FTC Sues AT&T Over 'Misleading' Unlimited Data Throttling Practices [Updated]

[bradl]

But AT&T didn't limit us to a reasonable range of service. They could have said something like, no more than an lifetime average of 30GB per month, but they didn't. They said the equivalent of "unlimited mileage up to 25 miles per day and then we'll switch you to a bicycle that you're free to ride as far as you can."

And yet they never limited you to how far you can go. That is your telling lack.

BL.

 

[macwh0re]

The time element is key here. For years and years, I paid to retain this Plan because of the assurances that it would be valuable at some point in the future.

I had no way of reasonably knowing it was a throttled plan (why don't they just call it the Throttled Plan instead of the Unlimited Plan?) until a couple of months ago when I received a text message warning me that I was reaching my data limit.

The conversations with the reps, me asking why anyone in their right mind would want the Unlimited Plan were (obviously) asked after I found out that "Unlimited" was a purposely deceptive misnomer. And, even then, several reps cautioned me about losing my Unlimited Plan forever if I switched to a less expensive plan. It was at that point that I brought up the unanswerable question, "Why should I care if I lose it?"

Exactly, the "warning" is purposely designed to communicate that the Unlimited Plan is valuable and shouldn't be given up without a fight. The truth is that the Unlimited Plan is neither scarce nor valuable and is actually a rotten deal for the consumer.

Year after year (our two phones renew at different times) I talked to various reps and they all offered roughly the same advice. "Do not give up your Unlimited Plan because some day you will be very glad to have unlimited data." and "Even if you aren't using much data now, the best choice for you is to hold onto your Unlimited Plan, because there will come a time when you will be using a lot of data and you won't want to have to worry about having your data limited by the plan."

I had an agreement with AT&T that included a written contract as well as verbal assurances and reliances. At a reasonable level of due diligence, the terms appeared crystal clear but, in fact, there was contradictory language used throughout the agreement.

I'm not trying to get away with something. I paid about between $20 and $70 more per month than I would have if I had known that I wasn't actually getting a grandfathered unlimited data plan. Just as an example, if it's $50/mo over 8 years, that's $4,000 in exchange for a false promise.

Considering your only option for data was unlimited until 2010, I'd say your math is a little off. Also, you're your own person. You are allowed to make your own decisions regardless of what people recommend you do. It's unfortunate to be in your situation however, a little homework before your next contractual agreement (at at&t or elsewhere) would be a great benefit to you so you don't run into a similar situation that you are in now.

 

[ktuck]

And yet they never limited you to how far you can go. That is your telling lack.

BL.

My agreement with AT&T included an understanding of the terms "Unlimited" and "Grandfathered" that were reasonable, and repeatedly and continually fostered by AT&T's representatives.

I suffered damages, in the form of over-paying, because AT&T did not fulfill their responsibilities under the agreement.

You might argue that my understanding of the term "Unlimited" was not reasonable. That's not true.

You might argue that our agreement consists solely of the written verbage in AT&T's contract. That's not true.

You might argue that "every carrier does it this way" or that "other customers put up with it". Those statements are both untrue and irrelevant.

You might argue that you're tired of thinking about this because it makes your head hurt. I would believe that statement.

 

[bradl]

My agreement with AT&T included an understanding of the terms "Unlimited" and "Grandfathered" that were reasonable, and repeatedly and continually fostered by AT&T's representatives.

I suffered damages, in the form of over-paying, because AT&T did not fulfill their responsibilities under the agreement.

You might argue that my understanding of the term "Unlimited" was not reasonable. That's not true.

You might argue that our agreement consists solely of the written verbage in AT&T's contract. That's not true.

You might argue that "every carrier does it this way" or that "other customers put up with it". Those statements are both untrue and irrelevant.

You might argue that you're tired of thinking about this because it makes your head hurt. I would believe that statement.

How did you overpay? Your bill, like mine, would have been consistently the same month after month. Mine has been, and I've been on a grandfathered UDP since 2008 (with my iPhone 3G up to present-day).

BL.

 

[ktuck]

Considering your only option for data was unlimited until 2010, I'd say your math is a little off.

I had the option to switch carriers (unless you're saying that AT&T actually is a monopoly and I only had one real choice). I didn't switch carriers because I was advised to hang on to that precious Unlimited Data Plan.

Also, you're your own person. You are allowed to make your own decisions regardless of what people recommend you do. ...

As much as I appreciate the free life coaching session, this boils down to a simple contractual dispute based on detrimental reliance. It's no big deal, but there is some money on the table. Here's a life lesson for you: Take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.

----------

How did you overpay?...

Reasonable question.

I could have switched to another plan/carrier that more closely matched my immediate data needs. Other plans were significantly cheaper. I didn't switch, because of AT&T's promise that by retaining this fairly expensive plan, I would have unlimited data in the future, when I would need it.

That "future" came to me last month, when I found out that I didn't have the unlimited data that I had been paying for all these years.

 

[macwh0re]

I had the option to switch carriers (unless you're saying that AT&T actually is a monopoly and I only had one real choice). I didn't switch carriers because I was advised to hang on to that precious Unlimited Data Plan.

As much as I appreciate the free life coaching session, this boils down to a simple contractual dispute based on detrimental reliance. It's no big deal, but there is some money on the table. Here's a life lesson for you: Take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.

----------

Reasonable question.

I could have switched to another plan/carrier that more closely matched my immediate data needs. Other plans were significantly cheaper. I didn't switch, because of AT&T's promise that by retaining this fairly expensive plan, I would have unlimited data in the future, when I would need it.

That "future" came to me last month, when I found out that I didn't have the unlimited data that I had been paying for all these years.

I don't understand...At what point were you forced to keep paying for this unlimited plan when you no longer needed it? Tiered plans came out in 2010 and it was widely known that users of unlimited plans would receive reduced speeds at a certain point. Here we are 4 years later and you are playing victim. Unfortunately for you, you're a victim to your own ignorance.

 

[McDaddio]

I had an agreement with AT&T that included a written contract as well as verbal assurances and reliances. At a reasonable level of due diligence, the terms appeared crystal clear but, in fact, there was contradictory language used throughout the agreement.

The "verbal agreement" never said that you will have unlimited bandwidth.
They said it is "valuable", so what? That is nothing that contradicts what is in the written agreement.
Besides, old saying, a verbal agreement is worth the paper it is printed on.

If you have contradictory language in your agreements, you may want to send that to the FCC. It seems that they haven't been able to find any.

I also had the plan up until 2 weeks ago, and I knew since 2012 that it was throttled and I only kept it because I hoped it would change, not because I felt entitled to something I didn't buy.

----------

You might argue that my understanding of the term "Unlimited" was not reasonable. That's not true.

Yes it is true.
They specifically defined unlimited - e.g. no overages charges for using a lot of data.
You got that confused with unlimited data and unlimited bandwidth.

You might argue that our agreement consists solely of the written verbage in AT&T's contract. That's not true.

Yes it is, unless you have another contract with AT&T.
Saying someone said your plan is "valuable" does not in any way (a) represent a contract (b) have an "agreement and consideration" weight of a contract, written or verbal. It is marketing talk and the courts have consistently ruled on that.

 

[bradl]

Reasonable question.

I could have switched to another plan/carrier that more closely matched my immediate data needs. Other plans were significantly cheaper. I didn't switch, because of AT&T's promise that by retaining this fairly expensive plan, I would have unlimited data in the future, when I would need it.

That "future" came to me last month, when I found out that I didn't have the unlimited data that I had been paying for all these years.

ATT didn't lose you money. You lost money because you made the active choice to stay with ATT and their grandfathered plan. That was your choice, not theirs.

And BTW: You still have unlimited data. Nothing of that has changed.

BL.

 

[figaro331]

I think you are working for AT&T or have a relative working there>

I think you don't understand that they NEVER offered unrestricted bandwidth.
You are just making stuff up.

I do not think you possess any understanding according to your statement..

"Unlimited data" does not equal 5GB of data ! And "yes"- unrestricted bandwidth associated with unlimited data in that case! That's why not you, nor some other defenders of AT&T, but FTC as a valued organization filed the suit against the deceptive tactics used by AT&T toward its customers !
And,listen, your sentiment didn't touch me a bit, I'm confident in my skills and expertise in computers and networking.

 

[SoAnyway]

They realized that data speeds would be what they are today and the demand for smartphones was going to be high. They did the RIGHT thing but ending it soon and letting folks keep it if they wanted. The problem is the entitlement mentality of folks is outrageous. Be glad you got it for as long as you did. Now that they bring the lawyers in on it, I suspect AT&T will drop it completely and people lose the good thing they had.

The lawsuit is a complete joke and has no merit. AT&T could have canceled anyone at anytime and AT&T has LONG BEEN NOTIFYING people of the throttling. Frivolous lawsuit, PERIOD!

As far as entitlement goes, do I feel entitled? I do and I'll tell you why. It's because I PAY AT&T for unlimited data. When I pay for something, I EXPECT TO GET WHAT I PAY FOR. That's entitlement for you.

Look, when I got my original iPhone in 2007, AT&T made a deal with me to provide unlimited data with comparable speed and all I had to do was fulfill my end of that contract by paying them monthly. Between then and now, they broke their end of the deal by throttling when that's not what we agreed on. So at this point, I'm glad to see them facing some consequences for breaking their agreement with customers like me.

I can guarantee you that I have taken more law classes and know the law better than you. What's frivolous is the fact that telecoms like AT&T have these unconscionable (that's a legal term for you so look it up) contracts that lock in customers to their shady practices and have gotten away with it. It's about damn time that the regulators come in and put them in their place.

 

[macwh0re]

As far as entitlement goes, do I feel entitled? I do and I'll tell you why. It's because I PAY AT&T for unlimited data. When I pay for something, I EXPECT TO GET WHAT I PAY FOR. That's entitlement for you.

Look, when I got my original iPhone in 2007, AT&T made a deal with me to provide unlimited data with comparable speed and all I had to do was fulfill my end of that contract by paying them monthly. Between then and now, they broke their end of the deal by throttling when that's not what we agreed on. So at this point, I'm glad to see them facing some consequences for breaking their agreement with customers like me.

I can guarantee you that I have taken more law classes and know the law better than you. What's frivolous is the fact that telecoms like AT&T have these unconscionable (that's a legal term for you so look it up) contracts that lock in customers to their shady practices and have gotten away with it. It's about damn time that the regulators come in and put them in their place.

Their end of the deal changed in 2010. The terms you have agreed to since then reflect this change. You have had over 4 years to find a suitable replacement if they didn't meet your needs.

 

[SoAnyway]

Their end of the deal changed in 2010. The terms you have agreed to since then reflect this change. You have had over 4 years to find a suitable replacement if they didn't meet your needs.

There is no freedom of choice when the only choice back in 2010 was to stick with them or go to Verizon at the time.

Sprint came along in early 2012 but their networked sucked so I was stuck with AT&T.

I bought an iPhone 5 in October 2012 with my grandfathered unlimited plan and got locked into a 2 year contract.

T-Mobile got the iPhone in early 2013, while I was still on contract.

Now that my contract is done, I'm jumping over to T-Mobile.

After laying it all out, when exactly did I have the chance to get a suitable replacement provider? Maybe earlier this year when T-Mobile offered to buy people out of their current contract? Of course, I needed to sell my current phone and start a new 2 year contract with them, which I didn't want to.

Simplicity, isn't that simple.

 

[Z400Racer37]

My personal quote back to you. You need to read why they are suing and not what you claim is on the contract when we signed. And lastly, That **** was not in the contract when I signed up. Gets your facts straight man! FTC is suing because of "OVER MISLEADING UNLIMITED DATA THROTTLING PRACTICES!" Its obvious if the FTC is suing, its because they've done there home work on what the contract states and whats contradicting to the facts.

1. It was in mine so I don't know what contract you got.

2. Even if you want to operate under the assumption that it was not in the contract, that does not mean that by omitting their ability to throttle your data, that they have therefore bound themselves to providing you the data you want at the maximum speed possible. They had the obligation to provide you with the data. Which they did. Unless you were malicious to their network, in which case they terminated your contract, which they also reserve the right to do, even to this day.

That's a legal opinion that would usually be considered untrue.

Your perceptions are not my responsibility. My words, in their denoted context, are my responsibility. Just because people chose to perceive things that weren't there, does not mean that erroneous calculation is my responsibility. I don't care what idiot judges, however many of them there are, disagree with that.

That's not how it works. You can't plaster "unlimited" all over your marketing and have fine print that effects the exact opposite for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

They can plaster whatever they want on their advertisements. They didn't give you the exact opposite, they gave you unlimited, just slower than you would have liked. You don't like it? Oh well, better go somewhere else. Nowhere else is better? Thank AT&T for giving you the best service available.

If you are as big as AT&T you also can't just put whatever you want in a contract and have it accepted by the courts.

I'm not telling you how I think it should be, I'm explaining how it is. That there are nuances considered by the courts at these levels. And that contracts are rarely evaluated just on the basis of "well you signed it, so f off". I think you have an idealized notion of personal responsibility and non-governmental interference here that simply is not the philosophy by which these interactions are judged at the present time.

By no means am I suggesting that our legal system at the present time should be the benchmark for moral contract law. If I put something into a contract, and you agree to the terms and sign it, that contract should, and in a moral system, would be valid, so long as the terms of that contract don't violate the individual rights of other people in the world, or the civil rights of the people living within our borders. That's the standard of morality, and that's the standard by which these laws should be upheld. Any deviation from that is immoral, and attention should be called to it when it happens. What's wrong with ideal? It can't get better than ideal right?

 

[firewood]

Look, when I got my original iPhone in 2007, AT&T made a deal with me to provide unlimited data with comparable speed...

And comparable speed in 2007 was 2G speed on an overloaded network. You could use as much as your wanted at that speed. Thus you are currently actually getting more than AT&T offered in 2007 due to a boost to 3G and LTE speed being available in certain areas for your first couple GB per month.

Why complain about that bonus?

 

[Bryan Bowler]

Man, what's really shocking is how many people on here have bleeding hearts for AT&T. Never in a million years would I have thought there would be so many people defending a cell phone company and doing so with such passion and vigor.

Bryan

 

[McDaddio]

"Unlimited data" does not equal 5GB of data ! And "yes"- unrestricted bandwidth associated with unlimited data in that case! That's why not you, nor some other defenders of AT&T, but FTC as a valued organization filed the suit against the deceptive tactics used by AT&T toward its customers !
And,listen, your sentiment didn't touch me a bit, I'm confident in my skills and expertise in computers and networking.

You should not be so confident in your computer skills if you are equating data with bandwidth.

Also, you should not be so confident of understanding what users get if you are saying they have a limit of 5GB. I had the plan and did 7-9GB in some months after getting throttled.

 

[Peter K.]

Man, what's really shocking is how many people on here have bleeding hearts for AT&T. Never in a million years would I have thought there would be so many people defending a cell phone company and doing so with such passion and vigor.

Bryan

I totally agree; it doesn't make sense to me, either.

P.S. - Despite this FTC lawsuit, I just switched over to the 40 GB (20 GB, doubled) MSVP. I will be saving $70 per month; it is just too good a deal to pass up. I have two iPhones, an iPad, and a MiFi "hotspot" on my account.

 

[macwh0re]

There is no freedom of choice when the only choice back in 2010 was to stick with them or go to Verizon at the time.

Sprint came along in early 2012 but their networked sucked so I was stuck with AT&T.

I bought an iPhone 5 in October 2012 with my grandfathered unlimited plan and got locked into a 2 year contract.

T-Mobile got the iPhone in early 2013, while I was still on contract.

Now that my contract is done, I'm jumping over to T-Mobile.

After laying it all out, when exactly did I have the chance to get a suitable replacement provider? Maybe earlier this year when T-Mobile offered to buy people out of their current contract? Of course, I needed to sell my current phone and start a new 2 year contract with them, which I didn't want to.

Simplicity, isn't that simple.

I see lots of choices. Are they all ideal, absolutely not...It was your choice to pick the iPhone. It was your choice to sign a contract because it was your choice to purchase a phone with a discount. It was your choice to use it on at&t, in which you agreed to their terms which included verbiage around reduced speeds on unlimited plans. Pretty simple to me.

 

[skratch77]

I hope they put stronger language on the next mega block bid for 600 re-frame to prevent all this traffic shaping to increase profits and require them to be fully transparent with capacity.

I see this as a we have low capacity see we had to throttle people give us a better stake of the next auction. Then they moved to tiered family data and showed there hand thanks to t-mobile. There is plenty of capacity they are just being greedy and have been caught telling half truths to the FCC and the FTC.

I say good riddance to ATT and Verizon a pox on both there houses. Sadly i am a Verizon customer i have no choice.

When will google or apple buy one of these and destabilize this industry fully.

Verizon is worth 210 billion

 

[ktuck]

Out of all that, only one point worthy of a response.

... They said it is "valuable", so what?

The "so what" is that they said it was valuable..... (wait for it).... because someday there would be heavy demand for data and the only way to insure unlimited low-cost data was to continually renew the Unlimited Data Plan.

Only in third-world countries can company representatives get away with blatantly misstating the nature of the product.

 

[rkuo]

They can plaster whatever they want on their advertisements. They didn't give you the exact opposite, they gave you unlimited, just slower than you would have liked. You don't like it? Oh well, better go somewhere else. Nowhere else is better? Thank AT&T for giving you the best service available.

Oh right, so yes, they can do that, and they can also be sued for it according to U.S. law and stand a good chance of losing the case.

Get it through your head. Consumers contracts don't work on "gotchas". You are not allowed to screw someone over completely in the fine print. You can keep repeating your "take it or leave it" talking points over and over again, and you'll still be just as wrong the hundredth time over.

 

[macwh0re]

Out of all that, only one point worthy of a response. The "so what" is that they said it was valuable..... (wait for it).... because someday there would be heavy demand for data and the only way to insure unlimited low-cost data was to continually renew the Unlimited Data Plan.

Only in third-world countries can company representatives get away with blatantly misstating the nature of the product.

You are basing your argument on the opinion of a sales consultant. Let that sink in.

 

[rkuo]

I see lots of choices. Are they all ideal, absolutely not...It was your choice to pick the iPhone. It was your choice to sign a contract because it was your choice to purchase a phone with a discount. It was your choice to use it on at&t, in which you agreed to their terms which included verbiage around reduced speeds on unlimited plans. Pretty simple to me.

It's only simple to you because you don't understand the nuances on which these issues will be argued.

The FTC will argue things such as:

1. AT&T is too large for certain types of consumer hostile language or practices to be reasonable in their contracts.
2. The primary marketing and representation of the unlimited plan to customers substantially contradicts the subsequent practices implemented by AT&T and any of the fine print in the contracts.
3. The congestion control placed on unlimited customers was purely profit seeking and not based on any sort of necessity.

etc. etc.

You think at&t's language in the contract gives them an out on this. It does not.

 

[figaro331]

Where did you learn your English ?

You should not be so confident in your computer skills if you are equating data with bandwidth.

Also, you should not be so confident of understanding what users get if you are saying they have a limit of 5GB. I had the plan and did 7-9GB in some months after getting throttled.

Where did you learn English language ? " Associated " does not mean "equated", make a note of it !

 

[ktuck]

You are basing your argument on the opinion of a sales consultant. Let that sink in.

And the FTC is suing AT&T because it's Unlimited Plan customers were deceived. A lawsuit of this type and magnitude doesn't happen every day. Let that sink in.

The FTC doesn't cry foul over minor exaggerations or misrepresentations. "“AT&T promised its customers ‘unlimited’ data, and in many instances, it has failed to deliver on that promise,” said (FTC Chairwoman) Ramirez in a statement. “The issue here is simple: ‘unlimited’ means unlimited.”

She said that the FTC was seeking financial damages that could result in money being repaid to AT&T customers affected by the company’s policy of throttling. The suit, which was approved by the five-member commission in a unanimous vote, was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco."

It seems that there are a few people on this forum who are basing their arguments on the opinion of their minimum-wage boiler-room cohorts, who were likely instructed by their managers to say anything that lands the sale, and let the customer watch out for themselves.