Users Say T-Mobile Must Pay For Killing 'Lifetime' Price Lock (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0175309133
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/24/10/23/1312230/users-say-t-mobile-must-pay-for-killing-lifetime-price-lock
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/t-mobile-att-oppose-unlocking-rule-claim-locked-phones-are-good-for-users/
> T-Mobile promised users who bought certain mobile plans that it would never raise their prices for as long as they lived -- but then raised their prices this year. So it's no surprise that 2,000 T-Mobile customers [1]complained to the government about a price hike on plans that were advertised as having a lifetime price lock. "I am still alive and T-Mobile is increasing the price for service by $5 per line. How is this a lifetime price lock?" one customer in Connecticut asked the Federal Communications Commission in a complaint that we obtained through a public records request.
>
> "I am not dead yet," a customer in New York wrote bluntly, saying they had bought a plan with a "guarantee for life." Both of those customers said they purchased T-Mobile's senior plan marketed to people aged 55 and up. While the price hikes apply to customers on various plans regardless of their age, many of the complaints to the FCC came from people in the 55+ age group. Some pointed out that if T-Mobile simply waits long enough, the carrier won't have to serve 55-and-up customers forever.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/t-mobile-att-oppose-unlocking-rule-claim-locked-phones-are-good-for-users/
Easy choice. (Score:5, Funny)
Pay a one-time penalty for reneging an agreement that would have lasted years? I'm sure T-Mobile has no problem with that.
Re: (Score:2)
If the one time penalty is 50 years worth of service fees per customer that might care.
Re: (Score:1)
My guess is there is something in the terms and conditions that limited their exposure. False advertising? Yeah probably. But they may have had a time limit on it, or some trigger that allowed them to increase pricing. No way I would allow myself to promise that under ALL circumstances. A 10yo could get a phone (maybe 18 without parental consent) and that person lives another 70 years. Imagine having a product from 70 years ago, at a price from 70 years ago. Inflation alone would kill it.
Maybe the servic
Re:Easy choice. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think I read in a previous article that the small print was they could give you 60 days notice and not penalize you for leaving. Which is sort of empty when there was no contract anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure.. but it's also not just possible but Likely that T-Mobile thought they could shaft this small group of customers and get away with it.
Re:Easy choice. (Score:4, Informative)
> I am not trying to argue T-Mobile's side, but clearly there were circumstances not disclosed in the summary.
They were basically claiming that it is unthinkable for them to raise their prices because they've added a 2 month grace period if you decide to jump ship. When I filed an FCC complaint about it that's essentially what their reply was. I showed the FCC a quote on their website that says in unmistakable language that customers would never have to pay more. The FCC understood and requested clarification from T-Mobile on how a grace period addresses that. T-Mobile's response was to ghost us.
Re: Easy choice. (Score:5, Funny)
LOL. Perhaps you are not familiar with class action lawsuits in the U.S.
The victims will be getting $5 credits on their T-Mobile bills at best.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if I don't see a penny, if T-Mobile has to pay out millions they will not like it and they will work to avoid it.
And no, DrOp iN ThE BuCkeT is not in play, here. If that were the case they'd have settled directly with only those 2,000 users. Right now they won't negotiate anything with us, even a credit despite showing them their fallacy.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny you would say that. A guy I work with was surprised to get $1000 this morning from a 2018 Juul class action. So you don't always get a pittance.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality is that T-Mobile has ever right to cancel your contract any time they like. So they can simply do such if the payout amount is more than they'd make simply cutting those people loose. And most aren't actually going to switch, as they'd pay more elsewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
> Reality is that T-Mobile has ever right to cancel your contract any time they like.
You've read the contract? I ask only because that's generally not how contracts work.
Re: (Score:2)
I've read it. And I've read plenty of others. Services contracts ALWAYS include a provision for the provider to cancel, generally with some notice period. In fact, I've dealt specifically with wireless service contracts in the past. They all contain a part that gives you the right to cancel your contract within 30 days of any party making changes to the terms. I wanted out of my Sprint contract and they updated one of the taxes (actually lowered it), which constituted a change of our agreed contract, so I u
Re:Sue them? (Score:5, Informative)
> So they can simply do such if the payout amount is more than they'd make simply cutting those people loose
Reality is that T-Mobile said this:
> Now, T-Mobile ONE customers keep their price until THEY decide to change it. T-Mobile will never change the price you pay for your T-Mobile ONE plan.
If this choice is between accepting T-Mobile's blatant lies about what they are offering vs. losing the plan completely because T-Mobile won't keep their promise the latter is ultimately the preferred course.
Bait and switch is bad, even if it's small. Never mind that there's no such thing as small while we're talking about perpetual monthly fees.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you get 2,000 people to be the class, argue for however many customers had those contracts * $5 * 2 years or some such.
Now you have enough that 1/3 of it is enough for a law firm to take interest.
The lawyers get rich, T-Mobile's profit from the decision is delayed by 2 years plus defending the lawsuit, then the customers get like $2.50 if they do the paperwork.
It's a pretty bad system, but it's definitely a lawsuit worth pursuing and inflicting some punishment.
Nobody will be made while though. No
I knew this would spark lawsuits (Score:1)
I knew back when I saw the commercial advertising a "Lifetime price lock guarantee" A) there is no way that T-mobile can possibly actually provide a fixed price forever for a process (providing phone calls) whose costs are not fixed and vary based on the inputs and B) They would eventually have to break the deal for people or let them age out when they buy a new device. The fact that this is now a lawsuit is no surprise. The fact that T-mobile would make such claims when they know the same things I do about
Re:I knew this would spark lawsuits (Score:4, Insightful)
That's actually not that much of a stretch, AFAIK, the bulkl cost of communication gets lower over time even when adjusted for inflation. So it should be possible based on the cost of the actual service provided. On the other hand T-Mobile has other costs such as paying the employees in the stores, their support reps, billing processing fees, the CEO's jet, etc...
The problem with lifetime claims like these is that the marketing person who decided this got a bonus for a successful campaign, and is probably gone by the time it starts eating into the company profits so they got all the rewards and none of the long term consequences.
Planning for long term is not a new concept: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper
Re: (Score:2)
This will probably be worth it anyway.
It was a good ad campaign and it probably brought people in. Even if they're penalized a year or two of revenue increase this would cause, it likely comes out ahead with the customers it brought in.
I will say that T-Mobile has honored my legacy plans for far far longer than I would have expected in the past, though this is the shitty and obvious result of allowing so much consolidation.
Re: (Score:2)
> This will probably be worth it anyway.
> It was a good ad campaign and it probably brought people in. Even if they're penalized a year or two of revenue increase this would cause, it likely comes out ahead with the customers it brought in.
I think you underestimate the penalty. The lawsuit damages are the icing on the cake.
A lot of people who would have switched to T-Mobile even without that promise could potentially switch away because of that breach of trust, and there's no guarantee that this number won't be significantly larger than the number who decided to switch to T-Mobile because of that promise, particularly now that the lawsuit is bringing it to their attention.
Re: (Score:2)
> The fact that T-mobile would make such claims when they know the same things I do about this (and really any self-respecting thinking person should know) is kind of wild.
When this happened AT&T was going through their second round of breaking people's contract terms by raising their rates. This sparked an exodus that T-Mobile was quite timely in cashing in on. At the time the rate wasn't exactly cheap but it was reasonable. Also 5G was on the horizon. I imagine the original plan (before future mergers that caused price freezes for gov't approval...) was that you'd have to 'upgrade' to get 5G. "Oh you want the full speed? For $5/mo we'll open you up to our 5G
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, I have been on AT&T Prepaid for about 10 years now and my rate has actually gone down by $10 since I started. So... I guess it is possible.
Re: (Score:1)
It's the "Lie Fast and Break Things" growth technique.
Re: (Score:2)
> whose costs are not fixed and vary based on the inputs and B) They would eventually have to break the deal
Perhaps to remain profitable that *might* be true but the point of a contract is you do what you agree to.
Many business offer loss leaders to get immediate cash and many more invest that cash and pay expenses out of returns.
The idea that T-Mobile gets to do fraud against seniors because it might suffer a minor loss of profits by honoring its contacts is something only the fascist American Courts co
Never trust lifetime deals (Score:1)
Never trust lifetime deals the company will likely go under before you die. I've had several lifetime warrantees, price locks, and other deals, all of the companies are gone. Its easer to promise everything while trying to acquire market share, and then re do the deal post success. Either that or you don't get enough revenue and the company goes away anyways. Or sometimes you bought a lifetime subscription with free upgrades to Joes photo wizard, then they need more revenue discontinue the product and repla
Re: (Score:3)
How appropriate as 'warlock' comes from the Old English word wrloga, which means "breaker of oaths" or "deceiver" (per my Google search because I thought this to be true)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My father was a customer of a furniture store that would sell shoddy furniture with 7 year warranties. The furniture felt dodgy, but the long warranty made the risk look palatable.
Coincidentally they went out of business on year 6. He noticed a new furniture store appeared in its place with very similar warranties. Being pissed at being slighted, he looked into the city records and found out it's a group of relatives who just rotate on-paper ownership so they can just declare bankruptcy to get out of warran
I am not dead yet (Score:3)
Cue the obligatory Monty Python sketch.
"guarantee for life" (Score:2)
To be fair, T-Mobile meant Jim in Accounting and he's dead. It's in the fine print's fine print.
Wrong on a couple of fronts (Score:2)
If you can't get 'em for breach of contract, go after 'em for false advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, they got Capone for Tax Evasion, and none of his "real" crimes...
I'm altering the deal. (Score:5, Funny)
Pray I don't alter it further.
Apologies to Darth Vater
You must have misunderstood the lifetime statement (Score:2)
Its the lifetime of the price-lock plan, not your own. Obviously when they raised the price, the price-lock plan was over, thus its dead. Never make assumptions when it comes to legal-eze fine print. If it sounds too good to be true it probably is.
Wrong link? (Score:1)
Is it just me, or is that the wrong link. That's about bricked phones, not locking in subscription rate.
E-Machines (Score:2)
E-Machines and other computers in the 90's had these nice "Never Obsolete" stickers on the front of them.
I wonder if we can go after Acer for not fulfilling E-Machine's promise of "never obsolete" in the 90's as well.
That and... (Score:2)
I'd like them to pay each person that was screwed over for their data breach as well.
US Citizens are never going to see a dime from that National Public Data shimozzle.
We're fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
That class action is working its way through now but they take time.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're referring to National Public Data, it was a one man shop with a couple of servers. There's [1]no deep pockets of anything [techcrunch.com]for screwing the public over. What needs to happen ultimately is to find out how this one man shop obtained the records and from who the data was sourced.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/14/national-public-data-the-hacked-data-broker-that-lost-millions-of-social-security-numbers-and-more-files-for-bankruptcy/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEjzKCSS2qEw1Qx7ovXsxHk5w7zGF3Lgp2GIXbUv4BKkeh4al5Vn3LOFEwjYUte2hYAqTk0ylFzLeIrOTaRMOCcA8tR7Skyr4m8Ocvvhwujb7ROl6iP3wZ1mwuE-OzYTMEdwzh1bp0F7zLvD_dwvFE0ZGlEpnzTqB6xNWhPJs6ff
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile is still involved and is ultimately responsible for what's done with the data. They'll still be held liable.