Telephone

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Total Wireless’ Too-Good-to-Be-True Offer

It sounded like such a great deal from Total Wireless: $25 a month for cell service on four lines, taxes and fees included, and four free 5G phones.

Here’s their commercial:

Apparently, that is not the real offer. The free phones part of the offer is for more expensive plans and not the $25 a month plan. Who could tell that? And, it is not in the unreadable fine print either.

But the National Advertising Division (NAD) of Better Business Bureau Programs figured it out and ruled against Total Wireless.

NAD determined that the phrase, “and to top it all off, we’ll give you up to four free 5G phones,” implies the last part of a single offer. NAD determined that the commercial conveys the unsupported message that Total Wireless customers can get both four lines of wireless service for $25 per month and get four free 5G phones regardless of the plan they select, and recommended Total Wireless modify its advertising to avoid conveying such a message.

Total Wireless is part of Tracfone, owned by Verizon. The company said it disagreed with NAD’s decision, but would abide by it in the future.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Verizon’s Trade In “Any Phone” Offer for a Free iPhone 16 Pro Questioned

Regular reader and commenter Joel V. recently caught a bit of nasty fine print by Verizon Wireless in a new TV commercial.


Most viewers would understand the ad to say that if you trade in any cellphone in any condition, Verizon will give you a free iPhone 16 Pro. It would be reasonable to assume that you have to buy a plan from the company because they are simply not just handing out free phones without any catches.

*MOUSE PRINT:

What our consumer caught was this tiny disclosure that was on the screen for about one-and-half seconds:

Verizon "any phone" fine print

Rather than the trade-in offer being good on “any” phone as the commercial explicitly states, it is only valid on these three brands: Apple, Google, and Samsung. What about people who own a phone from Motorola, LG, ZTE, OnePlus, or another brand? They’re out of luck apparently.

Additional terms of this offer are not orally stated in the commercial. But like a similar offer we dissected last December (see prior story), Verizon buries the full details in a three-second on-screen disclosure in tiny print toward the end of the commercial. Those terms include the requirement to purchase the iPhone 16 Pro for $999.99 (either pay upfront or be charged equal monthly payments) and get 1/36th of the purchase price back in a billing credit rebate each month for three years. You also have to sign up for Verizon’s most expensive plan, Unlimited Ultimate, for about $100 a month.

We asked the company why it advertised this trade-in offer as applying to “any” phone when in fact it only applies to three specific brands, why it doesn’t orally disclose other important requirements, and whether they are going to change the commercial. The company did not respond to multiple inquiries.

Consumer World has asked the National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs to take on this case because of the deceptive nature of the commercial.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Can You Really Make Remote Satellite Calls on AT&T?

Last week was a bad week for AT&T. They had a massive data breach that affected all their ~110-million customers, exposing calling and texting records. (Here’s an FAQ about the incident.) Also last week, some of their advertising came under scrutiny by the Better Business Bureau.

The BBB case was about a commercial that began airing in April that shows Ben Stiller on the top of a mountain where his golf ball landed. He is shown making an urgent satellite call on his regular AT&T phone to a golf pro for advice.

T-Mobile filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division (NAD) complaining that the service shown in the advertisement does not actually exist now and the commercial misleads people into believing that they can make calls even in really remote places.

*MOUSE PRINT:

This is the unreadable, faint, ambiguous, half-second disclosure that AT&T made in the commercial at the 47-second mark:

Evolving technology

NAD examined the facts of the case and decided that one message conveyed by the commercial was that this satellite service was currently available to AT&T customers when in fact it is a planned service for the future.

What was missing, NAD says, was a clear and conspicuous disclosure saying that the service was not currently available. And if AT&T didn’t want to do that, they should discontinue that claim, the BBB ruled.

Well, old Ma Bell didn’t agree, and it is appealing the decision to the National Advertising Review Board.

What do you think watching that commercial? Does it give the impression that this satellite service is available now?