NY Wrests $1 Million From Verizon Wireless

netbuzz writes "Unlimited really means unlimited, even in advertising. So says the New York State Attorney General's Office in squeezing a $1 million settlement out of Verizon Wireless for disconnecting 13,000 of its customers who had the temerity to believe that the unlimited service they were promised came with unlimited service. Verizon's statement explaining the settlement is a gem, too."

Assumed Guilt

[eldavojohn]

When you try to sign up there is a huge scrollable box beneath your order. In the mess of those terms and conditions is now:

DATA PLANS AND FEATURES
Data Plans and Features (such as NationalAccess, BroadbandAccess, GlobalAccess, and certain VZEmail services that do not include a specific monthly MB allowance or are not billed on a pay-as-you-go basis) may ONLY be used with wireless devices for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). These Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading, or streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing; or (iii) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file-sharing services and/or redirecting television programming content for viewing on laptops is prohibited. A person engaged in prohibited uses continuously for one hour could typically use 100 to 200 MB, or, if engaged in prohibited uses for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GB in a month.

For individual use only and not for resale. We reserve the right to protect our network from harm, which may impact legitimate data flows. We reserve the right to limit throughput speeds or amount of data transferred, and to deny or terminate service, without notice, to anyone we believe is using one of these Data Plans or Features in any manner prohibited above or whose usage adversely impacts our network or service levels. Anyone using more than 5 GB per line in a given month is presumed to be using the service in a manner prohibited above, and we reserve the right to limit throughput speed or immediately terminate the service of any such person without notice. We also reserve the right to terminate service upon expiration of Customer Agreement term.

Verizon Wireless Plans, Rate and Coverage Areas, rates, agreement provisions, business practices, procedures and policies are subject to change as specified in the Customer Agreement.

Emphasis mine.

They now have a site [verizonwireless.com] defining acceptable use.

So they really haven't learned their lesson. I personally think that CmdrTaco should sign up and start hosting Slashdot through it. Either that or point the loyal readers to a page he's hosting through it.

I would recommend prospective customers of Verizon to think twice and assess if they want to sign contracts with a company so inclined to assume a user of the service is guilty of copyright violations just because of the amount of data they are transferring. Couldn't someone watching YouTube all day or streaming video from another TV network site rack up this sort of data transferring?

Re:Oh, wow

[Algorithmnast]

The verizon TOS is why I use Sprint. I can't get DSL, cable or even FIOS - I'm one of 2 homes on a street, and the companies don't want to lay half a mile of cable (from either direction) to get to us. My 60kB cellmodem is better than dialup.

When Sprint says "unlimited data" on my cellmodem plan, they actually mean it.

My net research revealed too many people who'd been bit by Verizon's bad habits. Glad to see the courts have spanked them.

Re:Oh, wow

[debrain]

I figure class actions have three predominant purposes.

First, judicial efficiency: encourage binding settlement of disputes between large numbers of people (having lawyers profit from such settlements encourages lawyers to do this; it's capitalism);

Second, access to justice: provide remedy to those who would have no access to justice (even if that remedy is itself quite small);

Three, feedback: modify corporate behaviour.

While $80.00 per person appears minor, one would hope that a multi-million dollar settlement is relevant to modifying corporate behaviour (which is often dependent on the tax implications to the company of such a settlement). So while the individual remedy is meager, there is other value provided: resolving a large number of outstanding disputes (which would be prohibitively expensive to remedy individually, for the company or for those individuals), and it establishes boundaries for corporate behaviour.

So while the lawyers do profit, it is my belief that profit is both incidental and necessary to the predominant purpose of effective class action regimes. Mind you, profiteering (night champerty) is poor form, and while the lawyers ought to be entitled to a respectable profit for their efforts (as in all capitalistic efforts), the fees taken ought to be scrutinized based on the work done (difficulty, expertise, time, etc.) and the actual value provided to the class. While I've presented value in class actions above, you've highlighted one of the cornerstones of principle conflict in the regime: the conflict of interest between class members and their legal representation when it comes time to pay the lawyers. I believe the courts ought to approve the fees after the settlement, with the input of an appointed amicus curae who would represent the interests of the class as against their own lawyers.

Re:Oh, wow

[stoolpigeon]

I have difficulty with perceiving $1 million as significant to Verizon. Smack seems a bit strong. This to me looks more like a payoff to make the problem go away.

Re:Petty cash

[arivanov]

You iknow, I'm a geezer; I don't remember businesses being run by thieves and sociopaths when I was young.

Really? United Fruit anyone? ITT? Want a few others?

Maybe my memory is bad, or I was naive.

Both I guess

Or maybe we're heading for another world wide depression like tha 1930s? Yes by the look of it

Google "Verizon Unlimited"

[Celarnor]

This would probably be a public relations nightmare if people cared more. Googling the term "Verizon Unlimited", the first page doesn't even contain Verizon's website itself, except in the sponsored links. What it does contain are things such as:

"Verizon Limits Its "Unlimited" Wireless Broadband Service"
"Who's a Bandwidth Bandit? - The Checkout"
"Verizons Unlimited Data Plan Not So Unlimited"
"Verizon: "Unlimited bandwidth means 5GBs or less or we cancel your service"

Re:Assumed Guilt

[Dunbal]

Yes, a business has a right to at least attempt to make a profit. They shouldn't be required to sell money-losing products.

      Which part of FALSE ADVERTISING don't you understand?

      No one is trying to deny them a profit. Create a "restricted" package, advertise it as such, and sell it at the current price. But for people who want/need a faster connection, charge them more. However what they are currently doing is FRAUD. They are telling customers that they have "UNLIMITED" access when clearly there are very concrete, defined limits both in the TOS and in practice. So instead of either 1) admitting that they are lying in their commercials or 2) investing in more infrastructure to improve congestion on the network, they decide to use "traffic shaping", packet sabotage (if Comcast can do it I'm sure Verizon can), download limits etc WITHOUT informing the customer. That's not right.

      This "settlement" is not right either. It's a tap (not even a slap) on the wrist.

Re:Oh, wow

[conlaw]

"Serving notice" against a company of any size that is legally doing business in your state should not be a problem in this day and age. Check with the Corporations Department or Division in your state: it's usually part of the Secretary of State's office and the few that are not online yet will list a number that you can call. Then just ask, "Who is the registered agent for XYZ Corporation in this state?" Because that's public information, they'll give you the name and address of the registered agent and you can serve your notice on him/her/it.

IAAL but I try to be a person also.