SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T will pay a combined $10.2 million in a settlement with US states that alleged the carriers falsely advertised wireless plans as "unlimited" and phones as "free." The deal was announced yesterday by New York Attorney General Letitia James.
"A multistate investigation found that the companies made false claims in advertisements in New York and across the nation, including misrepresentations about 'unlimited' data plans that were in fact limited and had reduced quality and speed after a certain limit was reached by the user," the announcement said.
T-Mobile and Verizon agreed to pay $4.1 million each while AT&T agreed to pay a little over $2 million. The settlement includes AT&T subsidiary Cricket Wireless and Verizon subsidiary TracFone.
[...]
The carriers denied any illegal conduct despite agreeing to the settlement. In addition to payments to each state, the carriers agreed to changes in their advertising practices. It's unclear whether consumers will get any refunds out of the settlement, however.
[...]
The three carriers agreed that all advertisements to consumers must be "truthful, accurate and non-misleading." They also agreed to the following changes, the NY attorney general's office said:
- "Unlimited" mobile data plans can only be marketed if there are no limits on the quantity of data allowed during a billing cycle.
- Offers to pay for consumers to switch to a different wireless carrier must clearly disclose how much a consumer will be paid, how consumers will be paid, when consumers can expect payment, and any additional requirements consumers have to meet to get paid.
- Offers of "free" wireless devices or services must clearly state everything a consumer must do to receive the "free" devices or services.
- Offers to lease wireless devices must clearly state that the consumer will be entering into a lease agreement.
- All "savings" claims must have a reasonable basis. If a wireless carrier claims that consumers will save using its services compared to another wireless carrier, the claim must be based on similar goods or services or differences must be clearly explained to the consumer.
The advertising restrictions are to be in place for five years.
Related stories on SoylentNews:
FCC Fines Major U.S. Wireless Carriers for Selling Customer Location Data - 20240430
FCC Does the Bare Minimum: Asks Wireless Carriers to be Honest About Location Data - 20220909
Verizon Wireless Adds Economic Adjustment Charge for Most Customers - 20220520
Google has been Paying Wireless Carriers Billions to Not Develop Competing App Stores - 20210820
AT&T Exempts HBO Max From Data Caps but Still Limits Your Netflix Use - 20200606
AT&T Loses Key Ruling in Class Action over Unlimited-Data Throttling - 20200222
John Legere, T-Mobile's Brash "Un-Carrier" Chief, to Leave in May 2020 - 20191120
AT&T Imposes Another $5 Price Hike on Grandfathered Unlimited Data Plans - 20180611
Court Rules FTC Data-Throttling Lawsuit Against AT&T Can Proceed - 20180227
Verizon Wireless Divides Unlimited Plan Into Three Worse Options - 20170823
T-Mobile and Verizon Mobile Plans Change; Probably Not Better for Consumers - 20170110
The FTC is Suing AT&T for Throttling its Unlimited Data Customers - 20141029
(Score: 5, Touché) by Snotnose on Wednesday May 15 2024, @01:34PM (32 children)
These companies each lost $10 million/year in accounting roundoff. I'm sure fining them $3.33 mil each will teach those responsible a lesson.
It's just a fact of life that people with brains the size of grapes have mouths the size of watermelons. -- Aunty Acid
(Score: 4, Funny) by Ingar on Wednesday May 15 2024, @01:48PM (3 children)
They also have to pinky swear not to do it again.
Understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 15 2024, @05:17PM
They offer Unlimited Lies! Yes, really. That's truthful.
Santa maintains a database and does double verification of it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday May 15 2024, @06:29PM (1 child)
Exactly. Every time they get hit with these trivial fines, we hear that, if they do the same again, the fines will be huge, but this never comes to pass.
It's more profitable to pay the fines than obey the law. We need to change that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2024, @07:10PM
Collectively you can, in November, but only if you (collectively) want to. And if you don't, well, you have two more years to complain before your next chance to try again, rinse/repeat...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2024, @01:49PM (3 children)
What's going to hurt are the bullet points toward the end of TFA, directly below this line:
> They also agreed to the following changes, the NY attorney general's office said:
> * "Unlimited" mobile data plans can only be marketed if there are no limits on the quantity of data allowed during a billing cycle.
[etc.]
Getting rid of deceptive advertising and other bogus claims will clean up things for the customers.
Ms. James just moved up another notch in my book.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 15 2024, @01:59PM (2 children)
>no limits on the quantity of data allowed during a billing cycle
In other words, nobody nowhere can ever market an "Unlimited" plan again (and hope to stay in business...)
What's the new marketing term for "Unlimited"? "All you can eat," "Power Users," "Executive Plan," "Road Warrior Plan," "Top Tier," "Platinum Club," "Firehose."
GoogleFi's "Unlimited" plan amounts to a bill that's higher than what we pay 10 months of the year, the other 2 months we might exceed the "Unlimited" bill amount by $5 or $10, but we average more like $20 below.
My wife got upset at our higher than normal bill last month, but when we broke it down it was $2 for this event, $3 for that event - mostly sharing videos on social media before we got home. When you're paying $100 and more for the event, do you really care about spending $2 to share a video from it at the moment instead of waiting to get home?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday May 15 2024, @07:31PM (1 child)
"Unlimited" can be used for a data pipe that will run full speed 24/7 with no artificial maximum.
My home internet is 1Gb fiber, no throttling or data cap. Before I got fiber installed I had 40Mb DSL, also with no throttling or data cap. Obviously limited by the actual bandwidth, but otherwise unlimited.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 15 2024, @07:39PM
Well, yeah, back in the 1990s there was a dialup provider who sold "unlimited" plans and made it work by throttling their users' connections to 300 baud, and less - this when they were offering connections on 33.6kBps capable modems.
An acquaintenemy of mine signed up for the 12 months for the price of 10 plan with them, 2 months before they started the throttling.
I think there's specific rules around throttling and minimum bandwidth these days, which are of course "best effort" weasel worded, but nontheless I don't think many ISPs get away with throttling like they did 25+ years ago.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 15 2024, @01:50PM (19 children)
Yeah, can I go out and perpetrate billions of dollars worth of fraud and then give 1% to the states as an apology for being so bad?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday May 15 2024, @04:18PM (9 children)
As an apology? Nah, a key component of all this is not having to admit to any wrongdoing. Apologizing would be such an admission. They will insist those payments not be construed as in any way apologetic. They're merely a cost of doing business.
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 15 2024, @04:46PM (8 children)
What do you call 5000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday May 15 2024, @05:13PM
If you took all the lawyers in the country and laid them end to end around the equator, about 2/3 of them would drown. Some would say that's a good start.
It's just a fact of life that people with brains the size of grapes have mouths the size of watermelons. -- Aunty Acid
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 15 2024, @05:47PM (1 child)
What do you call 5000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A very old joke.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 15 2024, @07:33PM
A very old joke.
And more true today than when it first made the rounds.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Wednesday May 15 2024, @06:44PM (4 children)
Don't blame the lawyers. They are merely good at exploiting bad law. They don't make the laws.
Who makes the bad laws? The politicians.
Who advises the politicians? The lobbyists.
Blame the lobbyists. They are extremely good at mis/re-directing blame.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2024, @07:21PM
Wrong question, you should ask:
Who reelects the politicians? The voters.
Blame the voters. They are much better at mis/re-directing blame.
In the meantime 95% of these politicians everybody likes to whine about will be reelected once again.. So please, when pointing fingers, most people should point into the mirror
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 15 2024, @07:42PM (2 children)
Agree with AC: the ultimate blame is square at the feet of the voters (and those who choose not to vote.)
The unfortunate reality is: the voters are so easily manipulated, and our system is now so complex that referenda on all the significant issues would be chaos and possibly even more easily manipulated than the clowns we send to D.C.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday May 15 2024, @08:10PM (1 child)
Yah, but...who 'advises' the voters?
In an ideal world, voters are rational and fully informed.
In our world, they get their information from a limited set of (mostly) controlled and (quite possibly) biased channels. Lobbyists and 'media moguls' have an awful lot of soft power.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 15 2024, @08:37PM
>Lobbyists and 'media moguls' have an awful lot of soft power.
As they always have. Why else would a boy genius sink $44B into a media platform and proceed to make it unprofitable?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 15 2024, @05:45PM (6 children)
Once your fortune reaches a billion (that's as much money as a thousand millionaires have, of course), you are as close to immune to the law as is humanly possible... unless you piss someone off who is even richer than you.
Take Trump, for instance. Highest fine for contempt of court is a thousand bucks, that's like fining me fifty cents or less. "Thousand bucks? Here, asshole judge, fuck you!"
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday May 15 2024, @06:32PM (5 children)
Arguably, Trump isn't rich. He has maintained the appearance of being rich for a long time, but during much of that time, he has had a negative net worth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 15 2024, @07:35PM
There's a "too big to fail" clause when your debt passes a certain level. The banks have to support your sham, or they'll be out all that money they loaned you.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday May 16 2024, @03:36PM (3 children)
How can anyone owning several homes and even more New York City skyscrapers have a negative net worth?
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday May 16 2024, @03:48PM (2 children)
Have you heard of these things called "mortgages" and "loans"?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday May 16 2024, @03:53PM (1 child)
Yes, I have one of each, not counting credit cards I keep paid off. One more might bankrupt me. I'm pretty sure no bank would want me to buy a second house!
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16 2024, @04:57PM
> I'm pretty sure no bank would want me to buy a second house!
That is the way it is for all us little people. But Trump just overvalued his existing buildings, used that for collateral and then borrowed more to buy more buildings. From memory, sleazy Deutsche Bank[1] was one of the banks, at least some of the time(?)
Then, he undervalued the taxable value of the buildings at tax time (but of course still owed the money he had already borrowed).
Thus his negative net worth at various points in time. At other points in time, he went bankrupt (more than once), stiffed creditors, and started the same cycle of fraud over again.
[some of the claims I've made above remain to be proven in court, the day of reckoning can't come soon enough for me...]
[1] See https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/deutsche-bank [goodjobsfirst.org] for a list of judgements against this bank.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Wednesday May 15 2024, @06:34PM (1 child)
What about the Sacklers? Responsible to the deaths of thousands of people, yet able to retain much of the wealth they gained while people were dying from their products and the misrepresentations they made about those products.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 15 2024, @07:44PM
>What about the Sacklers?
Grab your torch and pitchforks?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Wednesday May 15 2024, @02:45PM (1 child)
"When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star."
Good luck with that and I hope that works out for you. LOL
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2024, @06:34PM
if he wins the case, are ya gonna 'hope that works out for you' while debating how much he overspent on a prostitute?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday May 15 2024, @04:00PM (1 child)
Exactly. The message these "fines" send the entire industry - all the industries in fact - is that it makes good business sense to break the law.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 15 2024, @05:50PM
They have known that for decades. They just hope you don't.
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 0, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Wednesday May 15 2024, @02:40PM (7 children)
"The advertising restrictions are to be in place for five years."
Not the least bit surprising, coming from the thoroughly corrupt and despicable Letitia James. So after five years, this kind of advertising is no longer false? Or is it just a way to extract more millions when the clock runs out?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2024, @05:47PM
Corrupt? Details please.
Despicable? How, exactly?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 15 2024, @05:59PM (5 children)
Not the least bit surprising, coming from the thoroughly corrupt and despicable Letitia James.
Isn't she the one charging King Donald the Fraud with felonies? Read about the third Reich, that's what Trump will bring. My uncles waged a war against people like Trump and Musk. Uncle Bill shot a Nazi point blank, never told anyone until his death bed, when he told Grandma.
If your boy wins, Ukraine and Gaza ceace to exist, along with possibly the already tattered constitution. WWIII is likely, starting with Poland after Russia takes Ukraine. Why do you hate America, Ivan?
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 0, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Wednesday May 15 2024, @09:49PM (4 children)
Newsflash, the tired old trope of the Nazis (FYI, National Socialists) being "far right" is a ship that's sailed. When you have the far-left rioting violently on colleges campuses across the nation, chanting anti-Semitic slogans, and playing the role of modern day brown shirts, it's pretty easy to see who the real Nazis are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2024, @10:31PM
Shocked, I say! Not.
https://www.jta.org/2021/04/22/united-states/conservatives-are-more-likely-than-liberals-to-hold-anti-semitic-views-survey-finds [jta.org]
https://forward.com/fast-forward/423538/every-extremist-anti-semitic-incident-tracked-by-adl-was-carried-out-by/ [forward.com]
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/25/1247253244/unpacking-the-truth-of-antisemitism-on-college-campuses [npr.org]
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/02/us/politics/antisemitism-jews-republicans-democrats-congress.html [nytimes.com]
https://www.isdglobal.org/digital_dispatches/from-left-to-right-an-overview-of-the-veiled-antisemitism-threat-landscape-online/ [isdglobal.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/21/great-replacement-theory-antisemitism-racism-rightwing-mainstream [theguardian.com]
I could fill an entire post with links like the above, but you're not worth the effort, jackass.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2024, @10:54PM
Denying the good works of your Aryan brothers, are you?
You'll pay for that -- Race traitor!
(Score: 4, Funny) by mcgrew on Thursday May 16 2024, @03:43PM (1 child)
The Nazis, like the Communists, call themselves "socialist" but you should expect Nazis and Communists to be bald faced liars. Sweden is Socialist.
And Netanyahu is committing genocide, or at least war crimes. They have killed more civilians than combatants and are refusing to let aid in, starving them. Those protesters (riots? sure, Donnie boy) are certainly not "far left".
Shut off that Fox and Newsmax and read a newspaper!
Our nation is in deep shit, but it's illegal to say that on TV.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday May 17 2024, @01:00AM
It's not a war crime when civilians are being used to protect military targets - and certainly not genocide which is ridiculous puffery here. My take here: let Israel destroy Hamas. Then evaluate whether any war crimes actually occurred in the process.
(Score: 2) by SDRefugee on Wednesday May 15 2024, @04:52PM (1 child)
I discovered, after signing up with an MVNO called Tello, that their "unlimited" was, in reality, 35Gb of 4G/5G data, then basically dialup speeds. When they were called on it, their assertion was the fact that they don't cut you off after 35gb made their claim of "unlimited" NOT fraudulent. They might just as well cut you off, as the less than 2G speed you get is useless for ANY modern use. What are ya gonna do, they ALL do the same shit..
America should be proud of Edward Snowden, the hero, whether they know it or not..
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Thursday May 16 2024, @08:06AM
Meanwhile, my mobile carrier in Greece advertises limited data plans of that same variety: when you go over whatever your plan's monthly limit is, they don't cut you off, as you'd expect, but lower the data rate to "up to 384 Kbps". 384 Kbps may be too little to watch videos, but it's enough to browse the web, albeit somewhat slowly, if the pages you visit contain a lot of javascript. Of course, there's that "up to" bit, which for many carriers means simply ">0".
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 15 2024, @07:57PM (2 children)
I hear that term all the time, when lefties are talking about the wars around the world. "The other side only killed xxxx of your people, you should only kill xxxx +1%" or some such nonsense.
I want to see some proportionality in these fines. Instead of a flat monetary value for the fine, make it 1 or 10 or 20% of gross earnings for each year affected. Almost as good, would be a rebate to all customers affected. If I only received 70% of my advertised bandwidth for the last 9 years, the telco rebates me 30% of the total that I've paid over the last 9 years.
There is little if any justice when government assigns penalties against corporations. I want what I paid for, if I can't have it, I want my money back. Prorate the service provided against my costs. I don't care one tiny bit if the telco, or the ISP, or anyone else survives as a business. There is no guarantee of making a profit in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Both were written for us citizens, not for corporations.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday May 15 2024, @08:49PM (1 child)
Corporations have legal personhood. Current interpretations of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution hold that it applies to 'legal persons', and thus constitutional protections are afforded to corporations.
And much of the U.S. constitution applies to 'persons', not just U.S. Citizens [libertarianinstitute.org].
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday May 15 2024, @09:50PM
If corporations can't be punished like people, then corporations can't be "persons". Corporations have historically met obligations and commitments equal, or nearly equal, to those of real people - sometimes. In WW2, a lot of corporations did as government dictated, to keep the war machine operating. Of course, no corporation was shot and buried at Normandy, but, they did make sacrifices along with real people during the war.
A real person can be subject to all manner of severe punishments, depending on his offense. We all face fines, just let a cop see you driving 20 to 50 mph over the speed limit. You'll pay a fine, minimum, and likely have your license suspended. Oh - well - when was the last time a business had it's license suspended? A doctor might have HIS license suspended, but the company that he owns won't be suspended. How about jail time? Where's the equivalent of that in the business world? And, capital punishment. Theoretically, I can be executed by the state, if I really piss the state off. Businesses? Nope.
I outright reject the idea that a corporation is a person. If and when corporations are as punishable as real people, I might reconsider. If a corporation commits a truly heinous crime, the corporate officers can all be executed in front of the same firing squad. I'm thinking of the Sacklers, who pushed Oxycontin for so many years, no matter how many people suffered and died.
Yes, I realize you are correct. In today's world, corporations are legal persons. Perhaps one day, government will pull it's collective head out of it's collective ass. I won't hold my breath, but, maybe.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz