AT&T Users Whose 'Unlimited Data' Was Throttled Get $60 Million In Refunds (arstechnica.com) 44
After dragging out the case for five years, AT&T has finally agreed to pay $60 million back to customers for throttling mobile data plans advertised as "unlimited." Ars Technica reports: The FTC, which sued AT&T in 2014, announced the settlement today. The deal ends a long saga in which AT&T unsuccessfully tried to cripple the FTC's regulatory authority over telecoms. A court loss last year basically forced AT&T to settle the case. "AT&T promised unlimited data -- without qualification -- and failed to deliver on that promise," FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith said in the announcement. "While it seems obvious, it bears repeating that Internet providers must tell people about any restrictions on the speed or amount of data promised."
Under the settlement, AT&T did not admit or deny any of the allegations made by the FTC. AT&T's current and former customers who were affected by the throttling won't have to do anything to get their refunds, according to the FTC. The commission said: "The $60 million paid by AT&T as part of the settlement will be deposited into a fund that the company will use to provide partial refunds to both current and former customers who had originally signed up for unlimited plans prior to 2011 but were throttled by AT&T. Affected consumers will not be required to submit a claim for the refunds. Current AT&T customers will automatically receive a credit to their bills while former customers will receive checks for the refund amount they are owed." "AT&T must pay the $60 million within seven days after the settlement is approved by the US District Court for the Northern District of California," adds Ars. "AT&T would have to identify each eligible consumer within 30 days and give bill credits and refund checks to existing and former customers within 90 days. If there is any leftover money, it must be paid to the FTC, which would try to provide further relief to customers."
Under the settlement, AT&T did not admit or deny any of the allegations made by the FTC. AT&T's current and former customers who were affected by the throttling won't have to do anything to get their refunds, according to the FTC. The commission said: "The $60 million paid by AT&T as part of the settlement will be deposited into a fund that the company will use to provide partial refunds to both current and former customers who had originally signed up for unlimited plans prior to 2011 but were throttled by AT&T. Affected consumers will not be required to submit a claim for the refunds. Current AT&T customers will automatically receive a credit to their bills while former customers will receive checks for the refund amount they are owed." "AT&T must pay the $60 million within seven days after the settlement is approved by the US District Court for the Northern District of California," adds Ars. "AT&T would have to identify each eligible consumer within 30 days and give bill credits and refund checks to existing and former customers within 90 days. If there is any leftover money, it must be paid to the FTC, which would try to provide further relief to customers."
Re: NEWS THAT MATTERS: Epstein's News Burial (Score:2)
And what about Trump's involvement?
Re: (Score:1)
I just want my unlimited data (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you give it back to me?
No?
Then can you jail the execs who took it from me?
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I want it all back, along with my youthful innocence
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming that AT&T's net profit is $1Billion and my net income is $100000 (I have no idea if either is true)...
Dear local DA,
I'd like to commit massive fraud and just have to pay $0.06, with no jail time, and no other penalties (including not having a felony on my record). I mean, AT&T can do it, so I can too, right?
Thanks ever so much,
sconeu
Re: (Score:2)
Dammit. Math error. I'd still have to pay $6000, not $0.06. Still not bad for a clearing a felony and no record.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, being cleared of a massive fraud (Madoff style) for 6% of your gross annual income and no criminal record is not only "not bad", it's a gift.
On the reasonable side though, how much did this scheme got them? Did they "steal" money from people? I understand that they made false representation, but what's your prejudice? Lower res YouPorn / YouTube? Pictures loading slower on FB / Twitter / Snapchat?
Usually, the justice system considers the harm caused to give a sentence accordingly. In that case, it soun
Re: (Score:2)
It transferred millions of dollars from the pockets of consumers, to the pockets of the business, via deception.
Those are the damages.
If I steal $100 from you, I don’t need to prove that you were going to use it to feed the poor for you to be disadvantaged.
And in a population of millions, I’m willing to bet at least some of them were using the data to do something besides watch porn. Maybe not many of them, but surely some.
Re: (Score:1)
But if you go into your local Walgreen’s and steal a pack of tic-tacs, you will be charged under criminal law, and you may lose your freedom for some period of time.
Such is the intent of the American Legal System.
Criminal Law for thee, Civil Law for me.
Then again, the US economy would collapse overnight were fraud ever eradicated. I believe that people would be shocked if they ever know just how endemic things like false advertising were to keeping the system afloat.
Don't hold your breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean you don't even have to read the source article for your answer. Read the damn text in this post.
Re: (Score:1)
I read the text and I still bet this is what eventually happens.
Wow I get a whole 25 cents back! (Score:5, Insightful)
After lawyers fees, court fees, finders fees, admin fees, and stupid settlement amounts, I get 25 cents back. Why not make it lawyer's get a flat fee, and the customer gets $10,000 each so that it hurts AT&T so they NEVER do something like it again!
Re: Wow I get a whole 25 cents back! (Score:2)
Because it was a show trial. Everyone knows the iron boot of DUH LAW only stomps commoners - never megacorps, never their Owners.
Re: (Score:1)
Translation (Score:2)
The attorneys will get a nice payday ( as always ) and everyone else will get a $10 coupon towards the purchase of their next phone . . . . . :|
In other news, $60M is a laughable fine for a company who makes ~$3B a WEEK in revenue.
To put that in perspective, it's akin to you or I receiving a $28 fine while making $80k / year.
( If you would laugh at such lunacy, you should. Because you know AT&T is. )
Re: (Score:1)
In related news ... (Score:3)
Refunds only before 2011? (Score:2)
Most the companies today have "unlimited plans" that aren't unlimited. Why only before 2011? Is that when AT&T changed the legal definition of unlimited?
--
Life is a paradise of endless possibilities! - Mehmet Murat ildan
Re: (Score:1)
Most the companies today have "unlimited plans" that aren't unlimited. Why only before 2011? Is that when AT&T changed the legal definition of unlimited?
-- Life is a paradise of endless possibilities! - Mehmet Murat ildan
Because there is no such thing as Unlimited. You can take your max download speed and with a calculator, se exactly what the maximum amount of data is you can DL a month. That definitely isn't unlimited.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is no such thing as Unlimited. You can take your max download speed and with a calculator, se exactly what the maximum amount of data is you can DL a month. That definitely isn't unlimited.
Don't be intentionally dense. The bandwidth listed is taken as an obvious and well explained limit.
You know damn well "unlimited" refers to no additional limits that are not specified up front.
There is a huge difference between:
A) a 5 mbit/second connection, and
B) a 5 mbit/second connection you can only use 2 mbit/second of which cuts off after transferring 300 MB total where you are charged $0.25 per kb afterwards up to $10k and then we change the max bandwidth advertised to 128kb/second.
Not only is there
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is no such thing as Unlimited. You can take your max download speed and with a calculator, se exactly what the maximum amount of data is you can DL a month. That definitely isn't unlimited.
Don't be intentionally dense. The bandwidth listed is taken as an obvious and well explained limit. You know damn well "unlimited" refers to no additional limits that are not specified up front.
Doesn't matter what I "damn well know", angry entity.
If everyone damn well knows that the damn well known limist that are damn well specified damn well up front.
Then this lawsuit damn well wouldn't have happened.
What you call intentionally dense on my part is what I asked the sales person when they were selling me. I got the answers. But a lot of people just heard unlimited and thought........ UNLIMITED!!!
Cheer up, angry entity.
Re: (Score:1)
I see what you’re saying but I’m not sure this is a reasonable interpretation of the term.
An unlimited speed limit on a road would not allow you to travel at the speed of light. It merely imposes no limits on top of what is theoretically possible given you specific circumstances.
Any ‘unlimited’ thing is bound by some physical or space/time law, so you are essentially arguing for the depreciation of the word altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you’re saying but I’m not sure this is a reasonable interpretation of the term.
An unlimited speed limit on a road would not allow you to travel at the speed of light. It merely imposes no limits on top of what is theoretically possible given you specific circumstances.
Any ‘unlimited’ thing is bound by some physical or space/time law, so you are essentially arguing for the depreciation of the word altogether.
It is unfortunate, but words are being redefined every day. "Unlimited", "Incel", "basic", "literally".
Unlimited means no limit. Now it means nothing actually
Incel means involuntary celibate. Now it means you disagree with something a woman says
Basic means simply. Now it means conformist or even skirting on racist. It seems to be trending toward just meaning someone you don't like because they are kinda nasty. I've heard people calling a woman a basic bitch, and the only thing you can get out of it i
Re: (Score:2)
"Because there is no such thing as Unlimited. You can take your max download speed and with a calculator, se exactly what the maximum amount of data is you can DL a month. That definitely isn't unlimited."
Shhhhh! This will be the greatest lawsuit since the one against the movie studio who produced The Neverending Story for false advertising!
Seriously though, "Unlimited" is generally accepted as being able to watch movies, and do other normal net activities without the middle man dialing down
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhhh! This will be the greatest lawsuit since the one against the movie studio who produced The Neverending Story for false advertising!
I think you just won the internet for the month. Well played sir!
I want them to admit fault (Score:3)
I'm tired of these settlements and verdicts where, 5 years afterward, the company pays a fine and doesn't admit anything. It is blatently obvious to anyone on the planet that these companies violated their "unlimited" promises time and time again. It did not need to take 5 years for a lack-of-admission-of-guilt result. How many other companies have done this during that time, or continue to do so? Instead of all that, just fire the guy who said "throttle the unlimited plan" within 1 year of the case starting, and lets move on. Heck, I bet most of the people getting a refund would trade it for a billiboard over the interstate with his/her picture saying "I'm the a$$ hole who throttled your internet, don't ever hire me."
Re: I want them to admit fault (Score:2)
DUH LAW is crooked from top to bottom.
Why don't our public persecutors force these companies to "plead guilty" like they do everyone else? If coerced false confession is good enough for us commoners, it ought to be good enough for the Owners too.
Re: (Score:1)
Now you are beginning to see the beauty of criminal vs. civil law. No one pleads anything in civil law. Corporations almost always answer to civil law.
If you get caught boosting a $1 item from your local Megamart, guess which law you’ll answer to?
Only one of those threatens your freedom.
$60 mil. (Score:2)
So that works out to about...
50 cents apiece?
Enjoy your $5 gift certificate (Score:3)
Not nearly enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This fine is only 0.035% of that
Re: (Score:1)
Great, now about that mandatory data plan... (Score:2)
So if.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, they don’t work out for people and they aren’t supposed to. The entire premise behind class actions is to deter bad corporate behavior, NOT provide fair and equitable compensation to all customers. The US legal system would never allow that.
Soon, they won’t allow class actions either. Forced-arbitration has come to the corporate rescue.
Sometimes, the threat of class actions are the only reason you aren’t ripped off entirely. With the loss of those, it will really be ‘bu