Judge Guts FTC's $4 Billion Lawsuit Against DirecTV (latimes.com) 57
The FTC has "failed to convince a federal judge in San Francisco that DirecTV should pay nearly $4 billion in restitution to customers for allegedly misleading consumers about the costs of programming packages," reports the Los Angeles Times. From the report: The judge didn't eliminate all of the FTC's false-advertising claims but made clear that "the scope of the maximum potential recovery in this case has been substantially curtailed." "This case did not involve the type of strong proof the court would expect to see in a case seeking nearly $4 billion in restitution, based on a claim that all of DirecTV's 33 million customers between 2007 and 2015 were necessarily deceived," U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam said Thursday.
The ruling follows an August 2017 nonjury trial of the FTC suit, alleging that DirecTV failed to adequately disclose to consumers in 40,000 print, mail, online and TV advertisements that its lower introductory pricing lasted just one year but tied buyers to a two-year contract. The FTC also alleged the subscription television service failed to alert customers that its offer for 90 days of premium channels required them to cancel the subscription to avoid continuing monthly charges.
The ruling follows an August 2017 nonjury trial of the FTC suit, alleging that DirecTV failed to adequately disclose to consumers in 40,000 print, mail, online and TV advertisements that its lower introductory pricing lasted just one year but tied buyers to a two-year contract. The FTC also alleged the subscription television service failed to alert customers that its offer for 90 days of premium channels required them to cancel the subscription to avoid continuing monthly charges.
Re: (Score:2)
So was this judge a bought-off Trump appointee or a technologically clueless Obama appointee?
Re: (Score:2)
"Unchosen:" Don't knock what could be the world's greatest title for a spaghetti Western.
I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful (Score:5, Insightful)
The evidence should surely concern the amount per person so affected, not the absolute amount. To argue the evidence isn't worth $4 billion is stupid. Let's say there are 10 million subscribers affected by deceptive practices. The evidence would then only have to be worth $400, because that's the impact on an individual.
I have no problems with a cap, fines should be limited to ensuring crime doesn't pay (even one cent) plus a surcharge to reflect the cost of investigating and prosecuting crimes (thus bringing the total benefit to zero) plus a fixed penalty for the crime itself. It should not be otherwise constrained, and certainly not by political motives or a good old boys club.
Secondly, if a company needs to practice deliberate, wilful deceptive marketing, it should probably have its business license suspended. It obviously is in no shape to compete on merit.
Re: (Score:1)
I've got no problem with any size fine or any deterrent for the advertising tactics used, but its not like almost everyone doesn't know it. So the question in this case is what percentage of customer really didn't know, that is hard to determine. Claiming all customers were harmed is hard to defend.
I'm a conservative, and like most conservatives I support sensible rules and regulation. I believe less is better but here is a place where you should require explicit pricing statements that, where introductory
Re: I am not sure the U.S. system is helpful (Score:1)
Sounds like any ads I receive from any cable or internet company. The lure is in 72pt font. The limits are on the third page in 6pt font.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like any ads I receive from any cable or internet company. The lure is in 72pt font. The limits are on the third page in 6pt font.
Sadly this has been business practice for probably thousands of years, certainly well established in modern times and is precedent.
_I_ think it need to be criminally illegal.
At the very least, you should be able to drop the subscription at any time with no penalty if any terms, conditions, changeability are written in a small font, or are in a separate document.
And NO contract should EVER be enforceable if it contains "we reserve the right to change these terms...".
Re: (Score:2)
I talked to a sales rep with AT&T when FTTN came to my area. They said I couldn't even see the contract until the installer came on the install date. I'm sure that's probably a lie, and it also wouldn't have been the only lie (they claimed it was FTTH).
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like the infamous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract [wikipedia.org]
Stunningly troubling how our "legal system" still often upholds it.
Re: (Score:1)
Less regulation only works where there is not a monopoly, duopoly, or oligopoly and the business is of sufficiently small size that the people whom run them are personally accountable for the actions of the company.
Basically, only in the realm of small business and even there less regulation allows them to behave badly. But at when the business is small the bad behavior opens doors for competition or the community around the bad actor will put a stop to it by shunning the person in charge or not doing busin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a conservative, and like most conservatives I support sensible rules and regulation. I believe less is better but here is a place where you should require explicit pricing statements that, where introductory prices are advertised, they must clearly include the term and the subsequent service price.
They are including those details. In the fine print.
What this lawsuit really seeks is to determine just how many consumers are too stupid and ignorant to actually read their contract and understand their obligations. Since the concept of "fine print" is pretty much universally known and recognized by now (as is "introductory pricing", it's rather hard to claim you're a victim, and likely a rather easy defense for the perpetrators.
Yes, I hate fine print as well, but I hate mass stupidity and ignorance eve
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, I hate greed and apathy even more.
Telling people to "wise up" to being swindled out of their money is one thing, but to tell them to expect it as a standard matter of doing day-to-day business is another. This is bad behavior that is prevalent everywhere in US industry, not just one or two bad actors in a single industry. Telling people to "wise up" in this case is an endorsement of that bad behavior on the grounds of "
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, I hate greed and apathy even more.
Telling people to "wise up" to being swindled out of their money is one thing, but to tell them to expect it as a standard matter of doing day-to-day business is another. This is bad behavior that is prevalent everywhere in US industry, not just one or two bad actors in a single industry. Telling people to "wise up" in this case is an endorsement of that bad behavior on the grounds of "Doesn't happen to me, sucks to be you."
Yes, I hate unethical business practices as much as you do, but your own statement tends to confirm why everyone should wise up, because ethics in business sure as hell isn't going to change anytime soon.
Fine print does exist everywhere. Intelligent people understand this, and do not get swindled. Telling people to wise up and learn to read their contracts is nothing more than dictating common sense. If they refuse to listen, then Experience will be their teacher in life. Yes, it does "suck" to be untea
Re: (Score:2)
Were they? I've seen plenty of terms that say that you will pay the "current" price when the promotional pricing is up, but none that say what that price actually is.
Re: (Score:1)
In spite of how most people talk and write these days, none of this is absolute. It's shades of gray.
It's not just stupid / ignorant; many contracts are not understandable by top legal experts. At some point someone needs to establish the rules of the language used.
I agree in principal: I wish people would not agree to ANY contract that has fine print. The sad fact is that people do, and it sets a precedent that hypothetically some people understand and agree with the terms (even when they likely do not)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problems with a cap, fines should be limited to ensuring crime doesn't pay (even one cent) plus a surcharge to reflect the cost of investigating and prosecuting crimes (thus bringing the total benefit to zero) plus a fixed penalty for the crime itself. It should not be otherwise constrained, and certainly not by political motives or a good old boys club.
What the fuck does this even mean? To determine that crime doesn't pay, you have to figure out how much a company made from a deceptive or fraudul
Re: (Score:2)
Try this:
If I subscribe to DirectTV in March, with the 3 month premium channel deal, just one channel (Usually it's three), I would in a year pay 9 months' premium service that I may not have expected to. At $9 per month (that's conservative) that's $81. Then the contract changes into a full-price deal, and my costs go much higher, and they get my attention, so let's stop the analysis there.
$81 times only 22 million subscribers (a third figured it out, sure). $1,782,000,000. Times 8.
OK, let's settle on jus
Re: (Score:2)
Our Federal government lacks the nerve and drive to actually punish a transgressor like this. If DirectTV is truly guilty of misleading subscribers for so long, a $4 Billion fine would only give back about $120 per subscriber, or a little more than a years' thievery, each. Real punishment would have to include intrusive regulation, such as disclosure in larger type, maybe a fee calendar, hey, be creative.
The best solution is to simply fine them enough per user to make the practice unprofitable, and then some. It has to cost as much on average to get busted for these schemes that if they get busted as much as average, they will lose money. It's not really necessary to craft a bunch of new regulations; the fact is that they committed fraud, and they should be punished for fraud. It's cheapest to simply fine them, rather than dicking around with repayment plans. One and done, and move on to the next offender.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, so you got saddled with having to prosecute this case against your friends over at DirectTV who just happen to be campaign contributors of the boss . How do you make it look to the dumb-ass public like you're doing your job, but not cause any undue financial burden on the (cough-cough) accused? I've got an idea; take all the competent lawyers off the case, have them take a bunch of evidence and documents with them, then assign some rooki
I have a $45 package. (Score:1)
Tax Scam (Score:2)
For many years, they also would tax your total, then apply your various credits (free box, etc), but not reduce the tax. It skimmed millions per month from subscribers. I considered filing a class-action-lawsuit, but noticed the arbitration clause would prevent it.
I did notice after complaining about it on a customer service call one it actually stopped a few months later, probably coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
every company practices deceptive advertising because Americans want to be fooled into believing they are getting a good deal.
And the FTC allows made up "fees" to not be considered part of the price. It should be considered lying, not just deceptive advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
What is your cell phone bill? Advertised cost versus actual costs after all the taxes and fees. My point is that every company practices deceptive advertising because Americans want to be fooled into believing they are getting a good deal
My cell phone bill is $80 which is exactly what T-Mobile advertised it to be. The fine print said all taxes and fees are included, and they are. It all depends on the company.
They're all the same - PREDATORS (Score:1)
ATT, Comcast, DirectTV, You-Name-It --- they all put out false and misleading advertising in order to hook you into a contract.
FINE THEM.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't read the fine print. I shouldn't have to. The bottom line price should be in the LARGE PRINT. It's the only thing that matters.
You don't read fine print and feel you shouldn't have to?
Good luck with that ignorant attitude in life. I can assure you that a mere cable provider won't be the only thing that fucks you over.
No, there shouldn't be any fine print at all! Why does any info need to be hidden from customers? The law should prevent any fine print. All informations should be presented in a similar manner in the first place. If customers don't want to read all of them, then the fault is on them, no question asked. Because companies create this kind of fine print, they can point their fingers on customers. I still don't see why there should be any fine print at all. Why?
Defending Mass Ignorance. (Score:2)
Yes, we all hate fine print, but we pretty much all know that fine print exists in every contract. No matter what stupid argument you want to make about font size being used, it is still on the consumer to fully understand any contract. That logic is universal.
One thing is for certain. If PT Barnum were alive today, he would have been the richest man on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what stupid argument you want to make about font size being used, it is still on the consumer to fully understand any contract. That logic is universal.
That, sir, is a load of crap [cornell.edu]. If a contract is designed to be misleading, then offering it is itself an illegal act. Not just the part where you take advantage of them (which is a separate illegal act) but the actual offering of the misleading contract.
One thing is for certain. If PT Barnum were alive today, he would have been the richest man on the planet.
Only if he greased the right palms, which is how those who are permitted to defraud the public are chosen.
Re: (Score:2)
PT Barnum was plenty rich in his lifetime.
But more importantly, we moved away from the "fully understand the contract" being a legitimate point of view. Heck, most contracts (including between companies which have legal departments) include instructions for what happens when a judge rules that some part of the contract wasn't acceptable. Most importantly, its unreasonable to expect "use Netflix/an ISP/cable/App Store" to require a law degree and several hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the RIAA (Score:2)
Since the RIAA can claim the number of **potential** dowlnoads by torrent users to determine damages for music downloads, the calculation used by the FTC seems to be a far BETTER for determining damages.
What's the problem judge or do you not know what your fellow judges accept.