Hell. With the way life is going I’d settle for just regular roofies. I’m trying to adopt napping as a hobby. Seems like I’m happiest when I’m not awake
I’m not sure it was false advertising, the product was called “UnContract” “Mobile One” not “eternity price lock forever plan”, the customer can choose to not pay any more if they cancel their contract before they pay again after the current contract period ends (all contracts everywhere for everything in history are like this), if the details were in the faq that they could read before signing the deal, then that’s the deal they signed. It’s deceptive, maybe fraudulent, but I’m not sure it’s false advertising.
“New rule: Only YOU should have the power to change what you pay,” T-Mobile said in a January 2017 announcement of its “Un-contract” promise for T-Mobile One plans. “Now, T-Mobile One customers keep their price until THEY decide to change it. T-Mobile will never change the price you pay for your T-Mobile One plan.”
tmoblie lawyer: we cannot force a price change midway through a current contract, which we refer to as “the plan”. therefore we are not forcing the customer to pay a higher price at any time for their plan, though when one contract period ends, we may change the price, and the consumer can then decide whether they are willing to pay any higher price than their previous plans price, going forward.
that faq laying out the possibility of a price hike, and the expectation of compensation, means every word and punctuation can, and is being “lawyered”
Except the possibility to keep the current price is no longer available, therefore, the consumer does not have the option to continue paying the same price, ergo TMobile forced the customer to change the price they pay, either to a higher amount for the same contact or to 0 for no contact. The original advertisement stated that TMobile would never change the price a customer pays, but it directly forcing this change by not offering the same contact.
People should be reading the small print though, or in this case an FAQ.
There’s a place for more strict regulations on advertising here though. You shouldn’t be able to make out a product is one thing in the headline, then tell us it isn’t further down the page.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there already precident set in the 90s that EULAs do not have any holding in a court of law as a contract if the terms are labeled to be unrealistic? I swear someone sued microsoft because they did something in their EULA for Windows 95, and when it went to court, the judge said “yeah, fuck this…”
And the thing about precidents is, once they’re established, courts generally tend to follow that precident, else it would mean that two similiar cases with similiar backgrounds were judged differently.
That’s capitolism, baybeeeee!!! Regulation free, the way it was meant to be!!! Where huge corporate interests dominate not only politics, but also the legal system, and healthcare systems! Where the only punishment is a fine so big the average citizen would consider it lifelong crippling debt, but the average corporation would look at it as a fraction of doing business. Because they have more money than anyone would ever need. That makes them better than you, and you know it.
I’d now like to quote one of philosophys greatest minds.
“In case you can’t tell, I was being SARCASTIC!!!” ~Homer Simpson.
Yeah but it’s just blatant false advertising when the FAQ or ToS directly contradicts the public advertising.
It also wasn’t in the ToS/T&C. The FAQ is not a legal document, and I wouldn’t expect to need to read it if I read the T&C.
Mmm EULA-Roofies
Hell. With the way life is going I’d settle for just regular roofies. I’m trying to adopt napping as a hobby. Seems like I’m happiest when I’m not awake
I’m not sure it was false advertising, the product was called “UnContract” “Mobile One” not “eternity price lock forever plan”, the customer can choose to not pay any more if they cancel their contract before they pay again after the current contract period ends (all contracts everywhere for everything in history are like this), if the details were in the faq that they could read before signing the deal, then that’s the deal they signed. It’s deceptive, maybe fraudulent, but I’m not sure it’s false advertising.
From the article:
Explain how that is not a blatant lie.
tmoblie lawyer: we cannot force a price change midway through a current contract, which we refer to as “the plan”. therefore we are not forcing the customer to pay a higher price at any time for their plan, though when one contract period ends, we may change the price, and the consumer can then decide whether they are willing to pay any higher price than their previous plans price, going forward.
that faq laying out the possibility of a price hike, and the expectation of compensation, means every word and punctuation can, and is being “lawyered”
Except the possibility to keep the current price is no longer available, therefore, the consumer does not have the option to continue paying the same price, ergo TMobile forced the customer to change the price they pay, either to a higher amount for the same contact or to 0 for no contact. The original advertisement stated that TMobile would never change the price a customer pays, but it directly forcing this change by not offering the same contact.
As you said. it’s not false, but it is deceptive.
People should be reading the small print though, or in this case an FAQ.
There’s a place for more strict regulations on advertising here though. You shouldn’t be able to make out a product is one thing in the headline, then tell us it isn’t further down the page.
agreed is sneaky and underhanded as seeks to deceive the customer
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there already precident set in the 90s that EULAs do not have any holding in a court of law as a contract if the terms are labeled to be unrealistic? I swear someone sued microsoft because they did something in their EULA for Windows 95, and when it went to court, the judge said “yeah, fuck this…”
And the thing about precidents is, once they’re established, courts generally tend to follow that precident, else it would mean that two similiar cases with similiar backgrounds were judged differently.
That’s capitolism, baybeeeee!!! Regulation free, the way it was meant to be!!! Where huge corporate interests dominate not only politics, but also the legal system, and healthcare systems! Where the only punishment is a fine so big the average citizen would consider it lifelong crippling debt, but the average corporation would look at it as a fraction of doing business. Because they have more money than anyone would ever need. That makes them better than you, and you know it.
I’d now like to quote one of philosophys greatest minds.