Thanks XM Radio…For Nothing
Posted by Steve Laser on 10/25/08 in Legal, Opinion, Rants
In November 2005 I prepaid for one year of XM Satellite service. After the year expired I stopped using it because it didn’t fulfill my needs. I thought that was the end of it. I was wrong. Today I received a letter from XM telling me my subscription is about to expire. What? So I called them and found they billed me for 23 months of service I didn’t use. They said no less than six times, “I’m sorry to hear you’re unhappy”, yet would not refund any part of the money. I was told that I agreed to be billed monthly per their terms of service. Oops, my bad. I didn’t read their TERMS OF SERVICE. I’m not an attorney, and that is a heck of a lot of information. Do you regularly read Terms of Service?
Well, I just did. After 20 minutes of reading, I finally found the section that said I agreed to continue their service:
That was like finding a needle in a haystack. You may call me a moron for not noticing the bill on my credit card, and I am. But my wife pays the bills and she didn’t know the status of my XM. So I take the blame. I just lost 23 months of $13 payments, or about $300. I feel like a total ass. Thanks XM!
Do you agree with XM’s policy of automatically renewing service without specifically asking permission?
Do you read Terms of Service for every service you sign up for?
Know your enemy
This comment was left recently at my blog in a post where I was talking about a video showing a laptop thief in plain action:
its actually quite simple go to best buy when its busy, ask for something compact like me i asked for a mac book air, i shoped for a bit hid it under my coat mind you it was winter at the time, so i was not standing out like a sore thumb, picked something out got to the register paid for it, i walked out the alarm went off, and said oops and showed the guy my reciept with my bag and cd i bought, and walked out, went home played around with my new mac book air for a few weeks, and then sold it on ebay now $1,800 richer :D number 1 way to get away with it stay calm, the goon squad at best buy cant touch you or intercept you, all they can do is call the cops but if you notice a lot of store drones looking at you thats a good hint to GTFU and scan your suroundings for signs of the MAN on your tail.
I’m not saying that whoever wrote this is for real a thief but judging by the spelling this could be the case. The main reason I’m posting it now in the main page is to show our readers how these guys work. Every store should train employees in the same way Casinos do. A simple one hour training showing all these little tricks could save them thousands of dollars. Sometimes a video surveillance system is not enough.
ULTRA MOBILE PC TIPS: How to steal a laptop
California Judge Says Early Termination Fees Illegal
Posted by Radimus on 07/30/08 in Business, Cell Carriers, Legal, Sprint
This is only for one State and the appeal in inevitable, but Early Termination Fees are a blight to consumer advocacy. They say it is to subsidize handset prices, while others say it is to lock consumers into a provider regardless of satisfaction and price gouging.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The fees that cell phone carriers charge customers who break service contracts took a big hit in a California courtroom when a judge said such charges by Sprint Nextel Corp. likely violate state law.
The judge, in a tentative ruling issued late Monday, said Sprint will have to pay $18.3 million to customers who sued over the fees and credit $54.8 million to those who were charged but did not pay the fees.
The same judge is considering other lawsuits against telecommunications companies over their so-called early termination fees, which can range from $150 to $225. This month Verizon Wireless agreed to pay $21 million to settle an identical lawsuit just as trial was starting.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw rejected Sprint’s argument that a state court had no business deciding an issue the company said should be left for federal authorities. And while her ruling isn’t legally binding outside the state, it cut to the heart of an ongoing debate in other state courthouses and in Washington, D.C., over the fairness of the fees.
Who would have believed that a San Francisco Judge would have made a good decision? :-)
(of course it is an anti-business ruling, so perhaps that is why)
