Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > Cellular Communications > US Networks > alt.cellular.sprintpcs
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2009, 05:02 PM
Rik Brown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?


I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several months
for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint claimed was
authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it nor ever used it!

After being forced to argue the matter for about 20 minutes, a
supervisor finally gave us a credit (for something we should never had
to pay for in the first place!). He claimed that Sprint did not even
have any contract with this company but only handled the billing. Right.

Has anyone else received such unauthorized billings (neatly buried deep
in their bills, I might add) from Sprint?

-- Rik

ps: We had Sprint put a block on 3rd party add-on packages to the
phones so hopefully this won't happen again!


--
Rik Brown

Share your experiences in the forums, blogs, videos, and online
community at 'TRAVEL.com' (http://forums.TRAVEL.com).
Message Origin: TRAVEL.com


Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2009, 11:56 PM
Rik Brown
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?


> I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several months
> for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint claimed was
> authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it nor ever used it!
> Evan Platt Wrote:
>
> Who has access to your phones?
>
> You know those commercials, text "HELLO' to 12345 for a cool new ring
> tone! Don't those sign you up for a monthly service?


Evan:

Thanks for the reply. No one else has access to our phones and my job
has been working with computers for 30+ years (on the Internet since
1992). I'm sure I didn't authorize anything.

What I have found since by a Google query is that Sprint is being sued
for just this same matter in federal court. Here is an excerpt from the
Kansas City Star:

<quote>*

Sprint sued over unauthorized mobile content fees*

May 12, 2008 — 6:59am ET

Not a good day for Sprint Nextel: The operator is also facing a lawsuit
alleging it charged subscribers for unauthorized mobile content
purchases. A class action suit was filed last month in Lyon County, Kan.
by California resident James Peetz, who says that in 2007 he was charged
for unauthorized text messages from content provider JokeMobi. The suit
claims Sprint has failed to adopt procedures requiring customer
authorization before content download charges are assessed; the lawsuit
claims this "disastrous flaw is an open secret within the industry, but
little understood outside of it." The suit goes on to state "Armed with
only a cell phone number, the mobile content provider can simply provide
that number, along with an amount to be charged, to a billing
aggregator. The aggregator, in turn, instructs the relevant cellular
carrier to add the charge to the bill associated with that cell phone
number. The charge will then appear on the consumer's cell phone bill,
often with only minimal, cryptic identifying information."

The Peetz suit was moved to federal court last week by Sprint. A
carrier spokesman told -The Kansas City Star- that Sprint adheres to
guidelines created by the Mobile Marketing Association calling for
content providers to obtain approval from subscribers before they send
text messages and other content. In March, rival AT&T Mobility agreed to
refund thousands of Florida consumers more than $10 million following
accusations the operator billed subscribers for mobile content services
advertised as free. Per terms of the settlement, AT&T agreed to police
its agreements with third-party advertisers to make certain consumers
understand precisely what they will be charged for services like texting
and ringtones, instituting new safeguards to make third-party pricing
clearer and billing more transparent.

</quote>

I guess that there is more here than meets the eye. Sprint did refund
the monies involved. But my trust with them is broken and I'm going to
have to look much closer now for buried items in their bills. They may
not get my business when the current contract is up. I'm certainly going
to check out other companies even though I've used Sprint since back in
the 1990s.

Thanks all. -- Rik


--
Rik Brown

Share your experiences in the forums, blogs, videos, and online
community at 'TRAVEL.com' (http://forums.TRAVEL.com).
Message Origin: TRAVEL.com


Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2009, 01:54 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

Rik Brown <Rik.Brown.3onml9@no-mx.forums.travel.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:Rik.Brown.3onml9@no-mx.forums.travel.com:

>
>> I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several months
>> for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint claimed was
>> authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it nor ever used it!
>> Evan Platt Wrote:
>>
>> Who has access to your phones?
>>
>> You know those commercials, text "HELLO' to 12345 for a cool new ring
>> tone! Don't those sign you up for a monthly service?

>
> Evan:
>
> Thanks for the reply. No one else has access to our phones and my job
> has been working with computers for 30+ years (on the Internet since
> 1992). I'm sure I didn't authorize anything.
>
> What I have found since by a Google query is that Sprint is being sued
> for just this same matter in federal court. Here is an excerpt from the
> Kansas City Star:
>
> <quote>*
>


Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this has been successful to date.
It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website.


Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-09-2009, 05:38 PM
Joel Koltner
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

"The Bob" <nospam@bob.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BC6CA7FB2FF1bob@85.214.105.209...
> Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this has been successful to date.
> It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website.


Not quite -- except for "value added" ISPs like America Online, a regular old
ISP never provides billing services to 3rd parties like telcos do.



Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2009, 01:11 PM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Mar 6, 10:54*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> Rik Brown <Rik.Brown.3on...@no-mx.forums.travel.com> amazed us all with the
> following innews:Rik.Brown.3onml9@no-mx.forums.travel.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several months
> >> for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint claimed was
> >> authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it nor ever used it!
> >> Evan Platt Wrote:

>
> >> Who has access to your phones?

>
> >> You know those commercials, text "HELLO' to 12345 for a cool new ring
> >> tone! Don't those sign you up for a monthly service?

>
> > Evan:

>
> > Thanks for the reply. No one else has access to our phones and my job
> > has been working with computers for 30+ years (on the Internet since
> > 1992). I'm sure I didn't authorize anything.

>
> > What I have found since by a Google query is that Sprint is being sued
> > for just this same matter in federal court. Here is an excerpt from the
> > Kansas City Star:

>
> > <quote>*

>
> Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this has been successful to date. *
> It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website.


You're a lying POS. AT&T Mobility just settled a cramming class
action suit in 2008 in Fulton County, GA. It cost them a sizeable
chunk, and a continuing loss of credibility as an honest business
entity.

Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2009, 02:07 PM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Mar 6, 2:02*pm, Rik Brown <Rik.Brown.3on...@no-
mx.forums.travel.com> wrote:
> I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several months
> for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint claimed was
> authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it nor ever used it!
>
> After being forced to argue the matter for about 20 minutes, a
> supervisor finally gave us a credit (for something we should never had
> to pay for in the first place!). He claimed that Sprint did not even
> have any contract with this company but only handled the billing. Right.
>
> Has anyone else received such unauthorized billings (neatly buried deep
> in their bills, I might add) from Sprint?
>
> -- Rik
>
> ps: We had Sprint put a block on 3rd party add-on packages to the
> phones so hopefully this won't happen again!
>
> --
> Rik Brown
>
> Share your experiences in the forums, blogs, videos, and online
> community at 'TRAVEL.com' (http://forums.TRAVEL.com).
> Message Origin: TRAVEL.com


Here's another cramming class action already filed and moving along.
I want that noisy windbag in this thread who calls himself 'the bob'
to put up about 10 benjamins that this case won't be settled in favor
of the plaintiffs. That's a win in anybody's book. These lawsuits
never go to trial because the corporate defendant is caught with its
pants down.

http://www.mediabistro.com/mobilecon...suit_84938.asp

Here's another lawsuit against T-Mobile which was charging for
unauthorized texting, something I caught VZW doing to my bill before I
called their hand:

http://www.mediabistro.com/mobilecon...suit_76380.asp

They'll A L L do it if you let them.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2009, 02:57 PM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following in
news:c4a628cb-8d8b-4ca8-b999-14362f3b4920@t36g2000prt.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 6, 2:02*pm, Rik Brown <Rik.Brown.3on...@no-
> mx.forums.travel.com> wrote:
>> I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several months
>> for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint claimed
>> was authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it nor ever
>> used it!
>>
>> After being forced to argue the matter for about 20 minutes, a
>> supervisor finally gave us a credit (for something we should never
>> had to pay for in the first place!). He claimed that Sprint did not
>> even have any contract with this company but only handled the
>> billing. Right.
>>
>> Has anyone else received such unauthorized billings (neatly buried
>> deep in their bills, I might add) from Sprint?
>>
>> -- Rik
>>
>> ps: We had Sprint put a block on 3rd party add-on packages to the
>> phones so hopefully this won't happen again!
>>
>> --
>> Rik Brown
>>
>> Share your experiences in the forums, blogs, videos, and online
>> community at 'TRAVEL.com' (http://forums.TRAVEL.com).
>> Message Origin: TRAVEL.com

>
> Here's another cramming class action already filed and moving along.
> I want that noisy windbag in this thread who calls himself 'the bob'


That would be me.

> to put up about 10 benjamins that this case won't be settled in favor
> of the plaintiffs. That's a win in anybody's book. These lawsuits
> never go to trial because the corporate defendant is caught with its
> pants down.


More like the cost of doing business with stupid consumers. Another
'poster child' moment for you. What you and the rest of the sheep haven't
figured out yet is that there hasn't been a single one of these that has
caused any of these comapnies any real pain- ever wonder why the cheap
plans of five years ago are gone? The cost simply gets passed on to the
subscriber base. Your need to teach the Big Bad Corporate Monster a lesson
costs you more than it costs any one of the corporate officers you are so
bitter about.


Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2009, 02:59 PM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following in
news:98286620-6bed-4c9c-9db2-fdd1449f67ae@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 6, 10:54*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
>> Rik Brown <Rik.Brown.3on...@no-mx.forums.travel.com> amazed us all
>> with t

> he
>> following innews:Rik.Brown.3onml9@no-mx.forums.travel.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several
>> >> months for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint
>> >> claimed wa

> s
>> >> authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it nor ever used
>> >> it! Evan Platt Wrote:

>>
>> >> Who has access to your phones?

>>
>> >> You know those commercials, text "HELLO' to 12345 for a cool new
>> >> ring tone! Don't those sign you up for a monthly service?

>>
>> > Evan:

>>
>> > Thanks for the reply. No one else has access to our phones and my
>> > job has been working with computers for 30+ years (on the Internet
>> > since 1992). I'm sure I didn't authorize anything.

>>
>> > What I have found since by a Google query is that Sprint is being
>> > sued for just this same matter in federal court. Here is an excerpt
>> > from the Kansas City Star:

>>
>> > <quote>*

>>
>> Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this has been successful to
>> date.

> *
>> It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website.

>
> You're a lying POS. AT&T Mobility just settled a cramming class
> action suit in 2008 in Fulton County, GA. It cost them a sizeable
> chunk, and a continuing loss of credibility as an honest business
> entity.
>


And you must be desperate if you have the need to go all the way back to
the beginning of March to try and discredit me. Now you're grasping,
little troll.

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2009, 08:13 PM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 25, 10:57*am, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following innews:c4a628cb-8d8b-4ca8-b999-14362f3b4920@t36g2000prt.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 2:02*pm, Rik Brown <Rik.Brown.3on...@no-
> > mx.forums.travel.com> wrote:
> >> I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several months
> >> for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint claimed
> >> was authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it nor ever
> >> used it!

>
> >> After being forced to argue the matter for about 20 minutes, a
> >> supervisor finally gave us a credit (for something we should never
> >> had to pay for in the first place!). He claimed that Sprint did not
> >> even have any contract with this company but only handled the
> >> billing. Right.


That's BS. They're not collecting those charges out of the goodness
of their hearts.

>
> >> Has anyone else received such unauthorized billings (neatly buried
> >> deep in their bills, I might add) from Sprint?


I've seen them buried in hospital bills, doctor bills, phone bills,
utility bills, car payments, and credit card bills. They're a
contagion, an epidemic.

Much to Bobbie's chagrin, I have made some nice attorney fees kicking
the butts of dishonest businesses. He believe business has the right
to be predatory, and I have enjoyed watching the predators called to
account for their schemes.
>
> >> -- Rik

>
> >> ps: We had Sprint put a block on 3rd party add-on packages to the
> >> phones so hopefully this won't happen again!

>
> >> --
> >> Rik Brown

>
> >> Share your experiences in the forums, blogs, videos, and online
> >> community at 'TRAVEL.com' (http://forums.TRAVEL.com).
> >> Message Origin: TRAVEL.com

>
> > Here's another cramming class action already filed and moving along.
> > I want that noisy windbag in this thread who calls himself 'the bob'

>
> That would be me.
>
> > to put up about 10 benjamins that this case won't be settled in favor
> > of the plaintiffs. *That's a win in anybody's book. *These lawsuits
> > never go to trial because the corporate defendant is caught with its
> > pants down.

>
> More like the cost of doing business with stupid consumers.


What you're saying, and what you have at stake exposing you as a
scoundrel, is that you are so amoral you believe the companies should
be able to practice frauds on the cellphone public by cramming their
bills with false charges, by fabricating contracts, by refusing to pay
rebates and to keeping deposits, by charging for unwanted texting, and
by making up indecipherable bills with mysterious jargon and BS in
them which the customer cannot understand. You WANT FCC and FTC to be
in bed with the telecoms --- more money in your unclean hands, right
Bobbie? I can smell you a thousand miles away.

What you D O N ' T want is *savvy* consumers. And people like me
who rock the boat scare the bejeebers out of dishonest wimps like
you. So about all you can do is pull out the tired old ad hominems
and fling poo. On top of that you've been caught in a B I G lie.
Then you reversed yourself and said that the judgments and settlements
are ultimately imposed on the consumer. Well, then. Let's just let
*everybody* in business be crooked. Law of the jungle. Let the
robber barons play and everybody will be happy, right? And the riches
they gather will trickle down. LOL. Even Teddy Roosevelt didn't
believe in that. And that's why so many federal agencies were formed
during his presidency to protect the public from robber barons.

Hey, Bobbie. Go read _The Jungle,_ by Upton Sinclair. Maybe it will
beat some sense into you.

You said those lawsuits are not winnable, and you know what? I don't
know of one that was ever lost, and I'll wager those that have just
been filed are winners too! If companies don't want to be tagged in
class actions, all they have to do is be honest in their dealings with
their customers and quit acting like predators. Isn't that simple
enough?

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2009, 10:26 PM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

At 25 Apr 2009 13:13:51 -0700 jl wrote:

> > >> After being forced to argue the matter for about 20 minutes, a
> > >> supervisor finally gave us a credit (for something we should never
> > >> had to pay for in the first place!). He claimed that Sprint did not
> > >> even have any contract with this company but only handled the
> > >> billing. Right.

>
> That's BS. They're not collecting those charges out of the goodness
> of their hearts.


No, but they also don't contract directly with these clown outfits
either. It's an automated bliling setup that lets anyone bill through a
cellco if the proper proceedures are followed. (Although they often
aren't!) The cellco, obviously, gets a cut. A pretty big one.

Sprint, in response to customer complaints, recently instituted a
compliance system to withhold payments to billers with a significant
number of unaddressed complaints, and reduced payments to companies that
don't conform to Sprint's suggested practices (mostly concerning refund
policies, ease ofcancelling subscriptions, etc.)

And gee, Sprint didn't even need a class-action suit to institute
consumer proctection policies...
> >


> > >> Has anyone else received such unauthorized billings (neatly buried
> > >> deep in their bills, I might add) from Sprint?

>
> I've seen them buried in hospital bills, doctor bills, phone bills,
> utility bills, car payments, and credit card bills. They're a
> contagion, an epidemic.
>
> Much to Bobbie's chagrin, I have made some nice attorney fees kicking
> the butts of dishonest businesses. He believe business has the right
> to be predatory, and I have enjoyed watching the predators called to
> account for their schemes.



Or, perhaps, he believes in personal responsibility and caviat emptor.
As long as businesses follow the law, many of us believe that the public
doesn't need to be treated like toddlers, and protected from slippery-
tounged devils, like those wily cell-phone store salespeople with their
high-school educations.

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and I think consumer protectionism has gone
too far. When a refridgerator box has to warn me that lifting its
contents by myself might cause injury (ostensibly because someone sued
Amana for wrenching his back or crushing his toe) I'm thinking it's just
about time for the human race to abdicate its position on the food chain
to a more deserving species like the chimps or the dolphins.


> What you're saying, and what you have at stake exposing you as a
> scoundrel, is that you are so amoral you believe the companies should
> be able to practice frauds on the cellphone public by cramming their
> bills with false charges, by fabricating contracts, by refusing to pay
> rebates and to keeping deposits, by charging for unwanted texting, and
> by making up indecipherable bills with mysterious jargon and BS in
> them which the customer cannot understand.


Usually that "jargon" and those indecipherable bills were mandated by a
regulator or Congress! For example, Sen. Chuck Schumer meant well, but
he's to blame for the current indecipherable APR disclosures on credit
card statements that actually HELP credit card companies get away with
murder because many consumers can't understand they're being fleeced!

Similarly, those indecipherable phone bills are also regulated- and the
"mysterious" line items carfully chosen and worded by reglators. Perhaps
instead of crying to class-action attorneys, consumers should learn to
READ them, just like they should learn what a Twinkies nutrition label or
a credit card Schumer Box is trying to tell them!

> You WANT FCC and FTC to be
> in bed with the telecoms --- more money in your unclean hands, right
> Bobbie? I can smell you a thousand miles away.



Actually, I want them looking out for the public's best interest as a
whole, not pandering to the remorse of the stupidest buyers driving all
of our costs up.


> What you D O N ' T want is *savvy* consumers.


Actually that's exactly what I want, since savy consumers can take care
of themselves, understand what they're buying, and don't need shysters
like you to drive up eveyone's costs with bogus class-actions. I once
received a $15-off my next phone from Cingular coupon because some idiot
(or some idiot's lawyer) decided that Cingular didn't put the "airtime
rounded up to next minute" disclaimer in a large enough font and started
a class-action for all of those 1/2 minutes he thought he'd been cheated
out of because he didn't bother to read his contract.

Of course, had the action been legit, we'd have received actual money, or
free extra airtime as compensation, instead of coupons towards a future
contract with the company that supposedly wronged us! After Jack-in-the-
Box accidentally poisoned a bunch of people with tainted beef, I'm pretty
sure they didn't settle up with their victims by issuing free double-
cheeseburger coupons!


> Well, then. Let's just let
> *everybody* in business be crooked. Law of the jungle. Let the
> robber barons play and everybody will be happy, right? And the riches
> they gather will trickle down. LOL. Even Teddy Roosevelt didn't
> believe in that. And that's why so many federal agencies were formed
> during his presidency to protect the public from robber barons.



True. The problem is that letting the pendulum swing too far the
otherway is just as costly. 40% of the manufacturing cost of an airplane
is liability insurance. If you're the supplier of, say, a fuselage bolt,
you better be covered if your bolt is ever suspected of helping bring
down a 727!

> Hey, Bobbie. Go read _The Jungle,_ by Upton Sinclair. Maybe it will
> beat some sense into you.



That was 100 years ago! Comparing Verizon or AT&T to those conditions
should qualify as a corollary of Godwin's Law and end this thread right
there!


> You said those lawsuits are not winnable, and you know what? I don't
> know of one that was ever lost, and I'll wager those that have just
> been filed are winners too! If companies don't want to be tagged in
> class actions, all they have to do is be honest in their dealings with
> their customers and quit acting like predators. Isn't that simple
> enough?


Yes, perfectly simple, if customers and lawyers were equally honest. If
every other person in the returns line at Walmart wasn't trying to
exchange three-year-old worn out sneakers "they bought last week but lost
the receipt," or claiming the display of the plasma TV they dropped when
instaling it themelves "just cracked while we were watching it!"
companies might not need to be as"tricky."

One of my wife's law school profs called class actions suits "a flowing
river of money that was a lawyer's duty to dip his hat into and skim as
much of as possible, as it flowed from defendant to plaintiffs."

Class actions should be a last resort for repeated wrongdoings, not an
easy method for lawyers to compound fees. Those $15 coupons were
essentially worthless to all of us Cingular customers, but the setlement
was probably quite a payday for the firm that represented the class.

Perhaps judges are finally getting hip to these shenanigans. Here's a
great story where a California judge recently ordered that a class-action
attorney be paid in the same clothing store gift-cards he negotiated for
his clients:
http://www.cjac.org/blog/2009/01/att...cards-inst.php

"Per the settlement agreement, class members won't receive cash, only a
$10 gift card. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Brett Klein also provided
that Fineman will be paid his fee with 12,500 ten-dollar Windsor Fashions
gift cards...

"The Civil Justice Association of California salutes the judge for his
innovation. In many class action cases, the lawyers walk away with
millions -- in real dollars, while the class members receive coupons..."

I wonder if my wife's old professor will be amending his lecture anytime
soon..



Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 04-25-2009, 10:31 PM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following in
news:d5693738-5695-46d3-a6cb-831816cc59ed@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 25, 10:57*am, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
>> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following
>> innews:c4a628

> cb-8d8b-4ca8-b999-14362f3b4920@t36g2...oglegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 6, 2:02*pm, Rik Brown <Rik.Brown.3on...@no-
>> > mx.forums.travel.com> wrote:
>> >> I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several
>> >> months for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint
>> >> claimed was authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it
>> >> nor ever used it!

>>
>> >> After being forced to argue the matter for about 20 minutes, a
>> >> supervisor finally gave us a credit (for something we should never
>> >> had to pay for in the first place!). He claimed that Sprint did
>> >> not even have any contract with this company but only handled the
>> >> billing. Right.

>
> That's BS. They're not collecting those charges out of the goodness
> of their hearts.
>
>>
>> >> Has anyone else received such unauthorized billings (neatly buried
>> >> deep in their bills, I might add) from Sprint?

>
> I've seen them buried in hospital bills, doctor bills, phone bills,
> utility bills, car payments, and credit card bills. They're a
> contagion, an epidemic.
>
> Much to Bobbie's chagrin, I have made some nice attorney fees kicking
> the butts of dishonest businesses. He believe business has the right
> to be predatory, and I have enjoyed watching the predators called to
> account for their schemes.
>>
>> >> -- Rik

>>
>> >> ps: We had Sprint put a block on 3rd party add-on packages to the
>> >> phones so hopefully this won't happen again!

>>
>> >> --
>> >> Rik Brown

>>
>> >> Share your experiences in the forums, blogs, videos, and online
>> >> community at 'TRAVEL.com' (http://forums.TRAVEL.com).
>> >> Message Origin: TRAVEL.com

>>
>> > Here's another cramming class action already filed and moving
>> > along. I want that noisy windbag in this thread who calls himself
>> > 'the bob'

>>
>> That would be me.
>>
>> > to put up about 10 benjamins that this case won't be settled in
>> > favor of the plaintiffs. *That's a win in anybody's book. *These
>> > lawsuits never go to trial because the corporate defendant is
>> > caught with its pants down.

>>
>> More like the cost of doing business with stupid consumers.

>
> What you're saying, and what you have at stake exposing you as a
> scoundrel, is that you are so amoral you believe the companies should
> be able to practice frauds on the cellphone public


I said no such thing and your comment makes no sense in the context of
the conversation.

> by cramming their
> bills with false charges,


or by rightfully charging for the service that the customer unwittingly
agreed to because they didn't read the TOS of the webpage that
ultimately gets the money.

> by fabricating contracts,


or enforcing contracts that customers were too stupid to understand when
they agreed to an enhancement of service

> by refusing to pay
> rebates and to keeping deposits, by charging for unwanted texting, and
> by making up indecipherable bills with mysterious jargon and BS in
> them which the customer cannot understand.


Ding ding ding..... thanks for agreeing that customers are too stupid to
understand the technology and services they pay for.

> You WANT FCC and FTC to be
> in bed with the telecoms



I want no such thing, which anybody who has followed this group for any
length of time would be able to tell you. I actually believe in a
competitive industry with minimal government intervention to be the best
way to regulate things.

> --- more money in your unclean hands, right


My hands are completely clean. I don't waste the time and resources of
the companies I do business with because I clearly understand my rights
and RESPONSIBILITIES (you'll need to look that last word up to
understand it). If I do have a problem, I have the knowledge of the
service necessary to be able to intelligently and rationally discuss it
with the company and come to a mutually agreeable resolution. If
mutually agreeable is not possible, I take my business elsewhere. I can
only think of two instances in the last decade where I've had to do that
with any company.

I also don't compound the problem by going to the government and
justifying their ridiculously large payroll because I'm too stupid or
too lazy to handle my own affairs.

> Bobbie? I can smell you a thousand miles away.


That smell would be coming from between your own legs. Better go tell
Mommyh you had another 'accident.'

>
> What you D O N ' T want is *savvy* consumers.



What would make you say that other than to make yourself look like an
idiot one more time? That is exactly what I say is missing from the
market. The customer base is currently made up of millions of people
like you, too stupid to understand the services and products they use.
A market of savvy consumers would actually lower the cost of goods and
services across the board.


> And people like me
> who rock the boat scare the bejeebers out of dishonest wimps like
> you.


How am I dishonest? Because I believe you to be a moron?

You don't rock the boat- you simply take more money out of the pockets
of everybody else because of your poor education.

> So about all you can do is pull out the tired old ad hominems
> and fling poo.


No- I can also make points that are way beyond your logical
capabilities. Not my problem.

> On top of that you've been caught in a B I G lie.


Where?

> Then you reversed yourself and said that the judgments and settlements
> are ultimately imposed on the consumer.


Are you saying that companies don't pass these costs on to the consumer?

> Well, then. Let's just let
> *everybody* in business be crooked.


In a competitive market, everybody won't be crooked.

>
> Hey, Bobbie. Go read _The Jungle,_ by Upton Sinclair. Maybe it will
> beat some sense into you.


Probably read it before you were born.

>
> You said those lawsuits are not winnable, and you know what?



Settlement is not winning.

> I don't
> know of one that was ever lost,


But you're a poorly educated idiot- I wouldn't expect you to know
something that runs counter to your silly arguments.

> and I'll wager those that have just
> been filed are winners too!


Yeah- I'm sure the $20 calling card they get will be really satisfying.

> If companies don't want to be tagged in
> class actions, all they have to do is be honest in their dealings with
> their customers and quit acting like predators. Isn't that simple
> enough?
>


Even more simple would be for idiots like you to take mandatory testing
prior to buying a service to insure that you are intellifgent enough to
use it.

Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 02:29 AM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 25, 6:31*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following innews:d5693738-5695-46d3-a6cb-831816cc59ed@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 10:57*am, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> >> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following
> >> innews:c4a628

> > cb-8d8b-4ca8-b999-14362f3b4...@t36g2000prt.googlegroups.com:

>
> >> > On Mar 6, 2:02*pm, Rik Brown <Rik.Brown.3on...@no-
> >> > mx.forums.travel.com> wrote:
> >> >> I found out yesterday that our company had been billed several
> >> >> months for a $9.99 monthly 3rd party ring tone package that Sprint
> >> >> claimed was authorized by me (not!). I had neither authorized it
> >> >> nor ever used it!

>
> >> >> After being forced to argue the matter for about 20 minutes, a
> >> >> supervisor finally gave us a credit (for something we should never
> >> >> had to pay for in the first place!). He claimed that Sprint did
> >> >> not even have any contract with this company but only handled the
> >> >> billing. Right.

>
> > That's BS. *They're not collecting those charges out of the goodness
> > of their hearts.

>
> >> >> Has anyone else received such unauthorized billings (neatly buried
> >> >> deep in their bills, I might add) from Sprint?

>
> > I've seen them buried in hospital bills, doctor bills, phone bills,
> > utility bills, car payments, and credit card bills. *They're a
> > contagion, an epidemic.

>
> > Much to Bobbie's chagrin, I have made some nice attorney fees kicking
> > the butts of dishonest businesses. *He believe business has the right
> > to be predatory, and I have enjoyed watching the predators called to
> > account for their schemes.

>
> >> >> -- Rik

>
> >> >> ps: We had Sprint put a block on 3rd party add-on packages to the
> >> >> phones so hopefully this won't happen again!

>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Rik Brown

>
> >> >> Share your experiences in the forums, blogs, videos, and online
> >> >> community at 'TRAVEL.com' (http://forums.TRAVEL.com).
> >> >> Message Origin: TRAVEL.com

>
> >> > Here's another cramming class action already filed and moving
> >> > along. I want that noisy windbag in this thread who calls himself
> >> > 'the bob'

>
> >> That would be me.

>
> >> > to put up about 10 benjamins that this case won't be settled in
> >> > favor of the plaintiffs. *That's a win in anybody's book. *These
> >> > lawsuits never go to trial because the corporate defendant is
> >> > caught with its pants down.

>
> >> More like the cost of doing business with stupid consumers.

>
> > What you're saying, and what you have at stake exposing you as a
> > scoundrel, is that you are so amoral you believe the companies should
> > be able to practice frauds on the cellphone public

>
> I said no such thing and your comment makes no sense in the context of
> the conversation.
>
> > by cramming their
> > bills with false charges,

>
> or by rightfully charging for the service that the customer unwittingly
> agreed to because they didn't read the TOS of the webpage that
> ultimately gets the money.
>
> > by fabricating contracts,

>
> or enforcing contracts that customers were too stupid to understand when
> they agreed to an enhancement of service
>
> > by refusing to pay
> > rebates and to keeping deposits, by charging for unwanted texting, and
> > by making up indecipherable bills with mysterious jargon and BS in
> > them which the customer cannot understand. *

>
> Ding ding ding..... thanks for agreeing that customers are too stupid to
> understand the technology and services they pay for.
>
> > You WANT FCC and FTC to be
> > in bed with the telecoms

>
> I want no such thing, which anybody who has followed this group for any
> length of time would be able to tell you. *I actually believe in a
> competitive industry with minimal government intervention to be the best
> way to regulate things.
>
> > *--- more money in your unclean hands, right

>
> My hands are completely clean. *I don't waste the time and resources of
> the companies I do business with because I clearly understand my rights *
> and RESPONSIBILITIES (you'll need to look that last word up to
> understand it). *If I do have a problem, I have the knowledge of the
> service necessary to be able to intelligently and rationally discuss it
> with the company and come to a mutually agreeable resolution. *If
> mutually agreeable is not possible, I take my business elsewhere. *I can
> only think of two instances in the last decade where I've had to do that
> with any company.
>
> I also don't compound the problem by going to the government and
> justifying their ridiculously large payroll because I'm too stupid or
> too lazy to handle my own affairs.
>
> > Bobbie? *I can smell you a thousand miles away.

>
> That smell would be coming from between your own legs. *Better go tell
> Mommyh you had another 'accident.'
>
>
>
> > What you *D O N ' T *want is *savvy* consumers. *

>
> What would make you say that other than to make yourself look like an
> idiot one more time? *That is exactly what I say is missing from the
> market. * The customer base is currently made up of millions of people
> like you, too stupid to understand the services and products they use. *
> A market of savvy consumers would actually lower the cost of goods and
> services across the board.
>
> > And people like me
> > who rock the boat scare the bejeebers out of dishonest wimps like
> > you. *

>
> How am I dishonest? *Because I believe you to be a moron?
>
> You don't rock the boat- you simply take more money out of the pockets
> of everybody else because of your poor education.
>
> > So about all you can do is pull out the tired old ad hominems
> > and fling poo. *

>
> No- I can also make points that are way beyond your logical
> capabilities. *Not my problem.
>
> > On top of that you've been caught in a B I G lie.

>
> Where?
>
> > Then you reversed yourself and said that the judgments and settlements
> > are ultimately imposed on the consumer. *

>
> Are you saying that companies don't pass these costs on to the consumer?
>
> > Well, then. *Let's just let
> > *everybody* in business be crooked. *

>
> In a competitive market, everybody won't be crooked.
>
>
>
> > Hey, Bobbie. *Go read _The Jungle,_ by Upton Sinclair. *Maybe it will
> > beat some sense into you.

>
> Probably read it before you were born.
>
>
>
> > You said those lawsuits are not winnable, and you know what? *

>
> Settlement is not winning.
>
> > I don't
> > know of one that was ever lost,

>
> But you're a poorly educated idiot- I wouldn't expect you to know
> something that runs counter to your silly arguments.
>
> > and I'll wager those that have just
> > been filed are winners too!

>
> Yeah- I'm sure the $20 calling card they get will be really satisfying.
>
> > *If companies don't want to be tagged in
> > class actions, all they have to do is be honest in their dealings with
> > their customers and quit acting like predators. *Isn't that simple
> > enough?

>
> Even more simple would be for idiots like you to take mandatory testing
> prior to buying a service to insure that you are intellifgent enough to
> use it.


I'll come back to this tomorrow.

I've seen people like you gutted in the courthouse so many times. You
must be so corrupt and so amoral you're incapable of recognizing your
own dishonesty. Some people just lie through their teeth, just like
it's natural, like it's in their DNA and they're under an irresistible
impulse or compulsion to lie. You're not alone. People like that are
a dime a dozen. So don't feel unique.

First you said these lawsuits can't be won; then you switched and said
the costs of these lawsuits are passed on to the consumers (as if that
were some kind of tragedy, which it isn't because it's just not true);
then you switched again and said that losing the lawsuits cause no
harm to the companies; and then you fumed that settlements are not
wins. The hell they ain't. A lawyer would ten times rather settle
than litigate. When he settles he's won and won big. He collects for
his clients and a fat attorney fee for his own wallet without having
to run it by a jury and deal with the judge and all the stresses of
litigation, and then risk having to go up on appeal to the appellate
courts and have his win reversed and remanded for more litigation. Or
a goose egg.

Now who's the idiot? Well, I kinda take that back. You are a lying
idiot. LOL.

Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 02:57 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following in
news:ca5f911f-5ba0-4dc0-9785-8163bbaffa67@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com:


>
> I'll come back to this tomorrow.


Fine- I'll give you some more food for thought. I promise to use small
words so you don't get lost.

>
> I've seen people like you gutted in the courthouse so many times.


No, you haven't.

> You
> must be so corrupt and so amoral you're incapable of recognizing your
> own dishonesty.


I am one of the most honest people you;ll ever meet. Your petty jabs
won't change that.


> Some people just lie through their teeth, just like
> it's natural, like it's in their DNA and they're under an irresistible
> impulse or compulsion to lie.


Too bad I haven't lied.


> You're not alone.


I would certainly hope not.

> People like that are
> a dime a dozen.



If that were the case, people like you wouldn't exist in such great
numbers.

> So don't feel unique.


I am unique in many ways.

>
> First you said these lawsuits can't be won;


Correct

> then you switched and said
> the costs of these lawsuits are passed on to the consumers


Partially correct- the cost and ability to win or lose a lawsuit are two
different things. In no way did I Switch anything.

> (as if that
> were some kind of tragedy, which it isn't because it's just not true);


It's not true? How do you think the settlements are paid?

> then you switched again and said that losing the lawsuits cause no
> harm to the companies;


Actually, I never said anything like that.

> and then you fumed that settlements are not
> wins.


They are not. The settlement ALWAYS comes with no admission of guilt.
I thought you said you had experience with this stuff?

> The hell they ain't. A lawyer would ten times rather settle
> than litigate. When he settles he's won and won big. He collects for
> his clients and a fat attorney fee for his own wallet without having
> to run it by a jury and deal with the judge and all the stresses of
> litigation, and then risk having to go up on appeal to the appellate
> courts and have his win reversed and remanded for more litigation. Or
> a goose egg.


Too bad the lawyers don't determine guilt. Judges and juries do. But I
find your words interesting- you appear to have more compassion for the
lawyers than those they represent. You are a perfect example of why the
tort system in this country is so horribly broke.

>
> Now who's the idiot?


You are- that hasn't changed at all.

Well, I kinda take that back. You are a lying
> idiot. LOL.


Then why are you the one getting flac from multiple sources here, yet
nobody else has even attempted to refute my logic?

>



Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 05:39 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

At 25 Apr 2009 07:07:55 -0700 jl wrote:

> Here's another cramming class action already filed and moving along.
> I want that noisy windbag in this thread who calls himself 'the bob'
> to put up about 10 benjamins that this case won't be settled in favor
> of the plaintiffs. That's a win in anybody's book. These lawsuits
> never go to trial because the corporate defendant is caught with its
> pants down.
>
>

http://www.mediabistro.com/mobilecon...e_nailed_with_
class_action_suit_84938.asp


Just to toss a little defense of my boys at T-Mobile, since I've been a
satisfied customer for 8 years now.

The clas action you mentioned isn't about "cramming"- cramming is when a
phone company adds services you didn't request. That's not T-Mo was
accused of. They were faulted for not including contact information for
the third-party services that customers subscribed to, so they could
easily cancel without having to look up the information themselves. No
one accused them of sneaking those services onto bills without customer
consent.

Was T-Mo "wrong"? Sure, if the law required that info to be on the bill
it should've ben. But frankly if you're dumb enough to subscribe to a
$10/month horoscope/joke-a-day/ringtone subscription service on your
cellphone, Darwin will likely cause more harm to you than your cellphone
company.

> Here's another lawsuit against T-Mobile which was charging for
> unauthorized texting, something I caught VZW doing to my bill before I
> called their hand:
>
>

http://www.mediabistro.com/mobilecon...e_in_texting_c
lass_action_lawsuit_76380.asp
>
> They'll A L L do it if you let them.


And another one you're misstating, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting.
The issue here, was not that T-Mo was fraudulently billing people for
texts they didn't send or receive, but that (until the resolution of the
suit,) T-Mo had no facility to shut off text messaging on customer's
accounts, so customers couldn't choose to avoid texting charges if they
wanted to opt out of receiving texts. (In fact, T-Mo's contracts
included a disclaimer to that effect, but, hey, why should a written
document signed by a customer have any standing in a class-action, right?)

T-Mo's defense was that GSM phone systems use SMS for important things,
like voicemail notifications, over-the-air service activation, etc., so
they can't stop _all_ mesaging without impacting service. As a result of
the suit, T-Mo implemented a new system that was able to block
"chargeable" messages, and let their own "free" system messages through.


Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 10:10 AM
carlkeehn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?


"jl" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:c4a628cb-8d8b-4ca8-b999-14362f3b4920@t36g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
<Snip>
http://www.mediabistro.com/mobilecon...suit_84938.asp

Here's another lawsuit against T-Mobile which was charging for
unauthorized texting, something I caught VZW doing to my bill before I
called their hand:

http://www.mediabistro.com/mobilecon...suit_76380.asp

They'll A L L do it if you let them.

Taking care of texting fees with Verizon can be simply a matter of calling
611 and speaking to a CS representative. When I received my first junk text
I gave VZW a call and had text service blocked. It was done immediately and
for the next 4 years we didn't see a single text message. Two years ago, we
added lines form my two sons, unbeknownst to us the block was retained on
the first two lines and not added to our sons two lines. Last year while
traveling, our eldest son ran up a large texting bill over a single weekend,
keeping up with friends he was visiting. Again the block was put on the
account, since the error was on the part of the kiosk representative who set
up the service on the new phones, the charge was removed.

I have found VZW CS representatives to be very willing to set up the account
as you want it. If the error was on their part, they are also very willing
to accept the charges. More recently, we upgraded with new cellphones, we
changed our service to nationwide family select which gives us unlimited
texting, my youngest son and I got the Palm Centro without a data plan. On
the first day, my son ran up $60 dollars in data charges. I called VZW and
again spoke to a CS rep. To take care of the initial situation, she put my
son on the smartphone data plan for a week, which because of prorating
dropped our data charges from $60+ dollars to about $7, to which my employee
discount was applied. At the end of the billing period, the data plan was
removed and a data block was put on my sons line and my line. As the error
was on my part, I didn't begrudge the data charge that I did have to pay and
appreciated the willingness of the CS representative to work with me to
correct MY error.

Carl



Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 12:09 PM
George
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

Todd Allcock wrote:

>
> Was T-Mo "wrong"? Sure, if the law required that info to be on the bill
> it should've ben. But frankly if you're dumb enough to subscribe to a
> $10/month horoscope/joke-a-day/ringtone subscription service on your
> cellphone, Darwin will likely cause more harm to you than your cellphone
> company.
>


But wait, shouldn't I be protected from "everything"? If I ignore the
terms of an agreement or overspend on my credit card or buy a house I
can't afford it isn't *my* fault...

Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 01:35 PM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 26, 6:10*am, "carlkeehn" <carlke...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "jl" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c4a628cb-8d8b-4ca8-b999-14362f3b4920@t36g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
> <Snip>http://www.mediabistro.com/mobilecon...mobile_nailed_...
>
> Here's another lawsuit against T-Mobile which was charging for
> unauthorized texting, something I caught VZW doing to my bill before I
> called their hand:
>
> http://www.mediabistro.com/mobilecon...mobile_in_text...
>
> They'll *A L L *do it if you let them.
>
> Taking care of texting fees with Verizon can be simply a matter of calling
> 611 and speaking to a CS representative. *When I received my first junktext
> I gave VZW a call and had text service blocked. *It was done immediately and
> for the next 4 years we didn't see a single text message. *Two years ago, we
> added lines form my two sons, unbeknownst to us the block was retained on
> the first two lines and not added to our sons two lines. *Last year while
> traveling, our eldest son ran up a large texting bill over a single weekend,
> keeping up with friends he was visiting. *Again the block was put on the
> account, since the error was on the part of the kiosk representative who set
> up the service on the new phones, the charge was removed.
>
> I have found VZW CS representatives to be very willing to set up the account
> as you want it. *If the error was on their part, they are also very willing
> to accept the charges. *More recently, we upgraded with new cellphones,we
> changed our service to nationwide family select which gives us unlimited
> texting, my youngest son and I got the Palm Centro without a data plan. *On
> the first day, my son ran up $60 dollars in data charges. *I called VZWand
> again spoke to a CS rep. *To take care of the initial situation, she put my
> son on the smartphone data plan for a week, which because of prorating
> dropped our data charges from $60+ dollars to about $7, to which my employee
> discount was applied. *At the end of the billing period, the data plan was
> removed and a data block was put on my sons line and my line. *As the error
> was on my part, I didn't begrudge the data charge that I did have to pay and
> appreciated the willingness of the CS representative to work with me to
> correct MY error.
>
> Carl


Good for you! Thanks for your testimony. You see, nobody is saying
that VZW is ALL bad. Or the Great Satan, as Sharon says it is. I
remember on several occasions getting them to remove that $5 late
charge for paying on the 12th when the bill was due on the 8th.

And when I first started with VZW in 2004 the networks were the very
best. Dropped call plagues with my VZW service didn't begin until
about a year ago.

I do remember with some distaste a dishonest woman named Amy at our
local VZW store who tacked on a load of unauthorized services-- like
GPS at $20/mo., roadside service and some other mysterious charges
--- when I renewed my contract in 2007. She contorted her face into
a hateful scowl and got surly when I brought the junker Pantech
cellphone back because it locked up and wouldn't do anything but
blink. I had had the plagued thing for two weeks and she had the
nerve to declare my trial period had expired, when VZW was running ads
everywhere for a 30-day trial period.


Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 05:37 PM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 25, 6:31*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following innews:d5693738-5695-46d3-a6cb-831816cc59ed@a5g2000pre.googlegroups.com:


> > On top of that you've been caught in a B I G lie.

>
> Where?


So lying is in your DNA. You declared in the Sprint NG under the
same title as the title of this thread the following words, a lie:

"Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this *[i. e.,class action
against Sprint for unauthorized mobile content fees] has been
successful to date.
It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website."


Then you followed with a ridiculously false analogy, more unscrupulous
blathering by the immoral and dishonest. It flows from you like ****
from a goose.

As I said before, logical fallacies and lying are the common coin of
the degenerate corporate culture which breeds such unsavory entities
as Bernie Madoff, Enron, Ken Lay, Bernard Ebbers, ex-Qwest CEO Joe
Nacchio, and a mob of obstreperous little grunts like yourself.

*added for clarity

Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 06:36 PM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 25, 10:57*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following innews:ca5f911f-5ba0-4dc0-9785-8163bbaffa67@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > I'll come back to this tomorrow.

>
> Fine- I'll give you some more food for thought. *I promise to use small
> words so you don't get lost.
>
>
>
> > I've seen people like you gutted in the courthouse so many times. *

>
> No, you haven't.
>
> > You
> > must be so corrupt and so amoral you're incapable of recognizing your
> > own dishonesty. *

>
> I am one of the most honest people you;ll ever meet. *Your petty jabs
> won't change that.
>
> > Some people just lie through their teeth, just like
> > it's natural, like it's in their DNA and they're under an irresistible
> > impulse or compulsion to lie. *

>
> Too bad I haven't lied.
>
> > You're not alone. *

>
> I would certainly hope not.
>
> > People like that are
> > a dime a dozen. *

>
> If that were the case, people like you wouldn't exist in such great
> numbers.
>
> > So don't feel unique.

>
> I am unique in many ways.
>
>
>
> > First you said these lawsuits can't be won;

>
> Correct
>
> > then you switched and said
> > the costs of these lawsuits are passed on to the consumers

>
> Partially correct- the cost and ability to win or lose a lawsuit are two
> different things. *In no way did I Switch anything.
>
> > (as if that
> > were some kind of tragedy, which it isn't because it's just not true);

>
> It's not true? *How do you think the settlements are paid?
>
> > then you switched again and said that losing the lawsuits cause no
> > harm to the companies;

>
> Actually, I never said anything like that.
>
> > and then you fumed that settlements are not
> > wins. *

>
> They are not. *The settlement ALWAYS comes with no admission of guilt. *
> I thought you said you had experience with this stuff?


LOL! You don't understand the reason for that, do you, Bobbie, you
lilliputian?

Legal white lies abound in these lawsuits, Bobbie. That's because if
the shamed and discredited corporations admitted guilt, although they
admit to guilt by settling, the admission can't be used against them
by a crusading attorney general who wants to hang them out to dry in
the criminal courts.

By the time the Enron scandal was exposed, nobody could get paid and
everybody got fleeced, and so Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling got thrown
into prison to rot.

And until they got tagged, just like you they held their heads high
and self-righteously claimed to be honorable men.


>
> > The hell they ain't. *A lawyer would ten times rather settle
> > than litigate. *When he settles he's won and won big. *He collects for
> > his clients and a fat attorney fee for his own wallet without having
> > to run it by a jury and deal with the judge and all the stresses of
> > litigation, and then risk having to go up on appeal to the appellate
> > courts and have his win reversed and remanded for more litigation. *Or
> > a goose egg.

>
> Too bad the lawyers don't determine guilt. *Judges and juries do. *But I
> find your words interesting- you appear to have more compassion for the
> lawyers than those they represent. *You are a perfect example of why the
> tort system in this country is so horribly broke (sic).


Bobbie, I'm enjoying watching you weave a tangled web of deceit. When
a corporation like Sprint or VZW settles a class action suit for
unfair and deceptive trade practices, the whole country is aware of
their guilt. They have a scarlet letter tattooed on them. They have
admitted guilt to the whole world. They have been shamed and
disgraced. Only condition is they can't be tagged in criminal court
with the admission. Ever heard of the 5th Amendment, my little
scoundrel? It's a little like a nolo contendere in criminal court
where the crook defendant pleads "no contest." and then his plea
cannot be used as an admission against him in another court, say,
where he might have his pants sued off him otherwise in tort.

Sure I have compassion for plaintiffs' lawyers, but the clients come
first. Especially those that have had their bills "crammed" with
false charges for merchandise they did not buy.

And the deterrent effect on the rogue corporation is nothing short of
phenomenal.

Here's something else about the way this decadent system works. You
don't pay a bill which is "crammed," then the crammer threatens to
smear your credit, and their toadies and cronies at Equifax,
Transunion, and Experian are standing by to blacken your good name and
extort you into paying a debt which you don't owe.

Same as highway robbery. And there's hardly a working class or middle
class person in the country who's not been stung to the quick by it,
and angry.

Speaking of the big three whores of corruption whose names I just
typed and sullied my screen with, they are in for a big rash of class
actions, and attorney generals taking them to grand juries, and head-
rollings as soon as this Administration, this Congress, and the courts
get them by their scruffy necks and haul them before the bar of
justice.

So if any of those areas of unsavory intercourse are where you have
your grubstakes, Bobbie, you're in for a rough ride.

Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 09:32 PM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 26, 8:09*am, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> > Was T-Mo "wrong"? *Sure, if the law required that info to be on the bill
> > it should've ben. *But frankly if you're dumb enough to subscribe to a
> > $10/month horoscope/joke-a-day/ringtone subscription service on your
> > cellphone, Darwin will likely cause more harm to you than your cellphone
> > company.

>
> But wait, shouldn't I be protected from "everything"? If I ignore the
> terms of an agreement or overspend on my credit card or buy a house I
> can't afford it isn't *my* fault...


False analogy. But that's typical with carrion-feeding shitbirds of
your feather.

Contracts should be written in simple understandable English, not in
murky jargon.

http://www.michbar.org/generalinfo/p...lumns/152.html

Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 10:47 PM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following in
news:df97a454-9ef0-4fd0-9273-81529f44009e@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 25, 6:31*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
>> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following
>> innews:d56937

> 38-5695-46d3-a6cb-831816cc59ed@a5g20...oglegroups.com:
>
>> > On top of that you've been caught in a B I G lie.

>>
>> Where?

>
> So lying is in your DNA. You declared in the Sprint NG under the
> same title as the title of this thread the following words, a lie:
>
> "Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this *[i. e.,class action
> against Sprint for unauthorized mobile content fees] has been
> successful to date.
> It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website."


And I was right- not a single cellular company has been proven guilty in a
court of law in any of the lawsuits. I realize you are too poorly educated
to know this.

>


Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 10:50 PM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following in
news:37a98c25-7373-4640-a870-6a030da9356b@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 25, 10:57*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
>> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following
>> innews:ca5f91

> 1f-5ba0-4dc0-9785-8163bbaffa67@f1g20...oglegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'll come back to this tomorrow.

>>
>> Fine- I'll give you some more food for thought. *I promise to use
>> small words so you don't get lost.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I've seen people like you gutted in the courthouse so many times. *

>>
>> No, you haven't.
>>
>> > You
>> > must be so corrupt and so amoral you're incapable of recognizing
>> > your own dishonesty. *

>>
>> I am one of the most honest people you;ll ever meet. *Your petty jabs
>> won't change that.
>>
>> > Some people just lie through their teeth, just like
>> > it's natural, like it's in their DNA and they're under an
>> > irresistible impulse or compulsion to lie. *

>>
>> Too bad I haven't lied.
>>
>> > You're not alone. *

>>
>> I would certainly hope not.
>>
>> > People like that are
>> > a dime a dozen. *

>>
>> If that were the case, people like you wouldn't exist in such great
>> numbers.
>>
>> > So don't feel unique.

>>
>> I am unique in many ways.
>>
>>
>>
>> > First you said these lawsuits can't be won;

>>
>> Correct
>>
>> > then you switched and said
>> > the costs of these lawsuits are passed on to the consumers

>>
>> Partially correct- the cost and ability to win or lose a lawsuit are
>> two different things. *In no way did I Switch anything.
>>
>> > (as if that
>> > were some kind of tragedy, which it isn't because it's just not
>> > true);

>>
>> It's not true? *How do you think the settlements are paid?
>>
>> > then you switched again and said that losing the lawsuits cause no
>> > harm to the companies;

>>
>> Actually, I never said anything like that.
>>
>> > and then you fumed that settlements are not
>> > wins. *

>>
>> They are not. *The settlement ALWAYS comes with no admission of
>> guilt.

> *
>> I thought you said you had experience with this stuff?

>
> LOL! You don't understand the reason for that, do you, Bobbie, you
> lilliputian?
>
> Legal white lies abound in these lawsuits, Bobbie. That's because if
> the shamed and discredited corporations admitted guilt, although they
> admit to guilt by settling, the admission can't be used against them
> by a crusading attorney general who wants to hang them out to dry in
> the criminal courts.
>
> By the time the Enron scandal was exposed, nobody could get paid and
> everybody got fleeced, and so Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling got thrown
> into prison to rot.
>
> And until they got tagged, just like you they held their heads high
> and self-righteously claimed to be honorable men.
>
>
>>
>> > The hell they ain't. *A lawyer would ten times rather settle
>> > than litigate. *When he settles he's won and won big. *He collects

> for
>> > his clients and a fat attorney fee for his own wallet without
>> > having to run it by a jury and deal with the judge and all the
>> > stresses of litigation, and then risk having to go up on appeal to
>> > the appellate courts and have his win reversed and remanded for
>> > more litigation. *O

> r
>> > a goose egg.

>>
>> Too bad the lawyers don't determine guilt. *Judges and juries do. *Bu

> t I
>> find your words interesting- you appear to have more compassion for
>> the lawyers than those they represent. *You are a perfect example of
>> why th

> e
>> tort system in this country is so horribly broke (sic).

>
> Bobbie, I'm enjoying watching you weave a tangled web of deceit. When
> a corporation like Sprint or VZW settles a class action suit for
> unfair and deceptive trade practices, the whole country is aware of
> their guilt. They have a scarlet letter tattooed on them. They have
> admitted guilt to the whole world. They have been shamed and
> disgraced. Only condition is they can't be tagged in criminal court
> with the admission.



And yet they thrive. How is that?


> Ever heard of the 5th Amendment, my little
> scoundrel? It's a little like a nolo contendere in criminal court
> where the crook defendant pleads "no contest." and then his plea
> cannot be used as an admission against him in another court, say,
> where he might have his pants sued off him otherwise in tort.
>
> Sure I have compassion for plaintiffs' lawyers, but the clients come
> first. Especially those that have had their bills "crammed" with
> false charges for merchandise they did not buy.


If the clients come first, why do they usually end up with a $25 gift
card while the lawyers rake in millions?


>
> And the deterrent effect on the rogue corporation is nothing short of
> phenomenal.
>
> Here's something else about the way this decadent system works. You
> don't pay a bill which is "crammed," then the crammer threatens to
> smear your credit, and their toadies and cronies at Equifax,
> Transunion, and Experian are standing by to blacken your good name and
> extort you into paying a debt which you don't owe.
>
> Same as highway robbery. And there's hardly a working class or middle
> class person in the country who's not been stung to the quick by it,
> and angry.
>
> Speaking of the big three whores of corruption whose names I just
> typed and sullied my screen with, they are in for a big rash of class
> actions, and attorney generals taking them to grand juries, and head-
> rollings as soon as this Administration, this Congress, and the courts
> get them by their scruffy necks and haul them before the bar of
> justice.
>
> So if any of those areas of unsavory intercourse are where you have
> your grubstakes, Bobbie, you're in for a rough ride.
>


And you're an idiot- plain and simple.


Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2009, 10:52 PM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

jl <jls1016@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following in
news:48cf0336-e26a-4891-b104-41ac3e099c2f@t36g2000prt.googlegroups.com:

> On Apr 26, 8:09*am, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Todd Allcock wrote:
>>
>> > Was T-Mo "wrong"? *Sure, if the law required that info to be on the
>> > b

> ill
>> > it should've ben. *But frankly if you're dumb enough to subscribe
>> > to

> a
>> > $10/month horoscope/joke-a-day/ringtone subscription service on
>> > your cellphone, Darwin will likely cause more harm to you than your
>> > cellphon

> e
>> > company.

>>
>> But wait, shouldn't I be protected from "everything"? If I ignore the
>> terms of an agreement or overspend on my credit card or buy a house I
>> can't afford it isn't *my* fault...

>
> False analogy. But that's typical with carrion-feeding shitbirds of
> your feather.


Actually it is a very good analogy. You are too stupid to take care fo
yourself, so it follows that you need to be protected from your own
stupidity.

>
> Contracts should be written in simple understandable English, not in
> murky jargon.
>


Exept that the contracts contain the language they do to protect companies
from leeches like you.

Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2009, 05:10 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

At 26 Apr 2009 22:47:12 +0000 The Bob wrote:

> > "Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this *[i. e.,class action
> > against Sprint for unauthorized mobile content fees] has been
> > successful to date.
> > It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website."

>
> And I was right- not a single cellular company has been proven guilty

in a
> court of law in any of the lawsuits. I realize you are too poorly

educated
> to know this.
>


Yeah, but from the class-action attorney's viewpoint, a settlement is as
good or better than a win. They still get a payday without the hassle of
convincing the court their ridiculous claim is valid.

Unfortunately, businesses find the nuisance of paying off the attorney
extorting them and then handing out a few million coupons to their
customers that'll never be redeemed, cheaper than winning in court.



Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2009, 12:16 AM
The Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:I7bJl.56769$g%5.10697@newsfe23.iad:

> At 26 Apr 2009 22:47:12 +0000 The Bob wrote:
>
>> > "Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this *[i. e.,class action
>> > against Sprint for unauthorized mobile content fees] has been
>> > successful to date.
>> > It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website."

>>
>> And I was right- not a single cellular company has been proven guilty

> in a
>> court of law in any of the lawsuits. I realize you are too poorly

> educated
>> to know this.
>>

>
> Yeah, but from the class-action attorney's viewpoint, a settlement is as
> good or better than a win. They still get a payday without the hassle of
> convincing the court their ridiculous claim is valid.
>
> Unfortunately, businesses find the nuisance of paying off the attorney
> extorting them and then handing out a few million coupons to their
> customers that'll never be redeemed, cheaper than winning in court.
>
>
>


Exactly- something that the little troll can't seem to get his little brain
around.

Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2009, 02:38 AM
Todd Allcock
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

At 28 Apr 2009 00:16:04 +0000 The Bob wrote:

> >> > "Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this *[i. e.,class action
> >> > against Sprint for unauthorized mobile content fees] has been
> >> > successful to date.
> >> > It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website."
> >>
> >> And I was right- not a single cellular company has been proven guilty

> > in a
> >> court of law in any of the lawsuits. I realize you are too poorly

> > educated
> >> to know this.
> >>

> >
> > Yeah, but from the class-action attorney's viewpoint, a settlement is
> > asgood or better than a win. They still get a payday without the
> > hassle of convincing the court their ridiculous claim is valid.
> >
> > Unfortunately, businesses find the nuisance of paying off the attorney
> > extorting them and then handing out a few million coupons to their
> > customers that'll never be redeemed, cheaper than winning in court.
> >
> >

>
> Exactly- something that the little troll can't seem to get his little
> brain around.



Oh, he can, but wouldn't admit it because it conflicts with his
"corporations are evil/poor consumers need protection from their own
stupidity" posturing.

You said it more elegantly than I, but _knowledge_ is the only protection
consumers usually need.

I'm not anti-class action- it's an effective tool against REAL corporate
malfeasance, like illegal dumping of hazardous waste, or intentionally
releasing a dangerous product because the cost of safety modifications
are more expensive than the cost of settling lawsuits from resulting
injuries, but like most of the tort system, it's been exploited and
abused by clowns using it for penny-ante sh*t it was never intended for.



Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2009, 12:04 AM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 26, 6:50*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following innews:37a98c25-7373-4640-a870-6a030da9356b@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 10:57*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> >> jl <jls1...@bellsouth.net> amazed us all with the following
> >> innews:ca5f91

> > 1f-5ba0-4dc0-9785-8163bbaff...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com:

>
> >> > I'll come back to this tomorrow.

>
> >> Fine- I'll give you some more food for thought. *I promise to use
> >> small words so you don't get lost.

>
> >> > I've seen people like you gutted in the courthouse so many times. *

>
> >> No, you haven't.

>
> >> > You
> >> > must be so corrupt and so amoral you're incapable of recognizing
> >> > your own dishonesty. *

>
> >> I am one of the most honest people you;ll ever meet. *Your petty jabs
> >> won't change that.

>
> >> > Some people just lie through their teeth, just like
> >> > it's natural, like it's in their DNA and they're under an
> >> > irresistible impulse or compulsion to lie. *

>
> >> Too bad I haven't lied.

>
> >> > You're not alone. *

>
> >> I would certainly hope not.

>
> >> > People like that are
> >> > a dime a dozen. *

>
> >> If that were the case, people like you wouldn't exist in such great
> >> numbers.

>
> >> > So don't feel unique.

>
> >> I am unique in many ways.

>
> >> > First you said these lawsuits can't be won;

>
> >> Correct

>
> >> > then you switched and said
> >> > the costs of these lawsuits are passed on to the consumers

>
> >> Partially correct- the cost and ability to win or lose a lawsuit are
> >> two different things. *In no way did I Switch anything.

>
> >> > (as if that
> >> > were some kind of tragedy, which it isn't because it's just not
> >> > true);

>
> >> It's not true? *How do you think the settlements are paid?

>
> >> > then you switched again and said that losing the lawsuits cause no
> >> > harm to the companies;

>
> >> Actually, I never said anything like that.

>
> >> > and then you fumed that settlements are not
> >> > wins. *

>
> >> They are not. *The settlement ALWAYS comes with no admission of
> >> guilt.

> > *
> >> I thought you said you had experience with this stuff?

>
> > LOL! *You don't understand the reason for that, do you, Bobbie, you
> > lilliputian?

>
> > Legal white lies abound in these lawsuits, Bobbie. *That's because if
> > the shamed and discredited corporations admitted guilt, although they
> > admit to guilt by settling, the admission can't be used against them
> > by a crusading attorney general who wants to hang them out to dry in
> > the criminal courts.

>
> > By the time the Enron scandal was exposed, nobody could get paid and
> > everybody got fleeced, and so Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling got thrown
> > into prison to rot.

>
> > And until they got tagged, just like you they held their heads high
> > and self-righteously claimed to be honorable men.

>
> >> > The hell they ain't. *A lawyer would ten times rather settle
> >> > than litigate. *When he settles he's won and won big. *He collects

> > for
> >> > his clients and a fat attorney fee for his own wallet without
> >> > having to run it by a jury and deal with the judge and all the
> >> > stresses of litigation, and then risk having to go up on appeal to
> >> > the appellate courts and have his win reversed and remanded for
> >> > more litigation. *O

> > r
> >> > a goose egg.

>
> >> Too bad the lawyers don't determine guilt. *Judges and juries do. *Bu

> > t I
> >> find your words interesting- you appear to have more compassion for
> >> the lawyers than those they represent. *You are a perfect example of
> >> why th

> > e
> >> tort system in this country is so horribly broke (sic).

>
> > Bobbie, I'm enjoying watching you weave a tangled web of deceit. *When
> > a corporation like Sprint or VZW settles a class action suit for
> > unfair and deceptive trade practices, *the whole country is aware of
> > their guilt. *They have a scarlet letter tattooed on them. *They have
> > admitted guilt to the whole world. *They have been shamed and
> > disgraced. *Only condition is they can't be tagged in criminal court
> > with the admission. *

>
> And yet they thrive. *How is that?
>
> > Ever heard of the 5th Amendment, my little
> > scoundrel? *It's a little like a nolo contendere in criminal court
> > where the crook defendant pleads "no contest." and then his plea
> > cannot be used as an admission against him in another court, say,
> > where he might have his pants sued off him otherwise in tort.

>
> > Sure I have compassion for plaintiffs' lawyers, but the clients come
> > first. *Especially those that have had their bills "crammed" with
> > false charges for merchandise they did not buy.

>
> If the clients come first, why do they usually end up with a $25 gift
> card while the lawyers rake in millions?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > And the deterrent effect on the rogue corporation is nothing short of
> > phenomenal.

>
> > Here's something else about the way this decadent system works. *You
> > don't pay a bill which is "crammed," then the crammer threatens to
> > smear your credit, and their toadies and cronies at Equifax,
> > Transunion, and Experian are standing by to blacken your good name and
> > extort you into paying a debt which you don't owe.

>
> > Same as highway robbery. *And there's hardly a working class or middle
> > class person in the country who's not been stung to the quick by it,
> > and angry.

>
> > Speaking of the big three whores of corruption whose names I just
> > typed and sullied my screen with, they are in for a big rash of class
> > actions, and attorney generals taking them to grand juries, and head-
> > rollings as soon as this Administration, this Congress, and the courts
> > get them by their scruffy necks and haul them before the bar of
> > justice.

>
> > So if any of those areas of unsavory intercourse are where you have
> > your grubstakes, Bobbie, you're in for a rough ride.

[snip one of Bobbie's countless infantile ad hominems]

Yawn. Nice try. Class actions are unique lawsuits where plaintiffs
are such a large class the damages are in the millions, often
billions, but each member of the class has suffered a small loss due
to an unsavory act of the defendant. The attorneys have their work
to do, but scoundrels like you who consider every lawsuit frivolous
don't believe they should be paid. Class actions have that deterrent
wave effect that strikes fear in the hearts of moral failures such as
yourself.

The lawyers act as private attorneys general to redress certain
grievances of society. Judges approve of the fees. If you don't like
it, take action to remove the judges.

Meanwhile, live with it! The tide is turning in their favor, and
against yours, poor baybeeeeee.

Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2009, 12:13 AM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 27, 8:16*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
> following innews:I7bJl.56769$g%5.10697@newsfe23.iad:

[...]
> > Yeah, but from the class-action attorney's viewpoint, a settlement is as
> > good or better than a win. *They still get a payday without the hassle of
> > convincing the court their ridiculous claim is valid.


Myth.
>
> > Unfortunately, businesses find the nuisance of paying off the attorney
> > extorting them and then handing out a few million coupons to their
> > customers that'll never be redeemed, cheaper than winning in court.


Myth, coupled with a light-loafered teenager's strawman argument.
>
> Exactly- something that the little troll can't seem to get his little brain
> around.


Myth, coupled with childish tantrum ad hominem argumentum.

Can any of you provide detals of such far-out class action
settlements? LOL. I didn't think so. You've all had too much to
drink and fed too much on each other's hysteria and paranoid
delusions. Sober up, take an anti-psychotic, a nap, and try later.


Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2009, 12:16 AM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 27, 8:16*pm, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
> following innews:I7bJl.56769$g%5.10697@newsfe23.iad:
>
>
>
>
>
> > At 26 Apr 2009 22:47:12 +0000 The Bob wrote:

>
> >> > "Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this *[i. e.,class action
> >> > against Sprint for unauthorized mobile content fees] has been
> >> > successful to date.
> >> > It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website."

>
> >> And I was right- not a single cellular company has been proven guilty

> > in a
> >> court of law in any of the lawsuits. *I realize you are too poorly

> > educated
> >> to know this.


These are not criminal actions. They are civil in nature and sound in
tort. No one gets found guilty in a tort case; tagged defendants pay
for their misdeeds.

Common law of tort goes back over 200 years to the law of England.
Get used to it. It's here to stay.

Always happy to school you poor uneducated dullards in the law.


Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2009, 12:22 AM
jl
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Unauthorized 3rd Party Billings By Sprint?

On Apr 27, 10:38*pm, Todd Allcock <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com>
wrote:
> At 28 Apr 2009 00:16:04 +0000 The Bob wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> > "Problem is, not a single lawsuit like this *[i. e.,class action
> > >> > against Sprint for unauthorized mobile content fees] has been
> > >> > successful to date.
> > >> > It's akin to suing your ISP because of the charges from a website."

>
> > >> And I was right- not a single cellular company has been proven guilty
> > > in a
> > >> court of law in any of the lawsuits. *I realize you are too poorly
> > > educated
> > >> to know this.

>
> > > Yeah, but from the class-action attorney's viewpoint, a settlement is
> > > asgood or better than a win. *They still get a payday without the
> > > hassle of convincing the court their ridiculous claim is valid.

>
> > > Unfortunately, businesses find the nuisance of paying off the attorney
> > > extorting them and then handing out a few million coupons to their
> > > customers that'll never be redeemed, cheaper than winning in court.

>
> > Exactly- something that the little troll can't seem to get his little
> > brain around.

>
> Oh, he can, but wouldn't admit it because it conflicts with his
> "corporations are evil/poor consumers need protection from their own
> stupidity" posturing.
>
> You said it more elegantly than I, but _knowledge_ is the only protection
> consumers usually need.
>
> I'm not anti-class action- it's an effective tool against REAL corporate
> malfeasance, like illegal dumping of hazardous waste, or intentionally
> releasing a dangerous product because the cost of safety modifications
> are more expensive than the cost of settling lawsuits from resulting
> injuries, but like most of the tort system, it's been exploited and
> abused by clowns using it for penny-ante sh*t it was never intended for.


More irrational raving without any details whatever. Where are all
these class action lawsuits for "penny-ante sh*t it was never intended
for?"

Name one. You won't, of course.

So you're saying the judges constantly defeat the intent of
Congress? That's funny as hell to me who knows the Supreme Court has
been packed with business-friendly conservatives who bend over
backwards to misconstrue acts of Congress in favor of big business.

I hear it's better for types like you in Dubai. Move there. The
business climate will be more to your liking.


Reply With Quote
Reply


« Jailbreaking iPhone could pose threat to national security, Appleclaims | Can not login to sprint.com »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Bye-Bye to ATT/Cingular, and hello to Sprint High-Speed data Mij Adyaw alt.cellular.verizon 1 01-22-2007 05:48 PM
Hacking attempt? MoNk Wireless Networking Discussion 1 05-11-2005 09:21 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:55 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45