SmartPhones Data Plan Mandate Class Action Lawsuit? (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint)

[jseah]

Many cell providers offer plans to deaf customers that do not require voice plans.

Sent from my DROID3 using HowardForums

But the point is not all of them do. And there is no law that compels them to do so, and there is nothing that the court can do to mandate them to do so. If a provider requires a deaf customer to have a voice plan in order to have a phone to use text or data, that is not a violation of the disabilities act.

[jseah]

Fair enough and I agree with your view. It is not illegal and neither was the banks actions. As many have pointed out every customers does have a choice. Unfortunately the choices are limited and until there is customer backlash it will likely stay as is. Still doesn't make it right or OK in my opinion. This is what I thought the topic of this thread was about.

And that is the main point that I have been trying to get across. There are a lot of things that companies (or even people) do that may not be right, or OK, but that doesn't make their actions illegal. A good example is Apple (and this would apply to a number of different companies as well) and their policy of setting a minimum price for which their products can sell for. Any violation by a retailer to sell the product for less can be met with their losing access to the product totally. While this is very consumer unfriendly, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Or the seeming ability for gas prices at the pump to rise within hours or days of an increase in prices of crude oil, while it takes weeks for gas prices to go down when the price of crude oil goes down.

[every1nosme]

But the point is not all of them do. And there is no law that compels them to do so, and there is nothing that the court can do to mandate them to do so. If a provider requires a deaf customer to have a voice plan in order to have a phone to use text or data, that is not a violation of the disabilities act.

Correct, and I'm not suggesting there should be just like I'm not suggesting there should be one to mandate no required data plans. The question that was being debated is whether or not it is the right thing for them to do, not whether or not its legal.

Sent from my DROID3 using HowardForums

[efparri]

"Legal" came up a lot of times in the last few messages. You are late to the dance.

[GSMinCT]

Correct, and I'm not suggesting there should be just like I'm not suggesting there should be one to mandate no required data plans. The question that was being debated is whether or not it is the right thing for them to do, not whether or not its legal.

Sent from my DROID3 using HowardForums

They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders of Verizon Communications and Vodafone to make as much money as possible.

[Doolie]

And that is the main point that I have been trying to get across. There are a lot of things that companies (or even people) do that may not be right, or OK, but that doesn't make their actions illegal. A good example is Apple (and this would apply to a number of different companies as well) and their policy of setting a minimum price for which their products can sell for. Any violation by a retailer to sell the product for less can be met with their losing access to the product totally. While this is very consumer unfriendly, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Or the seeming ability for gas prices at the pump to rise within hours or days of an increase in prices of crude oil, while it takes weeks for gas prices to go down when the price of crude oil goes down.

It can also be seen as consumer friendly, as the consumer knows what price the product will be sold for and what the consumer will be getting as far as features. Take for example that some printer or computer manufacturers who make special models of printers or computers specifically for one retailer. The price is maybe less, though the model lakes features from the almost identical looking model at other retailers.

[jseah]

It can also be seen as consumer friendly, as the consumer knows what price the product will be sold for and what the consumer will be getting as far as features. Take for example that some printer or computer manufacturers who make special models of printers or computers specifically for one retailer. The price is maybe less, though the model lakes features from the almost identical looking model at other retailers.

That's a very common practice with the larger retailers. They will have the company provide them with an "exclusive" model. The product will be exactly the same EXCEPT the model number will be slightly different. This way you cannot do price matching since it isn't the "same model".

[GSMinCT]

That's a very common practice with the larger retailers. They will have the company provide them with an "exclusive" model. The product will be exactly the same EXCEPT the model number will be slightly different. This way you cannot do price matching since it isn't the "same model".

BJs and Costco are famous for that. It actually worked out well for us, as the BJs model of a TV had a differently color bezel that looked a lot nicer than the normal one.

[efparri]

A circuit court judge in California reversed the small claims court verdict won against American Honda Motor Company.
http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,3088344.story
There is only one appeal step in small claims court cases in California. Only the losing defendant can appeal the verdict. The decision is now final.

[veriztd]

A circuit court judge in California reversed the small claims court verdict won against American Honda Motor Company................The decision is now final.

Glad to hear that the circuit judge had more common sense than the idiot small claims court judge who made the first award to the plaintiff.

[TC_Mits]

My guess is: more dollars than sense.

Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

[AnnesLimo]

I am at a loss to understand how the case against Honda relates to carriers mandating a data plan? The thread is not discussing sueing anyone for lack of promised or misrepresented use?

The question still comes back to the requirement to pay for a premium service specificly at a price level related to the type of device?

[efparri]

Earlier in this thread the Honda case was used as an illustration of how the little guy can win against large corporations. It is you who are trying to limit the thread to one issue. If a tactic works for one area of disagreement with a corporation, it can be adapted for other issues, mutatis mutandis.

If you want to get technical, the title of this thread is "SmartPhones Data Plan Mandate Class Action Lawsuit? (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint)." Anything related to similar litigation is germane. You came in after 299 messages and are trying to redirect the focus from that topic. Users are not restricted to discussing only what you think is important.

Sent from my GtabComb using HowardForums

[TC_Mits]

A Big Yellow Taxi...

The cases don't relate, but I think efparri has a valid point that the Honda outcome is relevant.

The little guy has always had a rough time of it when seeking justice from those who enjoy wealth, influence, and power. It will become increasingly so as the multinational conglomerate oligarchy consolidates its control of the world's governments.

Whether America will continue as a champion of liberty and equal justice for all seems highly, even wholly, doubtful to me. If one looks at popular attitudes here in the light of history, few peoples have ever appeared more ripe for an opportunistic takeover by forces of repression.

A class action suit against a major corporation would, in that climate and as efparri's example suggests, face an uphill battle.


Perspective instantiates reality.
[From DX by HoFo app.]

[GSMinCT]

There are a lot of anti-consumer injustices out there. Requiring the correct data plan on a smartphone is not one of them.