'Unlimited' Data Plans With Very Obvious Limits Are Only Getting More Confusing

from the this-is-not-the-future-I-was-promised dept

Back in 2007, Verizon was forced to strike an agreement with the New York State Attorney General for marketing data plans as "unlimited" when the plans had very clear limits. Twelve years later and it's not clear the industry has learned much of anything.

After their efforts to strictly monetize usage didn't go well with consumers, wireless carriers around 2012 or so returned to offering unlimited data plans. But much like the unlimited data plans of old, these plans have all manner of bizarre restrictions. Verizon, for example, bans users from even watching videos in HD unless they sign up for more expensive plans. Carriers also throttle usage after you reach a certain amount of data for the remainder of your billing cycle. There are also limitations on how frequently you can use your phone as a tethered modem or hotspot.

AT&T's latest updates to its "unlimited" wireless data plans are no exception, and require an industry-lingo decoder ring and a few hours of fine print reading to actually understand. Here, for example, is how CNET framed the changes:

"Those looking for a mobile hotspot will need to jump to AT&T's Unlimted Extra Plan, which runs $40 per line, per month for a family of four. This plan adds 15GB of mobile hotspot per line and you won't have your data slowed until you've already used 50GB in a month and are in "congested" areas like a stadium (the Starter plan will slow down data if you're in a congested area and have passed 22GB).

There is no HD streaming on the Extra plan or Watch TV. While the Extra plan is $5 cheaper per line than Verizon's recently updated Play More and Do More unlimited plans, AT&T still does not offer the ability to choose individual plans for each line. Instead, if you want mobile hotspot for one line all of your lines will need to have the Unlimited Extra plan. Verizon's Play More plan also includes Apple Music and HD streaming.

The idea that a busy family looks at these caveats and actually has any real understanding of what they're buying is fairly hard to believe.

Granted wireless carriers implement this level of annoying complexity intentionally; they want to confuse users so they'll sign up for costlier plans they might not need in a bid to avoid the annoyances that have been intentionally created (upselling). Such annoyingly confusing caveats also make direct comparisons between wireless carrier pricing all but impossible. And, as usual, it makes it all but impossible to know what you'll actually pay for service until you get your bill, letting companies falsely advertise a lower rate.

And it's a problem that's going to get worse in light of the telecom sector's successful bid to have the FCC effectively self immolate at industry's behest. Killing net neutrality rules didn't just kill net neutrality rules. It weakened the FCC's authority over telecom entirely, and obliterated transparency requirements mandating that ISPs be very clear about what kind of connection you're buying. Anybody who thinks telecom's response won't be even more elaborate and bizarre nickel-and-diming restrictions hasn't been paying attention.

Filed Under: customer confusion, fcc, ftc, limits, truth in advertising, unlimited
Companies: at&t, verizon

Vegan Food Manufacturers Sue State Over Unconstitutional Law Banning Them From Using Meat Words

from the First-Amendment-right-to-tell-customers-what-they're-buying dept

The state of Mississippi is being sued for enacting an unconstitutional law -- one that prevents certain food companies from labeling their products in a way that limits customer confusion. The Institute for Justice -- representing Upton's Naturals Co. and the Plant Based Foods Association -- is seeking an injunction blocking the law from taking effect and taking away a bit of the First Amendment with it. (via Reason)

The law that took effect July 1 supposedly was crafted to eliminate customer confusion. It prevents sellers of plant-based foods from using meat-related terms on their packaging. Here it is in all its all-caps glory:

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 75-35-15, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT A FOOD PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS CULTURED ANIMAL TISSUE PRODUCED FROM ANIMAL CELL CULTURES OUTSIDE OF THE ORGANISM FROM WHICH IT IS DERIVED SHALL NOT BE LABELED AS MEAT OR A MEAT FOOD PRODUCT; TO PROVIDE THAT A PLANT-BASED OR INSECT-BASED FOOD PRODUCT SHALL NOT BE LABELED AS A MEAT OR MEAT FOOD PRODUCT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

It's only the rarest and most-inattentive of customers that accidentally purchases vegan burgers instead of the real thing. No shoppers in Mississippi were clamoring for protection from Big Vegetable's marketing tactics. Instead, this was a gift to the local meat industry, propelled by corporate interests all the way to the governor's desk.

The lawsuit [PDF] points out lobbying efforts began prior to the 2019 legislative session, with representatives from the meat industry openly stating they wanted to "protect" cattle farmers "from having to compete" with non-animal products. They pointed to the reduced dairy revenue caused by the introduction of soy and almond milk into the marketplace as an example of the damage they wanted to avoid.

None of these are good reasons for new laws, especially ones that prevent competitors from labeling their products in a way that makes them understandable and palatable to consumers. The ban extends to almost all commonly-used meat terms, blocking plant-based food creators from using terms like "meatless meatballs" or "vegan bacon." The end result will be more customer confusion, not less, as those seeking vegan products will have very little information to work with when trying to replace meat products in their diets.

As the lawsuit notes, the ban is both content- and speaker-based, giving it two Constitutional strikes right off the bat. In addition, it "creates confusion and misleading speech where none previously existed." It carves a hole in the First Amendment on behalf of a favored industry, which is certainly not a "compelling government interest." It replaces zero harm with actual harm, which is something legislators should never strive to do.

By banning honest, accurate, and non-misleading descriptions of Plaintiffs' products, the Ban has abridged Plaintiffs' freedom of speech and the freedom of speech of anyone else who would otherwise used the Banned terms in a similar and non-misleading way.

The Ban irreparably harms Plaintiffs by preventing Plaintiffs from engaging in non-misleading speech about lawful goods the Plaintiffs want to sell.

The Ban also irreparably harms consumers by denying them access to useful information about lawful goods in the marketplace.

The Ban keeps consumers under-informed and confused about what is actually being offered by the seller.

The law likely won't stay alive for long. It's not Constitutional in its current form and it would take a lot of alteration to change it into something that doesn't violate rights. But the longer it stays alive, the more of a burden it is for plant-based food sellers in the state. The meat lobby has turned taxpayer dollars against taxpayers by getting this law enacted, ensuring they'll be paying for the state's defense of its shitty law, as well as any future work the legislature needs to do to bring itself back in compliance with the Constitution.

Filed Under: customer confusion, fake meat, food labeling, free speech, mississippi, plant-based meat, vegan meat