said by ztmike :

I thought the ETF was standard? All cell companies have a ETF, whats this lawsuit about?

1 billion..that's a shit load of money..lol

said by newyorkslick :

I'm sorry, but if you sign a contract that requires you pay a fee if you terminate your contract before the agreed upon time, then you should abide by that contact.

said by newyorkslick :

I'm sorry, but if you sign a contract that requires you pay a fee if you terminate your contract before the agreed upon time, then you should abide by that contact. If not, pick another carrier.

Problem is, almost every carrier has the provision.
I hope things change.

said by newyorkslick :

I'm sorry, but if you sign a contract that requires you pay a fee if you terminate your contract before the agreed upon time, then you should abide by that contact. If not, pick another carrier.

Problem is, almost every carrier has the provision.
I hope things change.

said by JE :

I hope these people win because it would set an Industry standard, and maybe this will be the beginning of the end of ETF's for cellular providers, or @ least a set minimum of maybe $50.00 LOL

JE

In 2006, Verizon took steps to soften the blow of early termination fees by implementing a proration plan for ETFs. The plan takes money off the total fee for each month of your contract you serve, so you are not hit with a full fee for terminating late in your contract. Competitors T-Mobile USA Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and AT&T Mobility also announced similar proration schemes.

said by TKJunkMail :

The std practice has already changed with the ETFs reducing over the length of the contract,

said by pnh102 :

Since when has rationality ever factored into how lawyers do things?

said by BabyBear :

Or contracts written completely by one side with no input from the other.

said by JE :

I hope these people win because it would set an Industry standard, and maybe this will be the beginning of the end of ETF's for cellular providers, or @ least a set minimum of maybe $50.00 LOL

JE

said by Kramer :

These contracts serve one and only one purpose and that is to limit competition...
...Verizon does provide good service and does command good customer loyalty...
...As far as the lawsuit, Verizon should penny up and pay all these people it has ripped off in the past.

said by Julio :

even if the carrier is at fault for you wanting to cancel?

said by kfsutops :

The reality is that Verizon provides you with crappy service, dropped calls, non-responsive customer service and "you"
have to pay to get out of the contract.

said by reelbigfish :

How about the situation of me moving from one state to another.

...

They still made me pay the ETF despite horrible service as they had "service" in the area according to their map.

said by pnh102 :

Verizon, and just about every other cellular carrier, gives you a trial period where you can test drive the service. I know that not every cell phone company works well everywhere, but if you decide to try Verizon and find that their service sucks where you use the phone the most, and you don't cancel at the end of the trial window, who's fault is that?

said by pnh102 :

Verizon, and just about every other cellular carrier, gives you a trial period where you can test drive the service. I know that not every cell phone company works well everywhere, but if you decide to try Verizon and find that their service sucks where you use the phone the most, and you don't cancel at the end of the trial window, who's fault is that?

said by kfsutops :

What does a trial period have to do with anything? I get 30 days, then they get 2 years or I have to pay them extra.

said by pnh102 :

30 days should be plenty of time for someone to decide if the cell phone service they agreed to works. Heck, you could probably determine in a matter of hours if the service you chose works where you use the phone the most or not.

said by kfsutops :

So what you are really saying is that Verizon only have to live up to their end of the bargain for 30 days. While the consumer has to live up to their end for 2 years.

said by kfsutops :

But, there is a difference between a lawful contract and an unlawful contract. This is what this case will be about.

said by pnh102 :

Verizon, and just about every other cellular carrier, gives you a trial period where you can test drive the service.

said by elvey :

I trialed cingular/AT&T service and returned the phone and cancelled within a week.

said by kfsutops :

Let it go. He is astroturfing.

said by Julio :

even if the carrier is at fault for you wanting to cancel?

said by pnh102 :

If a carrier cancels you, then you are not legally entitled to pay the ETF.

said by Julio :

Plus, if they cancel where is my ETF money then?

said by pnh102 :

Did they agree to pay you one if they cancelled you? If so, you might have a case against them.

said by kingofdsl :

Woo hoo a whole $1.75 cent refund after lawyers fees.

said by pnh102 :

If you can afford paying $50 or so a month for cell phone service, then paying an ETF should be no big deal.

said by averagedude :

$175 in and of itself may not be a bad thing....
What happens when you have a family plan of 5 phones?
5 x $175 = $875 !!!!
Now that is a lot of money, at least it is to me.

said by averagedude :

My issue is with the cell phone companies re-setting the 2 year contract date so that it is a perpetual contract.

There should not be a contract when you paid full price for the phone or brought your own phone with you.

said by pnh102 :

That is a lot of money. Do you really believe that the $10 Verizon coupons you'd get as a result of this settlement will make up for $875? But again, just because people don't like a legally permissible fee doesn't mean they should be exempt from the fee if it comes time to pay it.

said by BabyBear :

Don't think any 'settlement' ever makes up for the 'loss'. A 'judgement' perhaps has more of a chance. Course any member not satisfied with the settlement is able to opt-out and seek relief on their own.

said by BabyBear :

t's the legality of the fee and its basis is what will be ruled on, assuming verizon doesn't just settle.

said by pnh102 :

True. But I don't think we will see anyone suing Verizon for $175. Like I said before, these class action lawsuits are nothing but enrichment for lawyers and scraps for the "victims."
Unless states or Congress make ETFs illegal, any ruling against Verizon that invalidates the ETF will almost certainly be overturned on appeal because the basis for the ruling will essentially be that the judge doesn't like ETFs. Of course, simply not liking a business practice is not grounds for overturning it.

“My decision is also motivated by my conclusion that as a matter of equity and fairness, millions of class members are entitled to adjudication of the central common questions of fact or law in this arbitration related to whether the $175 early termination fee imposed by respondents Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless … is based upon an unenforceable liquidated damage clause.”

said by Alakar :

It appears the suit is claiming that Verizon Wireless's basis for the ETF, as stated in the contract is not legal or valid.

said by pnh102 :

A class action lawsuit over $175?

Come on. If you can afford paying $50 or so a month for cell phone service, then paying an ETF should be no big deal.

I hope the members of this class enjoy their $10 Verizon coupons.

said by BF69 :

You sound like an individual who is not only bad with money since you don't mind pising it away, but also likes to bend over and take big corps schlongs up the chocolate starfish.

said by Kearnstd :

ETFs are criminal after the first contract.

said by Kearnstd :

but if you renew then why should you be subject to it again.

said by pnh102 :

A class action lawsuit over $175?

Come on. If you can afford paying $50 or so a month for cell phone service, then paying an ETF should be no big deal.

I hope the members of this class enjoy their $10 Verizon coupons.

said by elister :

Then get ready to pay full price for those phones. Horay! Victory for the consumer! Its either get a 2 year contract and a really cool kick ass cheap phone, or no contact and a really expensive kick ass phone!

I am willing to bet that most of the people involved in the lawsuit or pissed off that they have to pay a ETF are folks who never listen to the sales rep that not only tell them about the ETF, but circle it on the paper contract they signed (my t-mobile rep was a quick talker, but highlighted all the important bits on the contract).

Occasionally I'll get people who I signed people up on promo rates, 6 months later same person calls back bitching that the price jumped up.

"Sir, I was the one who signed you up, I told you it was a promo rate, I told you how much it would cost for 6 months and how much it would cost after 6 months", Me
"I swear you never disclosed that to me!!", Customer
"No I did, I actually lose sales because I disclose too much information about the service", Me
"Are you calling me a liar!!?", Customer
"No sir, look if you want to lower the bill, we can do that by removing some all of these premium movie channels, swap the DVR for a normal cable box, lower the speed of the internet down a notch and...", Me
"..I WANT THE PRICE I WAS QUOTED!! I DEMAND TO SPEAK WITH YOUR SUPERVISOR!!", Customer

Calls like that are FAR too common.

I don't get calls like that all the time, but occasionally I do (people who I signed up calling me back). Sure there are some stupid sales reps out there who never disclose important info, but a good deal of them really do. That is unless, the customer doesn't want to hear it and wants to wrap up the call cause they're ordering from their cell phone, work, school, etc. Business accounts are far worse because you can have 2 year contracts and in that time the company has fired/hired 2-3 people who handle those bills and obviously don't know anything about what the company signed up for.

Work in a call center for 2 years, you'll end up defending these companies more often than you think. Sometimes, the customer can be wrong.

said by Sammer :

The point of ETFs is to reduce churn. Two year contracts for cell phone service is excessive and anti-competitive. If we had a government that actually enforced things such as antitrust law such crap wouldn't exist.