Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Wednesday May 15, @01:20PM   Printer-friendly
from the business-as-usual dept.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/big-three-carriers-pay-10m-to-settle-claims-of-false-unlimited-advertising/

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 15, @05:45PM (6 children)

    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday May 15, @05:45PM (#1357064) Homepage Journal

    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 not only don't have all the answers, we don't even have all of the questions.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday May 15, @06:32PM (5 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Wednesday May 15, @06:32PM (#1357072) Journal

    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, @07:35PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday May 15, @07:35PM (#1357090)

      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, @03:36PM (3 children)

      by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday May 16, @03:36PM (#1357221) Homepage Journal

      How can anyone owning several homes and even more New York City skyscrapers have a negative net worth?

      --
      We not only don't have all the answers, we don't even have all of the questions.
      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday May 16, @03:48PM (2 children)

        by Whoever (4524) on Thursday May 16, @03:48PM (#1357227) Journal

        How can anyone owning several homes and even more New York City skyscrapers have a negative net worth?

        Have you heard of these things called "mortgages" and "loans"?

        • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday May 16, @03:53PM (1 child)

          by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday May 16, @03:53PM (#1357230) Homepage Journal

          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 not only don't have all the answers, we don't even have all of the questions.
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16, @04:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 16, @04:57PM (#1357247)

            > 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.