p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- AT&T appears to have come up with an intriguing variation to the “fine print” scam.

Under it, people sign on the dotted line for insurance, say, only to discover they’ve promised their first-born via miniscule print usually buried in long, deliberately obtuse documents full of ‘heretos’ and ‘wherefores’ and which no one, except the lawyers who wrote them, can understand.

In the AT&T variation, it’s gone to a document you’d need a lawyer to unravel, backed by a 2,500 page online ‘guide’ which, at the time of writing, was offline.

AT&T has, “sent customers an 8,000-word service agreement that, among other things, says people will be given 30-day notice of price increases only when ‘commercially reasonable’ and that you can’t sue the company,” says David Lazarus in the Los Angeles Times, going on:

“Oh, and if you don’t like AT&T’s terms — providing you can make your way through the company’s 2,500-page ‘guidebook’ — your only recourse is to cancel service.”

This AT&T Residential Service Agreement (this ‘Agreement’) applies to the AT&T services to which you subscribe, except Services provided under (a) Tariff or (b) another agreement between you and AT&T (unless that other agreement references this Agreement). The Effective Date of this Agreement for any individual Service is the later of: (a) the date on which the withdrawal of a Tariff governing the Service becomes effective or (b) the date on which you subscribe to or use the Service. AT&T GUIDEBOOK(S) AND TARIFFS — AS MODIFIED FROM TIME TO TIME — ARE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE, TO THE EXTENT EACH APPLIES TO THE SERVICE(S) PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. You agree that it is impractical for AT&T to provide here all of the terms, conditions and charges that are set forth under those documents and that AT&T has acted reasonably in providing access to the Guidebook(s) as described in Section 1.

And that’s only the introductory paragraph.

Chris Witteman, a staff attorney for the PUC who also represents the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, confirmed staff had recently reviewed the AT&T service agreement and now, “We want AT&T to be required to revisit and reformulate the agreement so it doesn’t violate the law,” he states, according to the LA Times.

But AT&T spokesman H. Gordon Diamond defended it saying, “it provides customers with more direct information on their rights and … information on the services they purchase from us”.

However, “because the agreement serves as a contract between the firm and its customers,” he acknowledged that “it was unavoidable to include some legal terminology,” says the story.

An analysis prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission’s Division of Ratepayer Advocates found fault with a, “variety of AT&T’s provisions,” the LA Times states.

It includes, “You also agree to pay for all charges for services provided under this agreement even if such calls were not authorized by you.”

Is that similar to Bell Expressvu’s $25 late fee, one wonders?

This “is in direct violation to cramming laws,” which protect consumers from having unauthorized charges placed on their bills, says the analysis.

Los Angeles Times – AT & T buries customer rights in 2,500-page ‘guidebook’, September 14, 2008
$25 late fee – Bell Expressvu nailed for overcharging, September 17, 2008

---

Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!

Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php

---

Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm and is filed under Freedom, P2P. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 3281 times