Why Aren't More Companies Sued For Bogus 'Unlimited' Service Claims?
from the false-advertising dept
With the news that a lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile for advertising "unlimited" smartphone data service that's really limited to 10GB, it raises an important question: how come we don't see more lawsuits like this? For years we've pointed out that all these services marketing offerings as "unlimited" when they're really limited certainly must be violating truth in advertising laws -- but for some reason, you almost never hear of any actual lawsuits against these companies. Now, it's probably difficult to show that the difference caused much harm, but you would think that, at the very least, the FTC would step in at some point to point out that calling a limited service "unlimited," is not allowed.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why aren't fewer companies sued for bogus 'unlimited' service claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A: they provide enough service for the majority of their customers.
B: Lawsuits are expensive and time consuming so unsatisfied customers either tolerate limitations or they switch providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If there's a 10GB limit after which the download speed is capped to 1/4, a typical end-user will probably blame YouTube for being slow rather than the ISP for capping it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Inexpensive crap products at the store typically do not have an ETF and they get thrown in the trash rather than returned in order to save gas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I missed that part where I stated such ... wtf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because It's Unlimited*
*up to 10 GB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because It's Unlimited*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letting advertisers slide on unlimited service offers is just inexcusable, literally inexcusable. We wouldn't let it slide in other areas of contract law, so there is no reason to give it a pass in advertisements for consumer goods and services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two days ago...
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TMobile-Sued-For-Offering-Limited-Unlimited-Service-109 801
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two days ago...
Note the link in the post? It's to Karl's story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. These are fucking huge companies with a fucking lot of lawyers. No one actually stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting anything done. These are the same lawyers that will hold up anything the FCC tries to do long enough that their lobbyists get some exemption for them put into law.
2. I'm sure that the contract mentions the cap, so although there may be false advertising, they do inform you that there's a cap. Yeah, it's hidden in a contract but if you sign it without reading it then it's really your own damn fault. I mean, if you sign something that says "I read and agree to the conditions" without reading the conditions then you really don't have a great deal of room to complain.
I'd like to see this practice end as much as the next guy, but I'm also not naive enough to think that we can do anything as long as the current situation persists. We have, what, 3 major cell phone service providers in the USA? As long as we allow oligopolies like this to exist in the first place, the market will be run by them, period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
3. People are using "unlimited" for downloading movies and don't want that to come up in the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So certain are you.
I recall the accounts of those affected where they scoured the paperwork and website looking for the elusive cap amount. Email requests were met with stonewalling. After some time it was acknowledged that there was indeed a cap but they would not quantify.
It is a small step forward if they do actually state the cap amount in the paperwork, but the inclusion of small print statement of cap amount in the paperwork is of little value to the average consumer who sees unlimited in large font.
Then there is the story about the guy who had been paying for the premium package thinking it would get him a larger cap, they never told him specifically what the cap amount was. Upon inquiry about the over cap charges, he was told that the additional BW just gets him to the cap quicker. He then changed his service to lowest package available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or are you talking about the physical DVDs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would wish a TRUE MEANING of "FREE"
not..
free IF
free AFTER
free when
FREE should NEVER have a Star or Asterisk AFTER IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't why they aren't but I'll tell you who I would like to sue is Skype, they advertise an unlimited plan which actually is limited. Most people won't see the little fine print when they buy but here is there "Fair Usage Policy"
But the plan says Unlimited calls* to landline phones worldwide. well that's not really unlimited is it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
The issue here is that after you (consistently) exceed 10GB your data speed decreases, but your data access remains. So unless someone can show where T-Mo stated exactly what data speeds you would be getting with this unlimited data plan, then there is no false advertising. Bad PR yes, false advertising no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
If those other 99% have the same problem, then you have a good argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
I agree with Mike that this is potentially actionable by the FTC. It's their job to make sure companies aren't tricking us, even if what they say is accurate by technicality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
Oh, I see how that works. In fact, they actually only offer "up to" speeds, which includes "zero"! So even if they never provide you a single byte, they're still within what they agreed to and you still have to make those monthly payments. Nothing wrong with that, huh?
You telco people are really sleazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
The issue here is that after you (consistently) exceed 10GB your data speed decreases, but your data access remains. So unless someone can show where T-Mo stated exactly what data speeds you would be getting with this unlimited data plan, then there is no false advertising. Bad PR yes, false advertising no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
So what? They offer an unlimited package. Now they limit a feauture of it which makes it limited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not false advertising, It IS unlimited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
O2 does the same thing...
http://forum.o2.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=44553&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&am p;sid=9afa6945a3420c74433e7bd5ad7cbc92
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insight from a CSR.
This.
Also, the idea of unlimited is to not get overage use charges on your bill. In that regard, you can continue using your service for as much as humanly possible within the month and not pay more for the service than the $25-30 per month you signed up for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Math Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some tips on how to fight false advertising
Consumers do not need to sue deceptive companies. The FTC can investigate deceptive and unfair practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some tips on how to fight false advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two days ago...
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TMobile-Sued-For-Offering-Limited-Unlimited-Service-10980 1
-===-
"Note the link in the post? It's to Karl's story."
-===-
Yes and thank you very much, Mike. I'm commenting on the quality of -your- editorial. Usually when people write something, they add additional information, however you subtracted information. Karl went more in depth, whereas your editorial, which is two days older, frankly is watered down.
To everyone else, I'm sure Mike would be in remiss if you didn't read his take because it's juicy as hell, so be sure to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
T-Mobile offers so much more bandwidth, Mike says it should be illegal!
T-Mobile offers twice as much data as their closest competitor, and I wouldn't be surprised if the lawsuit was funded/filed by a competitor that is at capacity with the intent of T-Mobile to change their rateplan to be at parity with the rest of the industry.
The easy fix: T-Mobile ad campaign stating "T-Mobile offers so much more bandwidth, it should be illegal!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlimited is not bandwidth!
I don't like the practice of using the term unlimited (meaning access is unlimited) when it's quite clear the public see the word "unlimited" and thinks bandwidth. It's simply deceptive advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlimited is not bandwidth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unlimited is not bandwidth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unlimited is not bandwidth!
Have you truly not read some of their advertising, or are you just an apologist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, I think thats absolutely bogus, and I don't know how well it translates to the mobile arena. But I'm about 95% sure thats what happened with previous lawsuits regarding the 'unlimited' connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re to D Mac
They advertised 768 kbit/sec with a fair use policy as "speed will be reduced when a user exceeds 200MB per day". Sounded fair, so I signed up--and entered a contract. Service was installed and once I exceeded the 200MB, throughput dropped to around 40-60 kbit/sec and latency jumped to 15000 msec. WTF? I've seen Windows updates bigger than 200MB!
We'll see more fair use policies appear on wireless broadband, and I'll bet we see more of the same issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
T-Mobile DOES advertise UNLIMITED
It says UNLIMITED 4G WEB
Here's a link to a screenshot of my account if anyone wants to check it out:
http://i1199.photobucket.com/albums/aa473/josh4ea/tmobileplan.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]