A consumer in Oklahoma is suing AT&T Wireless over a bill in excess of $5,000, claiming that she was intentionally misled concerning the terms and conditions of the contract for her wireless internet card. Namely, the contract specified (yes, in the fine print) that AT&T reserves the right to impose additional charges if a customer's monthly usage exceeds 5 GB of data - a condition listed in the fine print that the women claims she was never informed of. (To put this in to context, that amount of usage is the equivalent of downloading between 5 to 7 full length movies, which seems a little excessive for any consumer.)
Should this unfortunate women be punished for failing to read the fine print? Speaking as a former AT&T Wireless employee, I know that sales reps are obligated to inform customers about this stipulation, and failure to do so could be construed as intentional deception. On the other hand, it is my belief that it is ultimately the responsibility of the customer to read any legal contract of this nature from beginning to end, and I know for a fact that this condition is stated on that contract. This issue could certainly be debated from either side, and I'm genuinely curious to see what the ruling will be.
Source:
Radio Shack, AT&T Face Class Action Suit
No comments:
Post a Comment