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.
Parents in Africa: "Finish your food kids, there are starving children in America"
(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.
Love is a three-edged sword: heart, soul, and reality.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 15 2024, @05:17PM
They offer Unlimited Lies! Yes, really. That's truthful.
If your boy is chewing on electrical cords, then ground him until he conducts himself properly.
(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.
Parents in Africa: "Finish your food kids, there are starving children in America"
(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.
We have a president who posted a fake video of himself shitting on America
(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!"
We have a president who posted a fake video of himself shitting on America
(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?
We have a president who posted a fake video of himself shitting on America
(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!
We have a president who posted a fake video of himself shitting on America
(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.
We have a president who posted a fake video of himself shitting on America