 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | What Grounds? So why exactly did the judge in this case rule that Sprint's ETFs were illegal?
Were they not clearly spelled out in their contracts in the same way Verizon and AT&T spell out such fees?
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
 vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | A California judge late Monday ruled (.pdf) that the fees, which range as high as $200 a line, were an unlawful penalty under California law and were "implemented primarily as a means to discourage customers from leaving" their contracts.
»blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/0···red.html |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | I am not following. I am pretty sure CA does not have a law that states that ETFs cannot be less than whatever Sprint was charging.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | said by pnh102:I am not following. I am pretty sure CA does not have a law that states that ETFs cannot be less than whatever Sprint was charging. I wouldn't be so sure that California doesn't have laws dealing with ETF-like fees - charges imposed by a business against a customer who breaches a contract. I haven't read the opinion so I'm not sure what it's based on, but in general CA leans heavier towards interjecting public policy into contract law that some other places - for better or worse. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by vpoko:I haven't read the opinion so I'm not sure what it's based on, but in general CA leans heavier towards interjecting public policy into contract law that some other places - for better or worse. Perhaps... this just seems to me like a decision based on the judge simply not liking the idea of ETFs.
The only way I could see an ETF being ruled illegal is if the terms of the ETF are not spelled out clearly in the contract, or if Sprint violated those terms.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! |
|
|
|
| California is hard-nosed when it comes to marketing practices - which is essentially what the carriers are hanging onto.
First, they lure you in with marketing pitches about free phones and cheap plans, then footnote it all with "*with two year agreement" in small print. Sure, customers should read, but such conditions really should be prominent, in California's eyes.
Then, once you're in the contract, you get 30 days to try it and cancel if something's not to your liking or you just are unable to pay it. That's all fine and good...but to my knowledge California had to fight to get that 14 day trial extended to 30 days.
After which, you're charged $200 for canceling a month before the end of your service - resulting in profit for the carriers. In fact, unless you're on the absolute cheapest plan, the carrier is making a profit after only a few months, and they're using it almost as a strongarm to get you to stay, artificially ramping true retention figures.
That's the problem. Had the ETF been prorated properly like any other, we wouldn't be having this discussion now. It just didn't make sense for the figure to stay the same regardless of length. It's no different than rental places who, if you break the lease, can charge you for the full price of the monthly rent for as long as the apartment stays empty and they must diligently put someone in there. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to pnh102
fine print in public facing business should be illegal. put it out there in normal font size that it is a 2yr contract with a 175 dollar termination fee.
TOS stuff can still be fine print but the finanacial side should be in normal print and in plain english and no lawyerese.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
