T-Mobile Slapped With FTC Lawsuit for Phony Charges
Some T-Mobile customers have paid extra fees for text-based services they didn't agree to include in their cellphone charges, and now the Federal Trade Commission is on the mobile giant's case with an inquiry and a lawsuit.
Wikimedia Commons
Wikimedia Commons
Some T-Mobile customers have paid extra fees for text-based services they didn’t agree to include in their cellphone charges, and now the Federal Trade Commission is on the mobile giant’s case with an inquiry and a lawsuit.
T-Mobile isn’t the only carrier to engage in the shady practice known as “cramming,” or surreptitiously adding services to consumers’ bills without their knowledge or permission and profiting from same. In fact, according to the FTC, the company might have made off with hundreds of millions of swindled dollars. But as the Associated Press reported Tuesday, T-Mobile’s management isn’t owning up to the charges (via Bloomberg Businessweek):
The complaint alleges that T-Mobile billed consumers for subscriptions to premium text services such as $10-per-month horoscopes or updates on celebrity gossip that were never authorized by the account holder. The FTC alleges that T-Mobile collected as much as 40 percent of the charges, even after being alerted by other customers that the subscriptions were scams.
“It’s wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent,” said FTC Chair Edith Ramirez in a statement. “The FTC’s goal is to ensure that T-Mobile repays all its customers for these crammed charges.”
In a statement, T-Mobile called the allegations “unfounded and without merit.”
“T-Mobile is fighting harder than any of the carriers to change the way the wireless industry operates, and we are disappointed that the FTC has chosen to file this action against the most pro-consumer company in the industry rather than the real bad actors,” said John Legere, the company’s CEO, in a statement.
Legere’s statement comes off a bit like the whiny kid whose bully friends put him up to stealing one cookie while they made off with the bag, but regardless, if T-Mobile is in fact “the most pro-consumer company” out there, we’d hate to see what the rest of them have been up to in comparison. Meanwhile, read your cellphone bills closely, people.
–Posted by Kasia Anderson
Wait, before you go…If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.
Support Truthdig
Environment
When companies want to add new cell phone towers, build on protected land or launch satellites, the agency typically does nothing.
Health & Wellness
Answers to the most common questions people ask about cellphone radiation.
Recent detentions of travelers to the United States—and seizure of their phones and other work-related material—have sparked alarm.
Judges ruled that police and federal authorities are free to seek the location data of cellphone users from telecommunications companies without obtaining a search warrant.
The Apple and Samsung supplier played down the job-loss aspect of the story by making it sound as though employees had been liberated to do less menial work.
The secrecy surrounding police use of these "anti-terrorism" devices in ordinary criminal investigations is a big and growing problem, ACLU experts say, one that puts some defendants at an unfair and illegal disadvantage.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.