iPhone User Awarded $850 in Judgment Against AT&T Over Throttling

[Johnny Steps]

Sprint is trash. Don't switch to it, you will regret it. I finally got out of that god forsaken company and got into AT&T who are INCREDIBLY better than Sprint in data speeds.

 

[ikramerica]

$85 is likely his monthly cost, and he likely has 10 months left, so the judge basically said you can now use that phone for free for the rest of the contract. That's really his only damages, so it makes sense.

Where AT&T would have trouble in a class action suit is that they are claiming that people using under 2GB are still top 5% and damaging the network, yet they freely sell 3GB plans for the same price, and don't offer anything less other than an unusable very low MB plan. So AT&T seems to be perfectly happy with most of their new customers using up to 3GB, but say that unlimited customers, using even 2GB, are both rare and damaging to the network. It's a logical disconnect, and they could get slammed by a judge over this one. Ultimately, a settlement would involve them not throttling any unlimited customer below the amount of included data on any limited plan, either 3GB or even 5GB, the next tier up (if 5GB damages AT&T, why sell it?).

 

[kdarling]

That's exactly what the law is here, if they change terms of contract in such a way that it would cost the customer more/give them less of something, then they can walk away from it without penalty.

What law is that?

From what I can tell, the main reason why most carriers include a clause allowing customers to leave without paying an ETF, is because they're following ethics rules outlined by the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. I cannot find a law that specifically requires it.

Moreover, note that each carrier gets to decide what defines an "adverse material change" (unless you take them to court). E.g. if they raise a monthly fee by a nickel, for example, they don't have to count that as a material change. Likewise, if they were to lower a fee, or all up/down changes came out to be a similar total, the change is not considered adverse.

Then there's the amount of notice. TracFone and Cricket used to just specify that any changes that appear on their websites are valid immediately... that is, they have no escape clause at all. Other carriers only give 14 days' notice. Some give 30 days. Verizon appears to be tops at giving their customers up to 60 days.

Even if you do claim a change is adverse to you, but you owe a ton of ETF, then the carrier can simply let you keep your old contract, which keeps you locked in.

 

[iMacDragon]

Talking about UK here, and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 would be the one, I believe. Or possibly the Communications Act 2003. I believe both have things to say on such contracts.

 

[H2SO4]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Perhaps it's time to file against virgin broadband. Our speed gets cut by 4 minutes after starting watching hd YouTube videos.

Should have been done ages ago. VM are terrible.

 

[djstile]

The only thing I can think of happening is the end of cellular phone contracts. Ultimately, if a cellular company can change the rules in the middle of the two year contract, then the customer should be able to leave without a fee.

They actually can. The carrier might try to fight it, but a small claims suit would also get you out of your contract if the carrier actually changed something from the original contract.

 

[Poindexter333]

$85 is likely his monthly cost, and he likely has 10 months left, so the judge basically said you can now use that phone for free for the rest of the contract. That's really his only damages, so it makes sense.

Where AT&T would have trouble in a class action suit is that they are claiming that people using under 2GB are still top 5% and damaging the network, yet they freely sell 3GB plans for the same price, and don't offer anything less other than an unusable very low MB plan. So AT&T seems to be perfectly happy with most of their new customers using up to 3GB, but say that unlimited customers, using even 2GB, are both rare and damaging to the network. It's a logical disconnect, and they could get slammed by a judge over this one. Ultimately, a settlement would involve them not throttling any unlimited customer below the amount of included data on any limited plan, either 3GB or even 5GB, the next tier up (if 5GB damages AT&T, why sell it?).

So well put! I don't think I've ever seen it presented in this way- in toto. Aspects, yes. But this is checkmate.

 

[ggoerl]

nobody needs 10gb's of data, no one. Some people are just data hogs.

 

[faroZ06]

I'm guessing this guy was using illegit tethering... Good for him! They deserve it.

----------

nobody needs 10gb's of data, no one. Some people are just data hogs.

Tethering.

 

[tido2012]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

It doesn't matter whether you think someone needs it or not. Your same argument can be applied to many things people own. No one needs a 250k car, a $400 phone, $4000 computer, 2 mil dollar house. The fact is that they sell it and people purchased an unlimited plan. My parents have a 2GB plan each and use a combined <500mb each month. I don't see AT&T offering to pay them back for the data they don't use.

 

[koolmagicguy]

how much it cost him, meaning what? I know where I live (tulsa, ok) its around 85-115 dollars to file a small claims suit. As for when it goes to court, its usually a month afterwards, you know well in advance, and can just take the day off from work if need be. As for actual monetary losses, there shouldnt be any. You dont have to have an attorney in small claims, thats the beauty of it.

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for the info!

 

[Winter Charm]

Hahaha this is what happens, AT&T, when you attempt to screw over your own customers.

Now, if every single AT&T customer files in small claims.... $850 could go a good ways to paying for that iPad 3 we should see sometime this year

AT&T, you don't regulate or handle anything between you and your customers. We, as paying customers, PAY YOUR SALARIES, and ask for good service in return. If you decide to try and screw us over, we WILL get our money back. Your opinions be damned, you brought this upon yourself.

 

[thai4life]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Just increase the monthly fee for unlimited data!! When the $30 unlimited plan was first offered back in 2007 it was more than reasonable considering the level of media/data that we had access to and that was being made available. But 5 years later the landscape has changed drastically. I don't even watch tv anymore because of the vast amount of content I can view on my phone --- anytime, anywhere. Do you realize how valuable and convenient this is?!!! Hell I'd pay at least $50/month maybe more if it would eliminate the throttling.

 

[w0by]

AT&T and their odd fees.

I don't really understand AT&T and their "Phone Upgrade Fee" of $25.00 or whatever it is. I'm paying my monthly contract, why would there be a fee to pay for a phone? Also, my friend went to add his corporate discount on his plan and they charged him a $36 discount "activation" fee. What's the point? What's wrong with this company?

 

[pesawyer]

but AT&T's subscriber contract prohibits class action or jury trials,

So if AT&T put's a clause in the contract that says you have to cut off your right arm if you are using too much data..........what then?

 

[tbrinkma]

You don't understand class actions at all. You usually make more money because lawyer fees are 10-20% of the final amount. The problem with a lot of class actions is that the actual loss to each person was so small to begin with.

No, the *real* problem with a lot of class action settlements is that the settlement consists of coupons for $X off some future purchase from the company that was being sued in the first place.

Great, they got sued for doing something underhanded/wrong, and got *rewarded* in the settlement, because anyone who takes advantage of the settlement has to send them *more* money! Seriously, how the frack does *that* get OK'd by a judge?!

----------

$85 is likely his monthly cost, and he likely has 10 months left, so the judge basically said you can now use that phone for free for the rest of the contract. That's really his only damages, so it makes sense.

Where AT&T would have trouble in a class action suit is that they are claiming that people using under 2GB are still top 5% and damaging the network, yet they freely sell 3GB plans for the same price, and don't offer anything less other than an unusable very low MB plan. So AT&T seems to be perfectly happy with most of their new customers using up to 3GB, but say that unlimited customers, using even 2GB, are both rare and damaging to the network. It's a logical disconnect, and they could get slammed by a judge over this one. Ultimately, a settlement would involve them not throttling any unlimited customer below the amount of included data on any limited plan, either 3GB or even 5GB, the next tier up (if 5GB damages AT&T, why sell it?).

Yep. Honestly, I figure that if they didn't throttle 'unlimited' accounts until *after* they passed the 3GB mark, they'd probably have gotten away with it. Personally, in their place, assuming that the top N% of people were *actually* causing bandwidth issues, I'd have made sure to never throttle someone before they were *significantly* over the top per gigabit plan's limit. (4-5GB or so) That way, they could plausibly hide behind the network protection clause. (And it's likely to piss off many fewer customers in the process.) Either that, or simply throttle 'unimited' customers to the HSDPA data rates they were getting prior to the release of the 4S with it's HSDPA+ capability. That way, people are getting what they paid for, but simply don't get the higher speeds available to the capped plans.

Of course, without knowing more about the actual details of the issues at hand, and the capabilities of their systems, I don't know if either of those 'solutions' is doable.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

I don't believe have of AT&T smartphone users are on the unlimited plan. That makes zero sense.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Hopefully AT&T will put and end to this soon. Require every unlimited user to change to a tiered plan when upgrading... PERIOD. Should have been that way for the 4s.

Yeah AT&T tried to do something nice and people abused it then sued for it. AT&T should have just ended unlimited plans and never carried them over.

I bet the guy still has to pay the etf haha and how long before he gets actual payment

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

This is nothing more than harassment by AT&T. If they really have bandwidth problems in a given local then throttling every user in that area (maybe slow each user down by one or two percent) would be how to solve this and would be seen as fair.

One group pays for all the bandwidth they use the others do not.

AT&T did the right thing. Their only mistake was not realizing 75% of those who clung to the unlimited plans were crybaby peepants

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

This is nothing more than harassment by AT&T. If they really have bandwidth problems in a given local then throttling every user in that area (maybe slow each user down by one or two percent) would be how to solve this and would be seen as fair.

Why on earth should one have to be throttled when they pay for overages?

Because some people feel it is requisite that everyone else subsidy their data costs instead of paying for their own usage.

Instead of paying for what they use or being throttled they would prefer everyone be throttled. That is the selfish and self entitled attitude we all love

 

[Smileyboy]

Is your lawyer gonna charge you more than $850? (Fail)

Nope, I gots friends.

 

[chris7777]

If data rates were gasoline , their would have been REAL rioting.

I dont get why people are so willing to just shovel money into companies such as AT&T, and the other phone companies. It is like they are paying the phone companies to rip them off. With chiminal rates.

Look at texting, which has always been almost pure profit, does anyone believe internet data is that far removed?

And of course AT&T, just raised rates. Cause they want us to pay for them to make more money from us.

 

[marksman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

If AT&T forces me out of unlimited ill be asked to be let out of my contract and go right to sprint

Sprint wont keep unlimited forever either.

The issue is not arguing to keep unlimited. Unlimited is going to go away (even on Sprint) in the near future. The real issue is to have fair pricing (and overuse policies) for tiered plans. Currently, tiered data pricing is completely out of whack. Until they figure it out, I'll stay on my unlimited for as long as I possibly can.

10 a gig is not out of whack. Thanks for making the rest of us subsidize you been a cheapskate.

 

[andrewlgm]

Did ATT just attempt to express the notion that they have a "relationship" with their costumers?

I absolutely despise ATT as a business and as service provider. $850 is nothing. Pretty much the judge handed the right for the costumer to terminate his contract without a fee. First it was the switching of users from unlimited to tiered plans due to tethering without the user's express consent, now it's the idea of throttling unlimited plans for using it in an unlimited way. When did 2G become such an extreme usage? When did 10GB become such abuse?

In my view the iPhone was not made to be a tiered device. And if I were forced to switch to a tiered plan on any network - I'd much rather give up the device for good. I'll buy a dumbed down phone any time over the constant agonizing of passing a few GBs monthly.

Instead of paying their CEOs millions yearly and abusing their costumers, they ought to be upgrading their network. But of course this is not going to change unless people are willing to complain, SUE and drop the usage of their network.

I wonder what apple would do if people gave up iPhones due to networks. I wonder...

 

[kdarling]

Apparently AT&T's subscriber agreement prohibits class action suits. not sure if that's enforceable, but it's there.

Apparently it is enforceable... depending on where you are!

In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to ensure that “private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms.”

Section 2 of the FAA states that arbitration clauses can be invalidated only for generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability.

Consequently, any state law that disfavors the enforcement of arbitration clauses is preempted by the FAA.

Ever since, the validity of arbitration clauses has been disputed many times in court. Indeed, the circuit courts and state courts are split over the enforceability of class-action waivers, which are often contained in mandatory arbitration clauses.

The First and Ninth Circuits have invalidated arbitration clauses, while others have upheld them.

Some of the states that have invalidated arbitration clauses include: California, Illinois, Missouri, and New Jersey.

Some of the states that have upheld arbitration clauses include: Louisiana, West Virginia, Florida, Arkansas, and New York.

- FairContracts.org

 

[Eriden]

AT&T did the right thing. Their only mistake was not realizing 75% of those who clung to the unlimited plans were crybaby peepants

Because some people feel it is requisite that everyone else subsidy their data costs instead of paying for their own usage.

Sounds like the real crybaby peepants is the guy who didn't jump on board with Apple & the iPhone when AT&T & Verizon were offering their unlimited plans.

You do realize that you can still get an unlimited plan with Sprint, right? Or would your conscience bother you, thinking that other Sprint smartphone users were going to subsidize your plan?

 

[pdr13]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Associated Press reports that an iPhone user in California has been awarded $850 in a small claims lawsuit filed against AT&T over throttling of data speeds. The user, who was on a grandfathered unlimited data plan, saw his data speeds drastically slashed once he reached 1.5-2 GB in a given month, even as other users on limited 3 GB plans at the same price see no similar restrictions at those levels.There is no word yet on whether AT&T will appeal the decision, but the sales manager representing AT&T in the case has argued that the carrier reserved the right to "modify or cancel" or cancel customer contracts if their usage is adversely affecting the company's network capabilities. The article notes that a class action suit might be the normal evolution of such a complaint, but AT&T's subscriber contract prohibits class action or jury trials, leaving arbitration and small claims as the options.

Image


AT&T began throttling unlimited data customers ranking in the top 5% of data users last October. But while early reports of throttling came mostly from high-volume users consuming in excess of 10 GB of data per month, reports of users being throttled at much lower levels in the neighborhood of 2 GB have been increasing. AT&T notes that the throttling is done on a case-by-case basis and only if there are network capacity issues in the customer's area, but for those who are affected, the throttled speeds are slow enough to make their devices nearly unusable.

Update: AT&T issued this statement to MacRumors: "This is a small claims matter. We are evaluating next steps, including appeal. But at the end of the day, our contract governs our relationship with our customers."

Article Link: iPhone User Awarded $850 in Judgment Against AT&T Over Throttling

It is a SMALL claims matter with HUGE financial implications. The legal precedent has now been set. Do you think that the attorneys for AT&T will be working late nights in the coming weeks?

 

[frogger2020]

Yes I know it can be enforced but a company lke AT&T isn't worried about it. The only way I have found to get these large corporations to pay in any timely fashion is after the small claims ruling you have to go to a real lawyer. With a good lawyer $850 won't get you very far.

Please stop, you are sounding more ignorant with every post