Internet

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Verizon to Refund $100-Mil for Hidden Fees

Verizon Wireless has tentatively settled a class action lawsuit that alleged the company advertised a price for cell plans but then jacked-up consumers’ bills with hidden administrative charges.

*MOUSE PRINT:

The complaint specifically alleges:

The Administrative Charge is not disclosed to customers either before or when they agree to purchase wireless service from Verizon, and in fact the Administrative Charge is never adequately or honestly disclosed to customers.

The current amount of the Administrative Charge is $3.30 per line per month—a more than 8X increase from the original amount of the Charge [40 cents].

The first time Verizon customers can possibly learn about the existence of the Administrative Charge, or the amount of the Charge, is on the customer bills… [but] Verizon’s paper bills fail to mention the Administrative Charge at all, stating instead that a customer should “[c]heck your online bill for all surcharges, taxes and gov fees.”

[F]or years, Verizon explicitly and falsely stated on its monthly bills that the Administrative-Charge is a surcharge imposed on subscribers to “cover the costs that are billed to us by federal, state or local governments.”

For its part, Verizon has denied the claims, but says it has changed the way it describes those fees.

Verizon customers who purchased postpaid cell or data plans from the company between January 1, 2016 and November 8, 2023 are eligible to share in the $100-million proposed settlement. The maximum payment is $100, but that could be reduced based on how many consumers file claims and for how long they were a customer.

Claims must be filed by April 15, 2024 at the settlement website. Most customers were just notified via postcard of their eligibility to file a claim and were given a notice ID and confirmation code to enter on the website. If you did not receive that, here is the official claim form.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Kohl’s Sued for Exaggerated Savings Claims

Kohl's bargainRecently, a Wisconsin consumer sued Kohl’s for deceptive pricing practices alleging that the retailer inflated it’s regular and original prices on price tags and in advertising to make the savings they promised seem greater than they really were. The complaint also alleges that in many cases the goods rarely or ever sold for the so-called “regular” or “original” prices.

The consumer’s lawyer tracked Kohl’s prices for a 15-month time period, and found over 9,000 products on its website were on sale more than half the time. And…

*MOUSE PRINT:

… some products were perpetually on sale for as many as 90 days out of every 90-day window. In short, the data shows that Kohl’s turns the concept of a “sale” on its head: for the vast majority of products, the so-called “sale” price is the regular and normal price, while the higher advertised “Regular” or “Original” comparison price is the temporary and unusual exception.

MrConsumer says so what else is new? Twenty years ago, he tracked the prices of 20 items at Kohl’s for 103 consecutive days, and found that 55-percent of items rarely if ever sold for the so-called regular or original price. And one-out-of-four items was always on sale and never sold at full price, not even for one day.

Years later, we exposed the ambiguous definitions of regular or original prices used by Kohl’s back in 2006 and spotlighted a similar lawsuit to the current one against the company in 2013.

Nonetheless, we as consumers, should all continue to be outraged that companies use deceptive practices like this year after year, and no one has gotten them to conform to the law.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Can You Really Trade In Any iPhone, and Get an iPhone 15 Pro, iPad, & Apple Watch Free?

Anyone with a television has no doubt seen Verizon Wireless’ latest commercial for their big holiday giveaway:



Wow — what a great promotion. Simply trade in an iPhone in any condition, and get an iPhone 15 Pro, an iPad, and an Apple Watch SE … “All on us.” To me, that means for free.

If you could read the fine print, which you can’t because it is only on the screen for about eight seconds and is virtually illegible, you would think you were reading the details of a completely different offer. It is summarized below.

*MOUSE PRINT:

This is what the offer actually requires:

1. Trade in an iPhone.

2. Sign up for the “Unlimited Ultimate” cell plan – their most expensive plan – on a new line of service.

3. Buy the iPhone 15 Pro now for $999.99.

4. Buy the iPad now for $459.99.

5. Buy a plan for the iPad (price not stated).

6. Buy the Apple Watch now for $459.99.

7. Buy a plan for the Apple Watch (price not stated).

8. Over the next three years, get a rebate for those purchases credited to your bill at the rate of 1/36th of the purchase price per month.

Does that sound anything like the way the announcer described the offer?

Consumers should be able to watch a commercial and completely understand the offer that is being made. The details spoken in the ad should match the details in the fine print. I would even advocate that each mode (visually and orally) should independently fully present an accurate representation of the offer being made.

We asked Verizon why they didn’t orally disclose the true requirements of the offer, nor make the onscreen version large enough to read easily and on the screen longer. The company did not reply by publication time.

From watching and listening to this advertisement alone, would you have understood what requirements had to be met in order to participate in the giveaway?