Class action filed over price hikes on plans with Un-contract price guarantee.

  • psyc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    236
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Unless the amount they have to pay exceeds what it was going to cost them to honor those lifetime agreements this is just the cost of doing business not a penalty

  • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Who would have thought that another merger would not lead to lower prices for the consumer? Break all these companies until there’s like 10.

    • 108@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      once we get enough of them, maybe we could afford to have a meal at McDonalds

    • masterofn001@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      On a related tangent:

      I overpaid one of my credit cards by one cent.

      My balance showed -$0.01

      I left it that way for maybe a couple months.

      They sent me a cheque for a penny and insisted I cash it immediately.

      (If we want to destroy the banks, just leave a negative balance on your credit - they’ll bankrupt themselves in printing and mailing costs… Muwahaha)

  • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    With the way I expect to see inflation continue along its current path, I half expect them to argue that their prices are still the same as in year 2XXX prices, adjusted for inflation.

    • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You mean the current inflation driven by corporate profiteering?

      So now when I grocery shop, I have to wait a week until the overpriced items I’d like are 2 for 1 (back to the original price).

  • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    3 months ago

    I would be surprised if this goes anywhere meaningful. Those were marketing promises, not contract terms. I noticed the promotion ended just over 2 years before the price hike, indicating that everyone had completed their contract. Once the contract is over, either side can walk away, or renegotiate terms.

    • Glowstick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago
      1. Marketing promises ARE a contract. Companies aren’t allowed to advertise a thing and then not do that thing. That’s false advertising and fraud. Companies aren’t allowed to say they offer a product or service for price X and then actually charge price Y. This is well established law.

      2. You either didn’t read or didn’t understand the article. Multiple times in multiple ways the company said it’s offering a lifetime price, which is different than a price offered only for a limited term. They very explicitly said “T-Mobile will never change the price you pay” and “T-Mobile One customers keep their price until THEY decide to change it. T-Mobile will never change the price you pay” etc. etc.

      • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        3 months ago
        1. False advertising has nothing to do with breach of contract. Completely separate sections of law.

        2. Nothing offered in perpetuity will stand up in court. You can argue about reasonable terms, but it can never be forever.

        3. Marketing gets you into the contract. The contract holds the actual terms that both (or all) parties are bound to.

        • KaRunChiy@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          Perpetuity and lifetime are different time frames.

          One lasts forever, one lasts until you die. There is a difference

        • Glowstick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 months ago
          1. Pedantic. You’re arguing that false advertising isn’t illegal. But it is.

          2. As the other poster said, perpetuity isn’t what was advertised, lifetime is what was advertised. Lifetime is a common term used in legal claims. It can refer to lifetime of the person, or lifetime of the device a service is used on, or other things, but it is a specific and enforceable term.

          3. See number 1.

          • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            3 months ago

            I said nothing of the sort, and have no idea where you got that idea. All I said was that marketing claims are separate from the contract.

            However, this thread is clearly not interested in any actual exchange of ideas or information, so I will no longer be taking part. Go ahead and downvote.

    • MondayToFriday@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Marketing promises effectively constitute a binding unilateral offer, for the purposes of contract law. When a customer signs up, you also have acceptance, consideration, and intention, thus forming a valid contract. Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company is the classic case in English contract law; the principles are basically the same in the US.