Verizon Fined For Pretending That Limited Service Was Unlimited

from the watch-out-comcast... dept

Back in 2005, we noted that Verizon Wireless was following the tactics of others in advertising "unlimited" wireless broadband services, while the truth was they were quite limited. As people later worked out, despite the claim of "unlimited," VZW was cutting off anyone who used more than 5 gigs of data per month. That's pretty limited, actually. When confronted about this, the company tried to argue that by "unlimited" it really meant "It's unlimited amounts of data for certain types of data." And they followed it up with this gem: "It's very clear in all the legal materials we put out." Right, see, that's the legal materials -- the stuff you know no one reads. Yet in the marketing materials it's quite clear that you're claiming "unlimited" and that has a pretty clear meaning. After many such complaints, Verizon Wireless finally started to back down from the false claim of "unlimited" earlier this year. Turns out that it wasn't because of any realization that lying to your customers is a bad idea, but because NY State was investigating the practice. NY has now fined Verizon Wirelss $1 million to be given out to customers who had their service unfairly terminated for actually believing that "unlimited" meant "unlimited." Of course, Comcast might want to start paying attention right about now. While lawyers everywhere are rushing to file lawsuits over its decision to jam broadband user accounts, before that happened Comcast was famous for many, many years for being one of the biggest ISPs to lie about offering unlimited service. It's a story that comes up in the press every year or so, and every year Comcast gives its own doublespeak about how it only cuts off the worst "abusers." However, it's still false advertising to claim unlimited service when that's not what you supply -- and it's hardly "abuse" if people are merely doing what you told them they could do.

Filed Under: fines, limited, unlimited
Companies: comcast, verizon

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Steve R. (profile), 24 Oct 2007 @ 6:58am

    Where is the call for Corporate Ethics???????

    What I find amusing about this current outbreak of corporate malfeasance is the absence posts demanding that corporations correct their abusive behavior by those who oppose regulation. By their silence, the obvious conclusion is that those who oppose regulation must secretly believe that it is OK for corporations to steal from your customers. If caught, you issue a meaningless apology and go onto the next scam.

    I would think that those who oppose regulation would actively call for corporations to improve their ethics to avoid the imposition of onerous regulation. This obvious solution seems to beyond their mental grasp.

    All I hear by the anti-regulatory crowd is that regulation "hurts" business. Ok if regulation "hurts" business and we live in a free market system where we are responsible for our actions; the obvious solution is act ethically. If corporations act ethically, there would be virtually no need for onerous regulation that would "hurt" business.
    Thanks Max, I have been wondering what the scam was behind Blue Hippo. The Blue Hippo ads were laughable. "We will give you a break and not check your credit". Of course they don't mention that you have to pay upfront.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.