Submitted 3 months ago by downpunxx@fedia.io to technology@lemmy.world
Class action filed over price hikes on plans with Un-contract price guarantee.
CenturyLink is doing this to their customers too – Their contract says “If we raise the price, you can cancel the service with no penalties”
Bitch, doesn’t that fucking negate the WHOLE purpose of a price guarantee?
It negates the point of a contract. What kind of contract even has a term of length without a set price?
The kind designed to get people to sign up. They can worry about making more money off them later by deciding not to honor it.
Eh not really. It’s just a way to exit a contract.
The point of the price guarantee was to get customers to sign up at a profitable rate. Once they stopped becoming profitable they’re fine with you no longer being a customer, they’ll just feel in new ones with introductory pricing or other standard sales pitches.
Price guarantee. However, if we do raise our price…
The ending to that sentence is always moot. You guarantee it. End of. If you don’t follow through on that guarantee, you are a liar.
…if we do raise our price, you can cancel the service with no penalties.
Mfer, you are gonna be the one paying penalties, see your ass in court.
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.
Oh nice, maybe I will get a check for less than the cost to mail it in 5 years.
once we get enough of them, maybe we could afford to have a meal at McDonalds
Maybe a large fries ,and we could all have one… or even two fries each!
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)
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.
Don’t give them any ideas.
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).
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.
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.
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.
False advertising has nothing to do with breach of contract. Completely separate sections of law.
Nothing offered in perpetuity will stand up in court. You can argue about reasonable terms, but it can never be forever.
Marketing gets you into the contract. The contract holds the actual terms that both (or all) parties are bound to.
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.
psyc@lemmy.world 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
AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 3 months ago
A fine PLUS honoring the agreement is a minimum start
Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
This person gets it.
kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 3 months ago
the fine should be paid in voting shares so the more they do this shit the more the govt actually has power to stop them