ATT redefines what 1 minute is

[mzkhadir]

The Consumerist

 

[spidey07]

Fault of the consumer to not read the Terms and Conditions. From the article it is CLEARLY defined.

 

[natto fire]

LOL.
Calling cards.

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Fault of the consumer to not read the Terms and Conditions. From the article it is CLEARLY defined.

The question is at which point should the company be responsible for putting this important information elsewhere besides in small print in the legal babble that is the T&C.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: spidey07
Fault of the consumer to not read the Terms and Conditions. From the article it is CLEARLY defined.

The question is at which point should the company be responsible for putting this important information elsewhere besides in small print in the legal babble that is the T&C.

The company is responsible for offering a service. The consumer is responsible if they are willing to accept the terms. Nothing more and nothing less.

Always read the Ts and Cs. But in no way is a company responsible for stupidity.

 

[Parasitic]

How much does it cost now with calling cards?
Might be cheaper to go prepaid cellular.

 

[Slew Foot]

On an unrelated note ATT stock is up nicely this year, and they raised their dividend as well.

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: spidey07
Fault of the consumer to not read the Terms and Conditions. From the article it is CLEARLY defined.

The question is at which point should the company be responsible for putting this important information elsewhere besides in small print in the legal babble that is the T&C.

The company is responsible for offering a service. The consumer is responsible if they are willing to accept the terms. Nothing more and nothing less.

Always read the Ts and Cs. But in no way is a company responsible for stupidity.

That argument doesn't always hold up in court, actually many companies are losing thoes battles because the terms and conditions they set are ridiculous compared to the services they claim to be offering.

The primary argument is that their advertisements, promotions and information readily provided to the typical consumer is misleading.

If you went in to purchase a product for $20/month that was very strongly advertised, but the terms and conditions said that the customer will be charged $50/day for "additional charges", their marriage will ne nullified and their first born will be sold for organs on the black market, at what point is the company not misleading the consumer?

I'm all for "personal responsibility", but there comes a point where the general consumer is being screwed and should not need a lawyer in order to purchase the most basic of items.

 

[Raduque]

Not so much that the consumer is being screwed, it's that they outright refuse to read the contracts. I've handled several calls on issues where I'd tell the customer it's in their contract, and they'd say something like "I refuse to read that, I don't have the time!" Well, if you're not going to read the contract, how are you going to know everything? You (in the metaphoric sense) damn sure aren't going to stand around while a store/phone rep reads everything to you.