Home  ›  News  ›

Class Action Against Verizon Can Move Forward

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 9 replies

I don't see how this could work

VZWrube

Jan 28, 2008, 11:03 PM
Unless I'm missing something, customers sign a CONTRACT that states they will have service with the carrier for a set length of term (one or two years). It is spelled out in all of the literature that to break that contract would result in a termination fee of $175 unless the customer signed a contract after the prorated fees went into effect. In fact, even at the full $175, Verizon still has one of the cheaper ETFs in the industry. Sprint's ETF starts at $200.

In the end, the consumer made an agreement that was legally binding. If service was terminated, the customer is on the hook for the ETF. There are ways carriers will let customers out of ETFs, however is not the responsibility of the carrier to research every departing custome...
(continues)
...
Versed

Jan 28, 2008, 11:19 PM
VZWrube,
Depends on the situation, if I go, buy a new
Voyager, and 9 months later want to leave, I agree. But not the crap of extending contracts for little or no reason, changing minutes, swapping phones and stuff like that. Yeah, that has changed buy only recently.
...
cellphoneslinger

Jan 30, 2008, 10:17 AM
Yes you do have a point about extending contracts for changing min and swapping phones. But look at other industries for example auto and home loans. If you want a different intrest rate you refinance and resign a new contract. As to etfs has anybody heard of an early repayment penalty fee???
Read the fine print on the next loan you take out, if you pay it back early they get to charge you a fee because of lost revenue. And loans have been around alot longer than cell phones. But most of the people complaining about the etf dont read or dont care. Cell phones are convience items and people dont like being inconvienced, get over it. Sign the contract and pay the fee if you leave early. Call your loan company and see if they will waive ...
(continues)
...
cremz

Jan 30, 2008, 11:10 AM
umm majority of loans in the past 3 years had no pay off early fee. What you are thinking is when mortgage companies charged this fee. It really only applied to very low rate mortgages, specifically ARM's, and you pay it off before the intrest readjusts...

I do believe that Verizon will end up settling this or be found liable, but because they unnecessarily extended contracts everytime something changed in the account. Carriers will still be allowed to charge the ETF's and have contracts they just need to have a viable option for a no contract...(specifically expensive phone and deposit) and only extend contracts tied to equipment discounts.
...
cellphoneslinger

Jan 30, 2008, 12:15 PM
you are prob correct but i just took out a personal loan and they had to correct the paperwork to state that there was no early repayment penalty. My mortgage company stated upfront that there would be no early repayment penalty unless i refinanced withing the first year(i have a fixed rate by the way not an ARM). So you do have to check, but it was business as usuall just a few years ago. People got tired of it and the industry changed (im sure with added help). But it all comes back to reading what ur signing BEFORE you sign it and if you dont agree dont sign. Im sure etf's will dissapear but it will cost the rest of us in the long run. The most people who complain about them is the people who want a new phone and cant get one threate...
(continues)
...
anti787

Jan 30, 2008, 2:08 PM
but many contract are made by phone and with non recorded calls how can verizon or any othe carrier proof agreement is legal
...
VZWrube

Jan 30, 2008, 10:17 AM
The only time VZW required a contract extension was when the customer upgraded equipment at a subsidized price, or if the cust changed calling plans. The customer signed a contract stating they would be on the decided calling plan for a determinate length of time. If they wanted to change their calling plan, it was technically a breach of contract, therefore VZW (and every other carrier) required the customer to sign a new ONE year agreement. Most customers change their calling plan within the first year as they get to know their new service. Within the first year, there was no effect the the customer's contract end date (CED). I know Sprint (and possibly others) required customers to sign a new TWO year agreement if they changed their ...
(continues)
...
cremz

Jan 30, 2008, 11:11 AM
USCC, Alltel, and I believe ATT never extended the contracts for price plan changes or esn swaps. So they wont be part of this. I think (
and really hope) this lawsuit is more twards the unfairness and rediculousness of extended contracts for dumb things...
...
Q_Q_Q

Jan 30, 2008, 1:10 PM
actually AT&T did extend for plan changes, they even had extentions for TOS and cust activating their own equipment... so there are alot of things that would have extended contracts not just upgrades
...
cremz

Jan 30, 2008, 1:21 PM
att was the only one I wasn't sure of. But I believe (and hope) that this is what is motivating this lawsuit....

No if only Alltel gets sued for their commercials....
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.