[Newsbot]

Title: Florida woman shocked by $201,000 cellphone bill
Category: Tech
Posted By: Strutz
Date: 2011-10-18 22:18:25

[martin14]

very nice for the company to be reasonable here... 90% discount.

some people just can't be helped.

[Tricks]

So she gets a break because she's stupid.

Cool.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Ya know, I'm a firm believer in the whole "buyer beware" deal but $200,000 for two weeks? Fuck right off!
Even $2,000 seems a little excessive for 2 weeks of texting and videos.
However, the cell company was smart in reducing the bill to something a lot more reasonable than 200K.
The last time a cell phone company got dragged into a Florida court for an outrageous phone bill (that wasn't anywhere close to 200K), it cost them millions. The family was suing for $5 million. The jury awarded them substantially more than that.

[redhatmamma]

Agree about buyer beware, and who nowadays does not know about roaming charges. People who are heavily into cell phones as they are should've known about it, but good for the company for reducing it.

[peck420]

I wonder what other types of contracts can be welched on with the stupidity excuse?

A contract is a contract in legal eyes is it not?

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The last time a cell phone company got dragged into a Florida court for an outrageous phone bill (that wasn't anywhere close to 200K), it cost them millions. The family was suing for $5 million. The jury awarded them substantially more than that.

Exactly. I remember a case around 2000 where Pacific Bell got sued for $3 million and the judge raised the award to the plaintiff to $12 million. Phone companies can be more than a bit arbitrary in their actions sometimes.

In their defense, I will say that 99.9% of the time almost every phone company does a yeoman's job and we all take them for granted.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The last time a cell phone company got dragged into a Florida court for an outrageous phone bill (that wasn't anywhere close to 200K), it cost them millions. The family was suing for $5 million. The jury awarded them substantially more than that.

Exactly. I remember a case around 2000 where Pacific Bell got sued for $3 million and the judge raised the award to the plaintiff to $12 million. Phone companies can be more than a bit arbitrary in their actions sometimes.

In their defense, I will say that 99.9% of the time almost every phone company does a yeoman's job and we all take them for granted.

You've never been introduced to Bell Canada have you?

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

I wonder what other types of contracts can be welched on with the stupidity excuse?

A contract is a contract in legal eyes is it not?

Yes, and no. A contract to do something illegal is not a contract. A contract to give up your rights is not a contract.

Is a contract with a clause

$1:

". . . and any terms we decide to add at a later date without letting you know first."

legal? It is if you have really good lawyers. If you just click <accept> on many software contracts or website 'terms of use', you already agreed to terms that may change as they see fit.

[DanSC]

Maybe a sensible regulation would be for a phone company representative to call the customer once their monthly bill passes $100,000? I don't think that would be an undue burden on businesses.

[Brenda]

DanSC DanSC:

Maybe a sensible regulation would be for a phone company representative to call the customer once their monthly bill passes $100,000? I don't think that would be an undue burden on businesses.

When you make a "weird transaction" on your credit card, they block it, without warning.
Why can't they give you warning when you make a "weird transaction" with your phone? Roaming is not cheap, and when they see that happen, they should warn you. If your normal bill is $175 monthly, has been forever, and all of a sudden you have charges added, shouldn't that ring a bell?

[Lemmy]

That's a hell of a good idea. I wonder if any companies will try that, or do the COUNT on ripping people off with hidden fees.

[peck420]

Dr.C,

Just shows the importance of actually reading the contracts.

I could count the number of people (on one hand I might add) that actually read the contract when we sign a customer.

Granted, I know that our contracts are fully legal, but people rally need to read these things.

[Lemmy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

If you just click <accept> on many software contracts or website 'terms of use', you already agreed to terms that may change as they see fit.

In Harris vs. Blockbuster Inc., the US Supreme Court ruled clauses that allow one party to change the contract's terms without notification void the entire contract.

[DrCaleb]

Lemmy Lemmy:

That's a hell of a good idea. I wonder if any companies will try that, or do the COUNT on ripping people off with hidden fees.

I think the FCC recently said companies will start to notify of 'surprise bills' beforehand voluntarally - or it will be mandated. They chose voluntary.

peck420 peck420:

Dr.C,

Just shows the importance of actually reading the contracts.

I could count the number of people (on one hand I might add) that actually read the contract when we sign a customer.

Granted, I know that our contracts are fully legal, but people rally need to read these things.

Quite so, but companies take advantage of the fact people can't be bothered most times. And ones that fight back don't have any Lawyer-Fu.