AT&T To Cough Up $88 Million For 'Cramming' Mobile Customer Bills (networkworld.com) 37
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Network World: Some 2.7 million ATT customers will share $88 million in compensation for having had unauthorized third-party charges added to their mobile bills, the Federal Trade Commission announced this morning. The latest shot in the federal government's years-long battle against such abuses, these refunds will represent the most money ever recouped by victims of what is known as "mobile cramming," according to the FTC. From an FTC press release: "Through the FTC's refund program, nearly 2.5 million current ATT customers will receive a credit on their bill within the next 75 days, and more than 300,000 former customers will receive a check. The average refund amount is $31. [...] According to the FTC's complaint, ATT placed unauthorized third-party charges on its customers' phone bills, usually in amounts of $9.99 per month, for ringtones and text message subscriptions containing love tips, horoscopes, and 'fun facts.' The FTC alleged that ATT kept at least 35 percent of the charges it imposed on its customers." The matter with ATT was originally made public in 2014 and also involved two companies that actually applied the unauthorized charges, Tatto and Acquinity.
Why is nobody going to jail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is nobody going to jail? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah we didn't think so...
Re: (Score:2)
...I mean shit, the article says the FTC 'release a report with measures the carriers could take to prevent unauthorized charges from appearing on customers bills'...SERIOUSLY...here's a simple measure DO NOT BILL FOR SERVICES THE CUSTOMER DIDN'T ASK FOR & YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE! If AT&T isn't providing the service & I didn't order it from them then why are they charging me ANYTHING. Just fine them the $20B & I guarantee you every carrier on the planet will figure out for themselves how to make sure this never happens again, no advice from the FTC needed.
I came here to say that the figure should be $880 million instead of the chump-change fine levied by the FTC. But I like your approach much better. Even a billion is only a (slightly steep) COB for a company like AT&T, but 20 gigabucks would seriously get their attention. The fact that agencies like the FTC don't levy meaningful fines is just more evidence of the ever-increasing levels of control that corporations exert over the government.
Even at that, the situation might be better if Joe and Jane Aver
Re: (Score:2)
"The fact that agencies like the FTC don't levy meaningful fines is just more evidence of the ever-increasing levels of control that corporations exert over the government."
Nice to see see people are finally waking up to this simple truth.
We're just Cybernetic implants away from cyberpunk....
Finally... (Score:1)
"Can you hear me NOW?" says FCC to AT&T.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean FTC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is peanuts. Assuming they hit each consumer for $9.99/mo. and 2.7M victims, that $88M would be collected in 4 months. They did this for years. Maybe decades. How is this punishment? There needs to be a couple of zeros added on to the end of that fine.
Back of th envelope calculations show the lawyers collecting some 58 million, leaving 30 million for the victims, whichcomes out to an earth shattering 11 dollars per victim.
So ATT users, you gonna open up an offshore account with your newly gained wealth?
Re: (Score:2)
"Can you hear me NOW?" says FCC to AT&T.
AT&T: "What was that? We can't hear shit cuz we're stuck in this giant room stuffed full of Cleveland Notes ($1,000 bills) above our ears!"
Theft by another name.. (Score:4, Interesting)
When will we start cracking down and throwing some CEO's in prison for theft for these sorts of practices? Instead they get to walk away with a declaration of no guilt, write off the payback and go on about their business: figuring out the next scam.
Re: (Score:2)
When will we start cracking down and throwing some CEO's in prison for theft for these sorts of practices? Instead they get to walk away with a declaration of no guilt, write off the payback and go on about their business: figuring out the next scam.
Um, I believe that this situation is not heading in the direction you want it to go.
Re: (Score:3)
He does make a good point though. Holding the corporation liable for outright criminal action, but not the individuals who actually give the order, means there is little reason not to take the risk and break the law. If the executive doesn't get caught, they make a ton of money for the company and can enjoy the resulting bonuses and personal wealth. If they do get caught, no big deal - the company pays a fine (which is often less than the money gained by the criminal action) and they carry on working.
It als
Re: (Score:2)
He does make a good point though. Holding the corporation liable for outright criminal action, but not the individuals who actually give the order, means there is little reason not to take the risk and break the law.
I find myself in the cynical position of agreeing with both of you, yet understanding that the situation has become much worse for the idea of holding the "gods of the universe" in any way accountable. It isn't a fine, it's a cost of doing business. An expense against profit.
And with the encouragement we've given them recently, with a whacked-ass stunt of a company threatening to move 2000 jobs overseas, and gets a nice tax break for "only" moving over half of them overseas and keeping 800 some here in th
Re: (Score:2)
When will we start cracking down and throwing some CEO's in prison for theft for these sorts of practices? Instead they get to walk away with a declaration of no guilt, write off the payback and go on about their business: figuring out the next scam.
That is expressly why they invented limited liability companies. Its not just to protect investors from financial mistakes, but to protect the perpetrators from legal ones.
It must be nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not quite as good as impunity; but perhaps an even better mockery of the perception of 'justice', since the whole process gets to play out as a pitiful farce, rather than just being ignored.
Incidentally, why is it that, given the American propensity for a good spree killing, you never hear about unpleasant things happening to the people behind schemes like this? Occasionally somebody shoots up their workplace and kills an immediate supervisor or the like; but nobody ever seems to go any higher up the food chain.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, why is it that, given the American propensity for a good spree killing, you never hear about unpleasant things happening to the people behind schemes like this? Occasionally somebody shoots up their workplace and kills an immediate supervisor or the like; but nobody ever seems to go any higher up the food chain.
Because those large corporations are wide-spread and the worker bees that are disgruntled are working in a shed out in the boonies... far removed from the HQ ivory tower with all the C-Men making 7 digits. Though Undercover Boss would get a lot more interesting if it turned into a murder-mystery reality show.
Profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Make $196m illegally. Pay $88m fine. That's $88m profit. What's the incentive to stop doing these things again?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Make $196m illegally. Pay $88m fine. That's $88m profit. What's the incentive to stop doing these things again?
About 25 years ago, I moved from one city to another in search of work and continued to collect unemployment insurance for about 3 months longer than I was entitled while I got my feet under me - my first and only ever violation and I've never been on unemployment or welfare since.
About 2 years later, the gubmint caught up with me. First was full repayment, then a fine assessed at FIVE times the gross amount I "stole" AND a stipulation that any unemployment payments I were to receive in the next 3 years wou
Forget fines (Score:1)
88 million is chicken feed (Score:1)
Old or New? (Score:2)
Why are 3rd parties allowed to bill you? (Score:3)
The real problem...
* you have a phone number that is either published in a phone book or a private database that bad guys can buy
* any 3rd party hole-in-the-wall outfit can come along and send billing tapes to the telco
* you get billed, and have to dispute the bill to get your money back
What's required is an option allowing the phone customer to pre-emptively disable 3rd party billing. The telcos get a cut of the bill, and have every incentive to continue. It would require action by regulators to enforce a prohibition against 3rd party billing.
Re: (Score:2)
88 million? (Score:2)
That's what AT&T's accountants call "a rounding error"... this is no punishment. Jail time for the CEO and board of directors...
The Math, aka Big Freaking Deal (Score:2)
We have this:
AT&T To Cough Up $88 Million For 'Cramming' Mobile Customer Bills
And this:
Through the FTC's refund program, nearly 2.5 million current ATT customers will receive a credit on their bill within the next 75 days, and more than 300,000 former customers will receive a check.
So, $88000000/(2500000+300000) = $31.43. Thanks guys, I'll try not to spend it all in one place.