Verizon Wireless To Pay $90 Million Back To Users For $1.99 Data Fees It Insisted It Never Wrongly Charged
from the well,-look-at-that dept
Well, well, well. For over a year now there have been widespread reports of how Verizon Wireless would charged users $1.99 for data services, even if they have data services turned off. This was happening sometimes to users with phones turned off or even batteries drained. The whole thing was incredibly questionable. Verizon customer service folks insisted that the people in question clearly accessed the internet, but there were so many reports that they had not, that this response didn't fly. Then, after the NY Times reported about it, the FCC finally woke up and asked Verizon Wireless to explain. Its response was basically a non-response, insisting that it had done nothing wrong -- and when David Pogue from the NY Times pushed the company about the over 400 accounts of it happening to his readers (and himself), Verizon Wireless' response was "I'm going to let the letter to the F.C.C. speak for us," repeated for every question Pogue asked.That was in December of last year. Now, ten months later, Verizon has just announced that it's going to pay back "up to" $90 million in such bogus fees that it never should have charged to about 15 million subscribers. Apparently, those claims of not having done stuff wrong... well... it looks like that wasn't the case. It looks like they incorrectly charged people to the tune of perhaps $90 million (the company apparently thinks it could be more like $50 million once they've found all the false charges). Seems like a pretty big "accident," which they denied for so long. The latest statement suggests that Verizon Wireless "just" noticed these errors while "reviewing customer accounts," but given the number of complaints, and the fact that it's been going on for so long, including massive press coverage and an FCC investigation, you would think the company would have figured this out sooner.
Speaking of the FCC, it appears that it's not entirely satisfied with this customer refund, as the head of the FCC's enforcement bureau (or some PR staffer working there) amusingly quipped that the FCC was: "gratified to see the repayment, but for millions of Americans it's a day late and a $1.99 short."
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
Filed Under: data fees, fees, returns
Companies: fcc, verizon wireless
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
accident lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYT Article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/technology/04webphone.html?src=busln
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In an ideal world...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the cost of the refund...
*****texts cost $5 + network providers standard rate. You agree to subscribe to "why verizon is awesome" mailing list and agree to receive upto as many texts as we can spam you with until you feel like jumping off a bridge. Jumping off a bridge incurs a cancellation fee of $20.00. blowing your own head off with a shotgun incurs a fee of $30.00. blowing the head off of a verizon call centre monkey incurs a fee of $1.99
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the cost of the refund...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theft
The corporations want the same rights as a private citizen, right? so, if i stole 90 million i would never see the light of day again.
Those that are on automatic pay, Verizon illegally stole money from those peoples accounts. That is a felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: theft
What are you talking about! That would force corporations to start acting resposibly. It would force CEOs and board members to think of the consequences and not just the bottom line ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Real Disincentive for this type of activity.
Sprint was caught doing this type of activity too. We were not able to get a refund since you had to be a current Sprint customer. Based on the NYT article, it looks like the Verizon folks are getting a slightly better deal.
"Verizon said in its statement that the customers would receive credits from $2 to $6 on their October or November bills or, in the case of former customers, refund checks." (emphasis added)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Real Disincentive for this type of activity.
A fine of $90 million takes a chunk out of the $100 million they took in, but again, this is almost pure profit. Like most companies, this will be seen as a "cost of doing business" and they'll figure out a way to hook people into paying for more services. For example, part of settlement could be offering customers a $1.99 trial offer which auto-renews at a rate of $29.99 per month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AT&T does the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AT&T does the same thing
Friend of the family got into a huge tussle over these push-button charges with their carrier. Apparently a slightly more mature (ok, elderly) family member would often press the little web services button because it was near the answer-call button.
This kicked over a charge every single time. When asked at the store, the sales/repair crew had no way to disable or limit that key or remove the function. When wrestling with the billing department they just hit a stone wall of "our computers show he was accessing the data plan, nothing we can do"
iirc they eventually got fed up, paid up and broke contract to switch to prepaid phones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Example of super-rights from corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullshit they didn't know!
When I saw my bill I argued with managers as high up as I could get for over an hour and they all fed me the same bullshit that they can't do anything except turn it off for next month. To me that's clear proof they knew exactly what was going on and purposely kept it going.
And my real problem is that the $90 Million dollars misses the point completely! Like these 15 million consumers are really missing their $1.99 so much, its a real boost in this depression! I got scammed out of $20 from their bullshit really I could care less about them refunding me.
What I really care about is that if I have a problem and call and complain about it for over an hour that something actually happens before the FCC gets involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bullshit they didn't know!
Basically this becomes a scam. You should be able to get a refund when you find out in a reasonable period of time that the terms and conditions of use are reprehensible.
My biggest outrage over this is that if VERIZON has their name plastered all over the card, then it becomes their responsibility. But unfortunately we seem to live in a business environment were corporations feel they can mislead the public with impunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC should fine them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What garbage....why would ANYONE think this laughable penalty is a detterant for any fyuture stealing of the customers money like this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti consumer corporate america
Here in Australia it is against the Trade Practices Act to force someone to buy a service when they buy a product. It is called 3rd line forcing. As such, there is not a phone available that can ONLY be purchased through a carrier.
The original iPhone was only available on a plan from certain carriers. Apple claimed it was not 3rd line forcing when they allowed multiple carriers to sell the phone. However, when the iPhone was replaced with the 3G, it was magically available from the Apple stores without a contract.
A smart consumer here in Australia will go out and purchase a phone for $300 to $900 and then go out an purchase a plan to suit. This way the consumer can pick the phone to suit his needs and then pick a plan to suit his needs. Not like in the US where you need a massive plan to be able to purchase certain smart phones. The other advantage is that you get to use the manufacturer's software, rather than the carrier's software that never gets updated.
The other advantage of buying the phone and choosing your own plan is that you are not bound by 24 month contract periods. If a carrier here in Australia charge an erroneous 2 bucks and took a year to refund it, most of it's customers would have already moved on.
So the 3rd line forcing that is perpetrated by wireless carriers in the states is terrible for the consumer as it is too easy to get ripped off by the carrier. Consumers are locked into 24 month contracts with expensive ETFs and no other choices. I am surprised that the land of the free does not have adequate protection for it's consumers. It's almost like your government is run for the corporations, rather than for the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti consumer corporate america
I'd prefer to buy an unlocked phone (except my phone company won't support it if I do,) but most folks don't want to if it means that they have to spend a lot of money to buy the phone. You can find unlocked phones online, but it is often hard to get a US provider to give you the SIM to go into the phone and they will sometimes lock the phone to their service even if you bought it unlocked, unlike providers in just about any other country I've been to. Verizon does not use GSM, so they don't use SIMs either (they use memory cards similar to SIMs for some reason, but those do not work with GSM phones.)
It is really dumb...but with the crappy system we have here, it doesn't look like it will change any time soon since they have effectively lobbied congress to stay out of it (even though what they do is the very definition of anti-trust.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://mysterytricycle.com/5-songs-im-sorry-songs-fit-for-verizons-apology/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
co.plants no reponses.
sent certified letters no repondses
worst busines award
[ link to this | view in chronology ]