IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremiumReviews:
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney
Maybe if they bill the ETF, you could use breach of contract when defending a debt collection suit when they try to collect the ETF.
Also, most states have laws against unfair and deceptive acts.
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.
I have not and will not cut the cord.
#1 if it goes into debt collection, your FICO score is hosed. Not a good idea
#2 they have binding arbitration clauses, so suing them is not easy you will likely need to use THEIR arbitrator, and you know how that goes....
#3 The AG in my state (NY) deals w/ such things, but T is so big, that is not going to happen anytime soon. I used to live in MA, and they are not much better.
If you are really keen on ditching AT&T postpaid there is a Straight Talk ETF hole that you can port to them and not get an ETF. Read up on that
nice post, elefante... err att
in regards to binding arbitration, you can successfully sue (my friend works at small claims and she says at least 30 cases a week against att has poppped up since the huge number of people have won reclaiming their etf back from att)
if att won't let you off, just threaten with small claims. 9 times out of ten (as my friend says) att won't show up for $325 etf.. but if they do, you usually win. (apparently, even the judges feel screwed by ATT)
|reply to elefante72 |
Section 1.3 of their LegalTerms gives you perfectly good reason and legal justification to terminate service.
As it is in all caps in the link karl provides:
IF WE INCREASE THE PRICE OF ANY OF THE SERVICES TO WHICH YOU SUBSCRIBE, BEYOND THE LIMITS SET FORTH IN YOUR CUSTOMER SERVICE SUMMARY, OR IF WE MATERIALLY DECREASE THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IN WHICH YOUR AIRTIME RATE APPLIES (OTHER THAN A TEMPORARY DECREASE FOR REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE), WELL DISCLOSE THE CHANGE AT LEAST ONE BILLING CYCLE IN ADVANCE (EITHER THROUGH A NOTICE WITH YOUR BILL, A TEXT MESSAGE TO YOUR DEVICE, OR OTHERWISE), AND YOU MAY TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT PAYING AN EARLY TERMINATION FEE OR RETURNING OR PAYING FOR ANY PROMOTIONAL ITEMS, PROVIDED YOUR NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS DELIVERED TO US WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE FIRST BILL REFLECTING THE CHANGE.
|reply to elefante72 |
So it you have left AT&T and this is the reason for the eft are you still a customer? If you are not a customer, you are not bound by the contract which specifies arbitration, correct?
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
Well if one breaches a contract it only could mean that the contract is null and void thus the terms mean nothing.
|reply to Skippy25 |
But have they actually increased the price of a service specifically?
An administration fee tacked on to the bill as a separate line item is a separate charge from my point of view, so the charge for the service itself hasn't actually increased, just the overall cost all things considered.
And no, I have nothing to do with AT&T, I live in Europe.
if that fee is charged and they don't provide some service for it, they cannot charge it. Even if it is something as simple as collating data, that is still providing a service. It's stupid, the customer does not need to pay this fee as they are only doing business with AT&T to get cellular service. Since it comes out of nowhere, the customer should not pay it.
|reply to TomS_ |
Yes, if I use to pay $1 for service and now I have to play $1.61 for that same service they have raised the price of the service.
The shady way they did it is not relevant.
The amount you pay has changed, no doubt about that.
But the point I am making is that if the price of the service itself stays at $1, and they tack on some $0.61 fee as a separate line item, but leave the service price at $1, the service price hasn't changed.
If the contract says if they raise the price of the service, and they dont change the price of the service, then you cant exactly break the contract on that ground.
I know that might sound pro-AT&T, but Im just interpreting the words of the contract. Could be any carrier for all I care.
Government taxes and fees that they do not control can be raised and lower on a whim and this is perfectly acceptable (you know what I mean) by the general purchasing audience.
However, suddenly adding cost of business that were already factored into a price point "below the line" in an effort to raise revenue is not at all acceptable by the general purchasing audience.
Therefore, voluntarily adding a fee to cause the consumer to pay more for the service on the bottom line is raising the cost of the service no matter how you slice it, spin it, beat it or rub it down.
I get that.
Its just that by the definition of the contract, a service is an individual "thing" that they are selling you, not the sum of all fees. The final cost of the bill is not necessarily reflective of the cost of all of your individual services added up, as in this case there are extra fees that are added on. So while the amount you have to pay has increased, the services themselves havent.
Its all legal speak. "Sorry sir/ma'am, but your mobile plan is still $x per month. This fee is in addition to, but not part of the mobile plan, so we havent increased the price of the plan."
I totally agree that any costs associated with offering a service should be factored in to the cost of the service below the line. It is not the consumers business to know what the individual costs of providing a service are, we just want a bill for $x.
I know it doesn't matter which way anyone tries to spin this, its still effectively an increase in the cost of any and all services you are purchasing. But it hasn't affected the actual service prices themselves, only the total at the bottom of the bill.
This is probably what they are trying to achieve, because otherwise people can use this clause to say "you increased my service cost, I want out." Without actually increasing the service cost, this clause cannot be used.
The only other comparison I can think of is the low cost airlines. They advertise a fare at $x, and then add on all these other charges as you progress through the booking for "handling fees" and "blah surcharge." While at the end of the booking the total price has gone up, the fare price hasn't changed, its just the total amount you have to pay that has changed. You can complain that the total price of the booking isn't reflective of the fare, but at the same time, they never said "you'll end up paying $z by the end of it," they only said "the fare is $x."
Just my take on it.
2 things with your comparable.
1.) Before you make the purchase you know the exact price with ALL fees included.
2.) That is a one off purchase and not a contracted monthly price.
Lastly, your spin is silly so please stop trying to be difficult just to be difficult. In the end, if this went to a trail the average person would see that they raised the price of service voluntarily for no reason other than to raise the price.
Fair point about contracted vs one off payments.
Im not being silly, or trying to be difficult, Im discussing a valid point and trying to reach a conclusion, which seems impossible given your stance on the subject.
My interpretation of the contracts wording is just as valid as yours, just that they happen to differ. The words say "if we increase the cost of a service." It doesnt say "and/or if we introduce new fees." There is no spin to it.
But clearly you have no intention to try and see this a different way, so Im not going to make any progress, therefore Im not posting anything else on this topic.