Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,291
30,376



Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson has ordered T-Mobile to alter its new "Uncarrier" advertising strategy, calling its contract free claims "deceptive."

Alongside the launch of the iPhone 5 earlier this month, T-Mobile rolled out new rate plans, which are designed to separate device costs from service costs. To purchase a device like the iPhone 5, T-Mobile customers make a small downpayment and pay off the rest of the cost over a two-year period, while also paying for a separate service plan.

tmobile.jpg
According to Ferguson, T-Mobile has failed to clearly state that while there is no annual contract for T-Mobile subscribers, customers who cease using T-Mobile's service must pay off the remaining cost of the device.
"As Attorney General, my job is to defend consumers, ensure truth in advertising, and make sure all businesses are playing by the rules," Ferguson said. "My office identified that T-Mobile was failing to adequately disclose a critical component of their new plan to consumers, and we acted quickly to stop this practice and protect consumers across the country from harm."
As a result, Ferguson entered into a court ordered agreement with T-Mobile that will require the carrier to explicitly disclose the details of its contract free plans both through its advertisements and with employee training.
T-Mobile cooperated with the Attorney General's Office in signing an Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD) filed in King County Superior Court today. Under the AOD, the company agrees not to:

-Misrepresent consumers' obligations under its contracts, including those contracts that have not restrictions or limitations; and
-Fail to adequately disclose that customers who terminate their T-Mobile wireless service before their device is paid off will have to pay the balance due on the phone at the time of cancellation.
The agreement also requires T-Mobile to offer full refunds to customers who purchased T-Mobile service and equipment between the dates of March 26 and April 25, 2013. Subscribers who purchased phones during this time period can cancel their service plans and receive device refunds without the need to pay the remaining balance on the device.

Article Link: T-Mobile to Change 'Deceptive' No-Contract Ads, Offer Refunds
 

komodrone

macrumors 6502
Apr 26, 2011
499
0
"...but I thought I can just sign up and cancel to get a super cheap phone. T-mobile is so deceptive!"
 

needfx

Suspended
Aug 10, 2010
3,931
4,247
macrumors apparently
Can this Attorney General take over a few mobile carrier cases in Greece too?

Pretty please!

--edit
to clarify, greek carriers market & sell "Unlimited Plans" but right under they stipulate "Fair use policy applies" which actually restricts you (in minutes/sms/Gb)

So why the heck do they keep advertising as unlimited?
 
Last edited:

econgeek

macrumors 6502
Oct 8, 2009
337
0
In other words, the remnants of US West aka QWEST, got their political crony to force a competitor to make their advertising less compelling, because it was hurting sales.

Protection of consumers never entered the picture.
 

HenryDJP

Suspended
Nov 25, 2012
5,084
843
United States
I already mentioned a couple of weeks back that while T-Mobile's business plan SEEMS doable, there's always a "Gotcha". Gotta love how they misspelled OUR and wrote ARE. How much money does this company have? Weaksauce. :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2013-04-25 at 2.12.02 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2013-04-25 at 2.12.02 PM.png
    150.8 KB · Views: 852

Gasu E.

macrumors 603
Mar 20, 2004
5,029
3,145
Not far from Boston, MA.
It's good we have Attorneys General to protect idiots from themselves. Otherwise, the idiots would quickly die out, and brainy people would be forced to take your fries order.
 

TimeSquareDesi

macrumors 6502
Apr 25, 2013
443
253
I'm totes New Yorkian
T-mobile has always been run by crooks. When I told them I was switching to AT&T in a few months, TWICE they charged me some random $300 fee and they never told me what it was about. I called them up, yelled for a couple of minutes and they removed it. Such crooks.
 

ouimetnick

macrumors 68040
Aug 28, 2008
3,552
6,341
Beverly, Massachusetts
The picture with the misspelling of OUR to ARE was a leaked photo. It was discussed a few weeks back. T-Mobile corrected that mistake when they went public with everything. Not sure why MR is using old leaked material here. :rolleyes:
 

eccentricglow

macrumors member
Mar 16, 2010
88
35
T-mobile has always been run by crooks. When I told them I was switching to AT&T in a few months, TWICE they charged me some random $300 fee and they never told me what it was about. I called them up, yelled for a couple of minutes and they removed it. Such crooks.

Truth is, most/all the major carriers have acted like this at some point. The whole system is rigged.
 

swissmann

macrumors 6502a
Sep 17, 2003
797
82
The Utah Alps
Sounds to me like this Bob guy is an idiot. I understand what no contract means. It means you can move on anytime you like it does not mean free (or almost free) phone. If you move on give back the phone or buy it outright. Seemed pretty straightforward to me.
 

Applerer

macrumors newbie
Apr 11, 2013
3
0
T-mobile has always been run by crooks. When I told them I was switching to AT&T in a few months, TWICE they charged me some random $300 fee and they never told me what it was about. I called them up, yelled for a couple of minutes and they removed it. Such crooks.

Surrrrre they did. Why would you tell them you're switching in a few months? I've switched carriers a few times and never warned them in advance.

In any case, as eccentricglow points out, all the carriers are crooks.
 

Smearbrick

macrumors 6502
Jan 12, 2013
415
799
Central PA
Seems that maybe the Attorney General should be more worried about the morons who didn't understand this "obviously deceptive" plan.

Legislating to the lowest common denominator. Who doesn't love America?
 

rjohnstone

macrumors 68040
Dec 28, 2007
3,896
4,493
PHX, AZ.
In other words, the remnants of US West aka QWEST, got their political crony to force a competitor to make their advertising less compelling, because it was hurting sales.

Protection of consumers never entered the picture.
Qwest doesn't exist anymore... they were bought up two years ago.
And Qwest and T-Mobile were never direct competitors.
Qwest was landlines and T-Mobile is wireless.

Qwest did offer wireless through a partnership with Verizon.
 

mdriftmeyer

macrumors 68040
Feb 2, 2004
3,795
1,934
Pacific Northwest
In other words, the remnants of US West aka QWEST, got their political crony to force a competitor to make their advertising less compelling, because it was hurting sales.

Protection of consumers never entered the picture.

Written like a Neo-con.

Sorry, but if Clink is doing the same they will be ordered as well. This is a classic example of how come Washingon State will never go republican. We're not that dumb.

----------

Qwest doesn't exist anymore... they were bought up two years ago.
And Qwest and T-Mobile were never direct competitors.
Qwest was landlines and T-Mobile is wireless.

Qwest did offer wireless through a partnership with Verizon.

Still does, by offering DirecTV and Verizon Wireless single billing. Of course, their angle is ADSL, DirectTV is satellite and VZ is obvious.

Each working together to thwart Comcast.

Now with DISH and it's $25.2 Billion bid for Sprint/ClearWire already offered and VZ wanting to buy some of ClearWire spectrum legal wars are heating up in WA.
 

gmcalpin

macrumors 6502
Oct 2, 2008
462
74
Somerville, MA
You're signing up for a payment plan for the phone, not a cell phone service contract. If you don't buy a phone: no contract. How is that not obvious to anybody with a brain?
 

Terrin

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2011
430
1
In other words, the remnants of US West aka QWEST, got their political crony to force a competitor to make their advertising less compelling, because it was hurting sales.

Protection of consumers never entered the picture.

Bingo. The advertising was hardly deceptive. You are not required to get a phone. Nowhere in the advertising does T-Mobile even refer to you getting a phone.
 

yakapo

macrumors 6502
Jul 11, 2008
254
235
In other words, the remnants of US West aka QWEST, got their political crony to force a competitor to make their advertising less compelling, because it was hurting sales.

Protection of consumers never entered the picture.

EXACTLY. These guys don't give a rip about the consumer. If they did they wouldn't let at&t or verizon double bill customers for data then bill them for "text messaging" aka data.
 

newagemac

macrumors 68020
Mar 31, 2010
2,091
23
I'm pretty sure this was lobby money from Verizon and AT&T at work. The uncarrier campaign sure must have been hurting sales. There isn't a single person who thought you could sign up with T-Mobile and cancel the next day with a free iPhone like this AG is suggesting.

There is no contract with the wireless service. The phone isn't free. Everyone already knew that but of course this wasn't ever about "protecting the consumer" it was about protecting the big duopoly we have going on here in the U.S.

Case in point, this buffoon was no where in sight with AT&T reneging on its "unlimited" contract, blocking FaceTime for a long time, and all sorts of other real chances to protect the consumer. Of course he'll come out swinging for the AT&T lobbyists lining his pockets though.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.