills could kill. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 06:19 · Score: 2

I imagine some older person on a fixed income could possibly have a stroke or heart attack from shock at such a bill. With all the algorithms gathering data on the data we use, you think they would invest in making sure of, I don't know, umm.. accuracy?
sue first by phantomfive · 2016-09-16 06:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I told them that I won't pay the bill,'' Gerbus said. "I can either wait until they take it to a collection agency or when they take it to court. Either way, my credit history will be ruined. I can go bankrupt here.''
It might be wise to consider (or threaten) suing first. Lawsuits bring you to the front of the bureaucracy line, and can resolve the issue without bankruptcy.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:sue first by networkBoy · 2016-09-16 06:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's how I resolved my dispute with Chase bank when they did some seriously underhanded sh!t.
  I told them that they were trying to get blood from a turnip as I would rather burn my money and go insolvent.
  They threatened to sue me, and I replied with: "Please do, I dare you to find a jury that will take your side on this".
  After that my interest rate was 0.00000% till my balance was paid.
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
2. Re:sue first by jetkust · 2016-09-16 06:42 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Chase was trying to take his turnips because they though they had blood in them. So he threatened to sue them, but lost interest in the turnips already well before Chase gave them back.
3. Re:sue first by networkBoy · 2016-09-16 08:33 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The agreement in question was that I agreed to binding arbitration; the moment they said sue they lost that.
  As to the rest of the story, since people asked...
  I had a *sizable* life of loan deal with them at 2.99%. (about $30K, rolled a car loan, student loan, etc. into it).
  When the banking crisis hit no one wanted to carry these low interest loans with long payoffs, and no one would buy them from the lenders either. Since the agreement was for "Life of loan" they were stuck on the interest rate, but the loophole they found was that the minimum payment was not locked in.
  They jacked the minimum payment with only 15 days notice by 250%. Naturally I (and many others) was unable to pay so the account went delinquent. Now that the account was past due they could jack the interest to 29.99% APR. That is $750/mo in interest up from $75/month. I should mention that the day I received the increase notice I tried calling and saying to close my account and that I did not agree to the new terms, I was informed that option was not being made available in this case.
  As the account slipped further and further behind I tried an idea based on the common practice of companies like this sending out a check "cash this to enroll in our credit monitoring service" or whatnot.
  I drafted a repayment agreement at 0.000% (I did borrow the money, I should pay it back, but by their actions I decided they forfeit being able to earn any money from me) and wrote a check for the first payment.
  I looked up their business office (*not* payment office) and mailed the letter and check (both referencing the other and acceptance of terms by cashing check) attention: Account Manager.
  They cashed the check, so when I got my next bill showing the payment was made, but the terms not modified I called to inform them of the billing error. Hilarity ensued.
  It took nearly a week of back and forth, but finally they threatened to sue me and I replied with my dare.
  A brief silence was followed with "please hold on a moment" and a very unhappy but authoritative sounding person basically accepting my offer (they countered that they wanted the balance paid in 5 years, I was offering 6... since they agreed to the 0% interest I agreed to the 12 month acceleration).
  -nb
  
  --
  whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
that's why they are called service providers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 06:26 · Score: 2

they **** you in the *** every time
1. Re:that's why they are called service providers by wonkey_monkey · 2016-09-16 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  They hunt you in the er2 every time?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Accidental Overage? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 06:30 · Score: 2

You have to very, very specifically _try_ to get that much data on a mobile device. We're talking running torrents, binge watching Netflix 18+ hours a day for the entire month, etc.
While those things are certainly possible, you don't "accidentally" do them. You might acci
It's a billing error, and Verizon needs to own up to it.
On that note: always check your bill, and never, ever let any company have an open ended billing mechanism (e.g. overage charges) against you. Verizon offers "safety mode", you should use it.
1. Re:Accidental Overage? by ZorinLynx · 2016-09-16 07:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They actually charge $5 per month extra for that "safety mode". It's ridiculously underhanded and sleazy and one of the reasons I'd rather not use Verizon.
Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by jetkust · 2016-09-16 06:35 · Score: 2

So Verizon's explanation for how the data got so high is apparently because she accessed Amazon 400 times during that period. So they actually think visiting a website 400 times would account for 560 gigabytes of data? Over a gigabyte per visit. How stupid can they be? More proof that signing up with a company that can just randomly bill you whatever they want is not a good idea. Verizon is stuck in the stone age.
1. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by jetkust · 2016-09-16 06:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So she streamed 400 movies within the time period of a week or so ...
2. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by squiggleslash · 2016-09-16 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe she bought a 500Gb hard drive, and 4 16Gb microSD cards. That would account for it, right?
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
3. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 07:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In order to rack up ~600GB of data usage in 10 days she would have had to be watching full HD video (~3GB/h) every hour of every day.
  Of course that highly unlikely. And it's also highly unlikely it was an unattended device. Amazon, like other streaming providers, requires user interaction after every couple streams to prevent an unattended device from streaming data endlessly.
  Additionally, on a small mobile device, Amazon/netflix/etc will not send a full HD stream (3GB/h) but rather a smaller resolution stream suitable for the device (full HD would be utterly useless and just a waste for everyone) and at a small fraction of the full HD bitrate. We're talking a couple hundred KB/s throughput or about 1GB/hour.
  So the Amazon excuse it, at best, paper thin. It's a billing error.
4. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  400 movies, 1.5 hours each (average?) - if she was streaming continuously it would take 25 days to watch all 400 movies.
  At 20Mb/s, if each move was on average 2GB, it would take 10 days to stream all the content (not watch, just the time it takes to download over 20Mb/s.) If you have consistent 20 Mbps over 3G, then your speed is better than I get! (Verizon standard LTE is typically between 5 & 12 Mbps).
  So, something is very very wrong, and someone is failing to do basic math verification in their analysis.
5. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by EvilSS · 2016-09-16 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  So Verizon's explanation for how the data got so high is apparently because she accessed Amazon 400 times during that period. So they actually think visiting a website 400 times would account for 560 gigabytes of data? Over a gigabyte per visit. How stupid can they be? More proof that signing up with a company that can just randomly bill you whatever they want is not a good idea. Verizon is stuck in the stone age.
  AWS.
  
  --
  I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
6. Re:Verizon's lame Amazon explanation by swb · 2016-09-16 07:40 · Score: 2
  
  At a minimum they should have some kind of customer service flag pop up for agents when an individual calls about an absurdly high bill that's likely to be some kind of billing or data accounting error and that then routes the call to a team that handles them specifically.
  A team dedicated to these could eliminate the usual media clusterfuckery that happens when a carrier blindly tries to enforce not-believable billable and flag that person for the data/billing accounting developers so they could possibly track down an error in the system.
  And then waive the bill completely or at least reduce it to whatever last month's was -- that would create word of mouth good will that $1 million in advertising never would.
  It would be interesting to see a list of the top 100 consumer data consumers and how much they consumed from all the carriers. I don't doubt there are weird cases where people are perfectly willing to blow a couple of grand a month on data consumption, but it's kind of hard to think of non-business related situations where people would be regularly running up $1000+ monthly tabs for data and not doing anything about it.
  About the only case I can think of is someone who does consulting as an individual off their LTE connection and has the ability to bill their clients for all the data they consume. But even then, LTE isn't *that* fast and if you're pulling down a couple hundred gig a month, chances are your opportunity costs are such that you'd seek a faster download path just for the time savings.
Link to more complete source story by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-16 06:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Why not link to the source article instead of a summary? It has a lot more detail on what supposedly happened.
Re:Verizon charged her a plenty? by jandrese · 2016-09-16 07:07 · Score: 2

I see you aren't a Verizon customer. "This service is temporarily unavailable" means "We shut this down 5 years ago but never told anybody, not even our CSRs." It's all designed to run you around in circles until you give up and just pay the bill.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
Impossible by Mephistophocles · 2016-09-16 07:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

So, at the speeds Verizon provides me, 569 gig in a few days is a physical impossibility. Definitely agree with other posters - sue them for the max amount allowable in small claims court. Bet they settle without you ever actually talking to a lawyer.

--
Deja Moo: The distinct feeling that you've heard this bull before.
Re:i would tell verision by Fnord666 · 2016-09-16 07:36 · Score: 2

to go jump in a lake and hich a ride on a slow boat to china, i would NOT fork over that kind of money to ANYBODY, one reason is i dont have it and if i did it would not be going to a god damned phone company
Which is all well and good but Verizon will just turn it over to a collections agency and let them deal with it. Then you are well and truly fucked.

--
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
569gb ?! by meerling · 2016-09-16 08:13 · Score: 2

So, does anybody want to run the numbers on 569 gigabytes on a cell phone over "just a few days" ?
How does that even compare to the max rate of download those things are even capable of?
Is it based on around the clock downloading which we know isn't reasonable either, especially if there are periods when she wasn't at home or where she could be charging the phone as we know downloading eats up battery at a pretty decent clip.
This looks extremely questionable to me, and potentially impossible to achieve. (Of course somebody with more specific information could do the calculations I can't, and am probably too lazy to do today anyway.)
Re:You folks in the US are getting scammed by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-09-16 10:57 · Score: 2

Much worse. I would literally suck a dick to get the mobile plans they have in the states.
For that deal, you would have to sign up with Comcast.