For Sale Nokia N90,n91,n92,n93,n94,n95,n80,n70 - 8125, K-JAM, P4300, MDA Vario General

Definitely another fraudster scammer
Note the horrible english and only an email address on hotmail for contact info.
These people pi$$ me off. Maybe I'll flood his email box from free anonymous email sites. 13,000 emails, coming right up!
See
http://www.419eater.com
http://www.419baiter.com/
Information quoted from the US Secret Service Web Site.
4-1-9 Schemes frequently use the following tactics:
An individual or company receives a letter or fax from an alleged "official" representing a foreign government or agency.
An offer is made to transfer millions of dollars in "over invoiced contract" funds into your personal bank account.
You are encouraged to travel overseas to complete the transaction.
You are requested to provide blank company letterhead forms, banking account information, telephone/fax numbers.
You receive numerous documents with official looking stamps, seals and logo testifying to the authenticity of the proposal.
Eventually you must provide up-front or advance fees for various taxes, attorney fees, transaction fees or bribes.
Other forms of 4-1-9 schemes include: c.o.d. of goods or services, real estate ventures, purchases of crude oil at reduced prices, beneficiary of a will, recipient of an award and paper currency conversion.
Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud Overview
The perpetrators of Advance Fee Fraud (AFF), known internationally as "4-1-9" fraud after the section of the Nigerian penal code which addresses fraud schemes, are often very creative and innovative.
Unfortunately, there is a perception that no one is prone to enter into such an obviously suspicious relationship. However, a large number of victims are enticed into believing they have been singled out from the masses to share in multi-million dollar windfall profits for doing absolutely nothing. It is also a misconception that the victim's bank account is requested so the culprit can plunder it -- this is not the primary reason for the account request -- merely a signal they have hooked another victim.
In almost every case there is a sense of urgency.
The victim is enticed to travel to Nigeria or a border country.
There are many forged official looking documents.
Most of the correspondence is handled by fax or through the mail.
Blank letterheads and invoices are requested from the victim along with the banking particulars.
Any number of Nigerian fees are requested for processing the transaction with each fee purported to be the last required.
The confidential nature of the transaction is emphasized.
There are usually claims of strong ties to Nigerian officials.
A Nigerian residing in the U.S., London or other foreign venue may claim to be a clearing house bank for the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Offices in legitimate government buildings appear to have been used by impostors posing as the real occupants or officials.
The most common forms of these fraudulent business proposals fall into the following main categories:
Disbursement of money from wills
Contract fraud (C.O.D. of goods or services)
Purchase of real estate
Conversion of hard currency
Transfer of funds from over invoiced contracts
Sale of crude oil at below market prices
The most prevalent and successful cases of Advance Fee Fraud is the fund transfer scam. In this scheme, a company or individual will typically receive an unsolicited letter by mail from a Nigerian claiming to be a senior civil servant. In the letter, the Nigerian will inform the recipient that he is seeking a reputable foreign company or individual into whose account he can deposit funds ranging from $10-$60 million that the Nigerian government overpaid on some procurement contract.
The criminals obtain the names of potential victims from a variety of sources including trade journals, professional directories, newspapers, and commercial libraries. They do not target a single company, but rather send out mailings en masse. The sender declares that he is a senior civil servant in one of the Nigerian Ministries, usually the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC).
The letters refer to investigations of previous contracts awarded by prior regimes alleging that many contracts were over invoiced. Rather than return the money to the government, they desire to transfer the money to a foreign account. The sums to be transferred average between $10,000,000 to $60,000,000 and the recipient is usually offered a commission up to 30 percent for assisting in the transfer.
Initially, the intended victim is instructed to provide company letterheads and pro forma invoicing that will be used to show completion of the contract. One of the reasons is to use the victim's letterhead to forge letters of recommendation to other victim companies and to seek out a travel visa from the American Embassy in Lagos. The victim is told that the completed contracts will be submitted for approval to the Central Bank of Nigeria. Upon approval, the funds will be remitted to an account supplied by the intended victim.
The goal of the criminal is to delude the target into thinking that he is being drawn into a very lucrative, albeit questionable, arrangement. The intended victim must be reassured and confident of the potential success of the deal. He will become the primary supporter of the scheme and willingly contribute a large amount of money when the deal is threatened. The term "when" is used because the con-within-the-con is the scheme will be threatened in order to persuade the victim to provide a large sum of money to save the venture.
The letter, while appearing transparent and even ridiculous to most, unfortunately is growing in its effectiveness. It sets the stage and is the opening round of a two-layered scheme or scheme within a scheme. The fraudster will eventually reach someone who, while sceptical, desperately wants the deal to be genuine.
Victims are almost always requested to travel to Nigeria or a border country to complete a transaction. Individuals are often told that a visa will not be necessary to enter the country. The Nigerian con artists may then bribe airport officials to pass the victims through Immigration and Customs. Because it is a serious offence in Nigeria to enter without a valid visa, the victim's illegal entry may be used by the fraudsters as leverage to coerce the victims into releasing funds. Violence and threats of physical harm may be employed to further pressure victims. In June of 1995, an American was murdered in Lagos, Nigeria, while pursuing a 4-1-9 scam, and numerous other foreign nationals have been reported as missing.
Victims are often convinced of the authenticity of Advance Fee Fraud schemes by the forged or false documents bearing apparently official Nigerian government letterhead, seals, as well as false letters of credit, payment schedules and bank drafts. The fraudster may establish the credibility of his contacts, and thereby his influence, by arranging a meeting between the victim and "government officials" in real or fake government offices.
In the next stage some alleged problem concerning the "inside man" will suddenly arise. An official will demand an up-front bribe or an unforeseen tax or fee to the Nigerian government will have to be paid before the money can be transferred. These can include licensing fees, registration fees, and various forms of taxes and attorney fees. Normally each fee paid is described as the very last fee required. Invariably, oversights and errors in the deal are discovered by the Nigerians, necessitating additional payments and allowing the scheme to be stretched out over many months.
Several reasons have been submitted why Nigerian Advance Fee Fraud has undergone a dramatic increase in recent years. The explanations are as diverse as the types of schemes. The Nigerian Government blames the growing problem on mass unemployment, extended family systems, a get rich quick syndrome, and, especially, the greed of foreigners.
Indications are that Advance Fee Fraud grosses hundreds of millions of dollars annually and the losses are continuing to escalate. In all likelihood, there are victims who do not report their losses to authorities due to either fear or embarrassment.

Yup, these Nigerian spammers have flooded the PPCMag blog too...
My approach is just ignoring every offer / ad that has the word "Nigeria" in it

Related

I have filed a class action lawsuit against T-Mobile and Samsung

I have secured a lawyer, and filed a class action lawsuit
against T-Mobile and Samsung
I explained all my issues with them, and they agree
that I have a very strong case.
http://edelson.com/
Samsung and T-Mobile have clearly violated the law concerning
Unfair and Deceptive Consumer Business Practices
they have continuously lied to us about the hardware,
and software reliability of this phone,
they promised us updates (to 2.2! Not the functionally dead JI6 2.1!)
over and over,
NOW they plan to release NEW galaxies
without updating the old ones they currently have
The GPS is clearly a hardware defect.
There are just too many issues with this phone
and the Customer service reps have been combative
even bullying and threatening customers!
a clear violation of US law
just let me know what your issues are,
and we can join together to fight this "TOO BIG TOO FAIL"
corporation
Anyone who has any issues whatsoever
please e mail me all your info and whatever issues you have had with this device
to my inbox
at: [email protected]
below I have attached the law which outlines what is constituted as unfair and deceptive consumer business practices
_________________________________________________
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/deceptive-trade-practices
Deceptive Trade Practices
Background
Federal legislation and statutes in every state prohibit employment of unfair or deceptive trade practices and UNFAIR COMPETITION in business. The Federal Trade Commission regulates federal laws designed to prohibit a series of specific practices prohibited in interstate commerce. Several states have established CONSUMER PROTECTION offices as part of the state attorney general offices.
The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), originally passed in 1914 and amended several times thereafter, was the original STATUTE in the United States prohibiting "unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices." Development of the federal law was related to federal antitrust and trademark INFRINGEMENTlegislation. Prior to the enactment in the 1960s of state statutes prohibiting deceptive trade practices, the main focus of state law in this area was "unfair competition," which refers to the tort action for practices employed by businesses to confuse consumers as to the source of a product. The tort action for a business "passing off" its goods as those of another was based largely on the COMMON LAW tort action for trademark infringement.
Because the law governing deceptive trade practices was undefined and unclear, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1964 drafted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The NCCUSL revised this uniform law in 1966. The law was originally "designed to bring state law up to date by removing undue restrictions on the common law action for deceptive trade practices." Only eleven states have adopted this act, but it has had a significant effect on other states. Most state deceptive or unfair trade practices statutes were originally enacted between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s.
Applicability of Deceptive Trade Practices Statutes
Deceptive trade practices statutes do not govern all situations where one party has deceived another party. Most states limit the scope of these statutes to commercial transactions involving a consumer purchasing or leasing goods or services for personal, household, or family purposes. The terms used in each statute to set forth the scope of the statute are often the subject of LITIGATION. The majority of states requires a liberal interpretation of the terms of the deceptive trade practices statutes, including those describing the applicability of the statutes.
Trade or Commerce
Several states limit the applicability of deceptive trade practices to transactions in trade or commerce. This requirement usually incorporates a broad range of profit-oriented transactions. But it generally excludes trade between non-merchants and similar transactions.
Consumer Transactions
The appropriate plaintiff under most deceptive trade practices acts is a consumer, commonly defined as a person who will use a good or service for personal, family, or household purposes. The determination of whether a plaintiff is a consumer often requires use of one of two types of analysis, a subjective test and an objective test. The subjective analysis typically considers the intended use of the good or service at the time of the transaction. Thus, if a buyer of a good intends at the time of a purchase to use to good for a personal, family, or household purpose, the buyer will likely be considered a consumer under the relevant statute. The objective analysis considers whether the type of good or service involved in the transaction is ordinarily used for a personal, family, or household purpose.
Goods or Services
Goods are defined under the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE as those items movable at the time of a purchase. Many deceptive trade practices statutes apply this definition to the requirement that goods are involved in a transaction for a deceptive trade practices statute to apply. Livestock are also usually included in the definition of a good. Statutes and courts usually define services broadly, including in the definition most activities conducted on behalf of another. Some states require that consumers seek to purchase merchandise, which incorporates goods, services, real property, commodities, and some intangibles.
Prohibited Acts and Practices
Most state deceptive trade practices statutes include broad restrictions on "deceptive" or "unfair" trade practices. These states often include prohibitions against FRAUDULENT practices and unconscionable practices. The Federal Trade Commission, when interpreting the FTCA, does not require that the person committing an act of deception have the intent to deceive. Moreover, the FTC does not require that actual deception occur. The FTC merely requires that a party have the capacity to deceive or commit an unfair trade practice. If a business or individual has this capacity or tendency to deceive, the FTC under the FTCA may order the company to cease and desist the deceptive or unfair practice. State statutes similarly do not require that a company specifically intends to deceive, nor must a company always have knowledge that a statement is false to be liable for misrepresentations made to a consumer.
A consumer who has been victimized by a potential deceptive or unfair trade practice should consult the deceptive trade practice statute in that state, plus consult CASE LAW applying this statute, to determine whether he or she has a cause of action. In addition to the broad prohibition against deception, most state statutes also include a list of practices that are defined as deceptive. Under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, if a business or person engages in the following, the action constitutes a deceptive trade practice:
Passes off goods or services as those of another
Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services
Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another
Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services
Represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or qualities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsor-ship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that he does not have
Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or second-hand
Represents that goods or services are of particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of particular style or model, if they are of another
Disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading misrepresentation of fact
Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised
Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expected public demand, unless advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity
Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions
Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates the likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding
Most states include similar items in their lists of deceptive trade practices violations, even if those states have not adopted the uniform act. In addition, the FTC and many states prohibit other unfair practices, including the following:
Unfair provisions in contracts of adhesion
Coercive or high-pressure tactics in sales and collection efforts
Illegal conduct
Taking advantage of bargaining power of vulnerable groups
Taking advantage of emergency situations
Unconscionable activities, including outrageous and offensive conduct by a business in the sale of goods or services
Other Practices Deemed Deceptive or Unfair
Debt Collection
The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state debt collection statutes govern most abuses by debt collectors in debt collection activities. Deceptive trade practices statutes may provide remedies in situations that are not covered by these debt collection statutes. For example, most debt collection statutes do not cover some forms of debt collection, such as foreclosures, repossessions, and evictions, but a deceptive trade practices statute may apply. Moreover, deceptive trade practices statutes may also permit a consumer to bring a cause of action against a CREDITOR for debt collection practices of an independent agency hired by the creditor. Several cases have dealt with issues regarding misrepresentations made by debt collectors or deceptive agreements proposed by debt collectors.
Breach of Warranties
Consumers have several means of enforcing a WARRANTY provided in a sales or service contract. If a business employs deceptive practices with respect to the advertisement or negotiation of a warranty, a deceptive trade practices statute may provide a consumer a remedy in addition to a breach of warranty claim.
Insurance
Most states have enacted legislation regarding deceptive practices of insurance companies, including those practices related to the sale of policies and the payment of claims. In some states, employment of a deceptive practice in insurance is also a deceptive trade practice. A deceptive trade practices statute may also provide a remedy in insurance cases where state insurance laws do not apply.
Pyramid Schemes and Similar Practices
Several states prohibit certain illegal business schemes through deceptive trace practices statutes. One such scheme is a "pyramid scheme," where investors make money by recruiting others to join and invest in a company rather than selling a product as claimed by the company. Other schemes include deceptive employment opportunity claims and misleading or deceptive game or contest promotions. Some states do not specifically include these schemes in the statute, but courts in those states may have applied provisions of the relevant deceptive trade practices statute in cases involving these schemes.
Remedies for Violations of Deceptive Trade Practices Statutes
A consumer who has been the victim of a deceptive trade practice has a variety of remedies. State deceptive trade practices statutes have been particularly successful due to the damages provisions included in the statutes. About half of the states provide minimum STATUTORY damages to a litigant who has proven a deceptive trade practice, even if the litigant has not proven actual damages. Many states also permit courts to award treble damages, which means the actual damages to a party injured by a deceptive trade practice are tripled. Several states also permit courts to impose PUNITIVE DAMAGES and/or attorney's fees for these practices.
In addition to monetary damages, several other options may exist for a person injured by a deceptive trade practice. When the FTC has JURISDICTION over a case, it may enjoin a deceptive trade practice of a company under the FTCA. Statutes in each of the states also permit government enforcement officials to seek cease and desist orders to prevent businesses from engaging in deceptive trade practices. These remedies may be available in addition to civil remedies sought by private litigants.
Really? Um........ok
Sent from my XDA app cuz I'm stalking your mom....
my head exploded 1/8 of the way trying to read that.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA App
I figured this was only a matter of time. But hey, if it is enough of a kick in the butt to Sam and T-Mo, I'm in. My Vibrant is only awesome because of XDA and my own necessity of having the phone I paid for. The GPS on this phone when I got it was an utter joke. My G1 looked like a golden brick next to my Vibrant. Sure it was ugly compared to my Vibrant, but at least the hardware did what it was supposed to. I had terrible data reception and speeds, which were purely T-Mobile's fault, for releasing a handset that couldn't play nice with their Dallas-Ft. Worth infrastructure yet. It seems like everything I have accomplished on this phone has been an uphill battle, mainly because of the lack of cooperation on Samsung's part with 3rd party developers. And all the while, they were telling everyone who had purchased this hardware-capable phone that the comparable software was "on its way" all the time, yet the only updates seen had to be downloaded from their sam-firmwares site, which an average user will NEVER see. I had more hardware frustrations with my G1 than with my Vibrant, because I knew that it was going to fall behind eventually, which is why I upgraded to a 1ghz phone. But any changes I wanted to make to my G1 was simply butter because of HTC's cooperation with their source code.
Oh well, sometimes this is just the way life goes. Companies just plow on forward leaving one angry crowd for a new, naive crowd to repeat the process.
My email if you want to contact me regarding the C.A.: [email protected]
Just stop. You have no legal claim, your attorney is just taking easy money.
sent from my galaxy s
fearless1964 said:
Really? Um........ok
Sent from my XDA app cuz I'm stalking your mom....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ha, is your sig a reference to =3? If so, AWESOME.
OP- Good luck man, hope you got money to wipe your ass with, cause that's essentially what you're doing.
You will lose this lawsuit. Samsung does not have to release 2.2 ever if they do not want to. Nothing you have said will hold up in court. You bought a phone. It makes and receives calls.
I notice this in your posts on the T-Mobile forums too, but why do you hit enter after every 5 words or so?
Paragraphs are your friends.
Kinda reminds of the kid who sued nintendo because of their updates removed the homebrew channel and the kid whinned about ruining his right to have fun hahahaha grow up you obviously no about xda developers therefore you know you can root your phone and flash a custom rom to your phone with 2.2 and the gps fix instead of using the money to retain a LAWYER go get a new phone
Slashdot has picked up the story...
Slashdot has picked up the "Samsung hold back Froyo" story. This may get mainstream.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/13/2334213/Is-Samsung-Blocking-Updates-To-Froyo
raziel26 said:
Kinda reminds of the kid who sued nintendo because of their updates removed the homebrew channel and the kid whinned about ruining his right to have fun hahahaha grow up you obviously no about xda developers therefore you know you can root your phone and flash a custom rom to your phone with 2.2 and the gps fix instead of using the money to retain a LAWYER go get a new phone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
he isn't trying to get a new phone...
he's trying to tell samsung that the update is WAY over-due, and we're being screwed over, hes just telling them in a more professional way rather than us spamming them on twitter and facebook, which even though i've done it, is pointless.
Good luck.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
dang, a little support guys. i dont think he will win a class action law suite, but it may just shed some light on the situation...
mad props to the OP
I say more power to you and I hope this turns into a class action lawsuit so we all can some type of discount on our next samsung phone if we buy one again. If it wasn't for devs I would be having a fit.
i'll settle for been able to trade in for the new vibrant 4g for free.
mr2t32 said:
i'll settle for been able to trade in for the new vibrant 4g for free.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll amen to that
Sent from my XDA app cuz I'm stalking your mom....
I think rhat tmobile will kick you off their service and charge you an early termination fee to boot. And rumor is sprint may merge with tmobile this year or next so I would not go to sprint. I would goto cricket wireless.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
dzuchowski said:
I think rhat tmobile will kick you off their service and charge you an early termination fee to boot. And rumor is sprint may merge with tmobile this year or next so I would not go to sprint. I would goto cricket wireless.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cricket wireless... are you _______ kidding me
I thought Sprint was cdma and T mobile was GSM. Wouldn't make sense to merge I would think.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk
i dont think you have a case coz you didnt sign on anything that says samsung will send an update on a particular date or timeframe.. no documentation whatsoever..

Filed a class action lawsuit against T-Mobile and Samsung

I have secured a lawyer, and filed a class action lawsuit
against T-Mobile and Samsung
I explained all my issues with them, and they agree
that I have a very strong case.
http://edelson.com/
Samsung and T-Mobile have clearly violated the law concerning
Unfair and Deceptive Consumer Business Practices
they have continuously lied to us about the hardware,
and software reliability of this phone,
they promised us updates (to 2.2! Not the functionally dead JI6 2.1!)
over and over,
NOW they plan to release NEW galaxies
without updating the old ones they currently have
The GPS is clearly a hardware defect.
There are just too many issues with this phone
and the Customer service reps have been combative
even bullying and threatening customers!
a clear violation of US law
just let me know what your issues are,
and we can join together to fight this "TOO BIG TOO FAIL"
corporation
Anyone who has any issues whatsoever
please e mail me all your info and whatever issues you have had with this device
to my inbox
at: [email protected]
below I have attached the law which outlines what is constituted as unfair and deceptive consumer business practices
_________________________________________________
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/deceptive-trade-practices
Deceptive Trade Practices
Background
Federal legislation and statutes in every state prohibit employment of unfair or deceptive trade practices and UNFAIR COMPETITION in business. The Federal Trade Commission regulates federal laws designed to prohibit a series of specific practices prohibited in interstate commerce. Several states have established CONSUMER PROTECTION offices as part of the state attorney general offices.
The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), originally passed in 1914 and amended several times thereafter, was the original STATUTE in the United States prohibiting "unfair or deceptive trade acts or practices." Development of the federal law was related to federal antitrust and trademark INFRINGEMENTlegislation. Prior to the enactment in the 1960s of state statutes prohibiting deceptive trade practices, the main focus of state law in this area was "unfair competition," which refers to the tort action for practices employed by businesses to confuse consumers as to the source of a product. The tort action for a business "passing off" its goods as those of another was based largely on the COMMON LAW tort action for trademark infringement.
Because the law governing deceptive trade practices was undefined and unclear, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1964 drafted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The NCCUSL revised this uniform law in 1966. The law was originally "designed to bring state law up to date by removing undue restrictions on the common law action for deceptive trade practices." Only eleven states have adopted this act, but it has had a significant effect on other states. Most state deceptive or unfair trade practices statutes were originally enacted between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s.
Applicability of Deceptive Trade Practices Statutes
Deceptive trade practices statutes do not govern all situations where one party has deceived another party. Most states limit the scope of these statutes to commercial transactions involving a consumer purchasing or leasing goods or services for personal, household, or family purposes. The terms used in each statute to set forth the scope of the statute are often the subject of LITIGATION. The majority of states requires a liberal interpretation of the terms of the deceptive trade practices statutes, including those describing the applicability of the statutes.
Trade or Commerce
Several states limit the applicability of deceptive trade practices to transactions in trade or commerce. This requirement usually incorporates a broad range of profit-oriented transactions. But it generally excludes trade between non-merchants and similar transactions.
Consumer Transactions
The appropriate plaintiff under most deceptive trade practices acts is a consumer, commonly defined as a person who will use a good or service for personal, family, or household purposes. The determination of whether a plaintiff is a consumer often requires use of one of two types of analysis, a subjective test and an objective test. The subjective analysis typically considers the intended use of the good or service at the time of the transaction. Thus, if a buyer of a good intends at the time of a purchase to use to good for a personal, family, or household purpose, the buyer will likely be considered a consumer under the relevant statute. The objective analysis considers whether the type of good or service involved in the transaction is ordinarily used for a personal, family, or household purpose.
Goods or Services
Goods are defined under the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE as those items movable at the time of a purchase. Many deceptive trade practices statutes apply this definition to the requirement that goods are involved in a transaction for a deceptive trade practices statute to apply. Livestock are also usually included in the definition of a good. Statutes and courts usually define services broadly, including in the definition most activities conducted on behalf of another. Some states require that consumers seek to purchase merchandise, which incorporates goods, services, real property, commodities, and some intangibles.
Prohibited Acts and Practices
Most state deceptive trade practices statutes include broad restrictions on "deceptive" or "unfair" trade practices. These states often include prohibitions against FRAUDULENT practices and unconscionable practices. The Federal Trade Commission, when interpreting the FTCA, does not require that the person committing an act of deception have the intent to deceive. Moreover, the FTC does not require that actual deception occur. The FTC merely requires that a party have the capacity to deceive or commit an unfair trade practice. If a business or individual has this capacity or tendency to deceive, the FTC under the FTCA may order the company to cease and desist the deceptive or unfair practice. State statutes similarly do not require that a company specifically intends to deceive, nor must a company always have knowledge that a statement is false to be liable for misrepresentations made to a consumer.
A consumer who has been victimized by a potential deceptive or unfair trade practice should consult the deceptive trade practice statute in that state, plus consult CASE LAW applying this statute, to determine whether he or she has a cause of action. In addition to the broad prohibition against deception, most state statutes also include a list of practices that are defined as deceptive. Under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, if a business or person engages in the following, the action constitutes a deceptive trade practice:
Passes off goods or services as those of another
Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services
Causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another
Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services
Represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or qualities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsor-ship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that he does not have
Represents that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or second-hand
Represents that goods or services are of particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of particular style or model, if they are of another
Disparages the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading misrepresentation of fact
Advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised
Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expected public demand, unless advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity
Makes false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions
Engages in any other conduct which similarly creates the likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding
Most states include similar items in their lists of deceptive trade practices violations, even if those states have not adopted the uniform act. In addition, the FTC and many states prohibit other unfair practices, including the following:
Unfair provisions in contracts of adhesion
Coercive or high-pressure tactics in sales and collection efforts
Illegal conduct
Taking advantage of bargaining power of vulnerable groups
Taking advantage of emergency situations
Unconscionable activities, including outrageous and offensive conduct by a business in the sale of goods or services
Other Practices Deemed Deceptive or Unfair
Debt Collection
The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state debt collection statutes govern most abuses by debt collectors in debt collection activities. Deceptive trade practices statutes may provide remedies in situations that are not covered by these debt collection statutes. For example, most debt collection statutes do not cover some forms of debt collection, such as foreclosures, repossessions, and evictions, but a deceptive trade practices statute may apply. Moreover, deceptive trade practices statutes may also permit a consumer to bring a cause of action against a CREDITOR for debt collection practices of an independent agency hired by the creditor. Several cases have dealt with issues regarding misrepresentations made by debt collectors or deceptive agreements proposed by debt collectors.
Breach of Warranties
Consumers have several means of enforcing a WARRANTY provided in a sales or service contract. If a business employs deceptive practices with respect to the advertisement or negotiation of a warranty, a deceptive trade practices statute may provide a consumer a remedy in addition to a breach of warranty claim.
Insurance
Most states have enacted legislation regarding deceptive practices of insurance companies, including those practices related to the sale of policies and the payment of claims. In some states, employment of a deceptive practice in insurance is also a deceptive trade practice. A deceptive trade practices statute may also provide a remedy in insurance cases where state insurance laws do not apply.
Pyramid Schemes and Similar Practices
Several states prohibit certain illegal business schemes through deceptive trace practices statutes. One such scheme is a "pyramid scheme," where investors make money by recruiting others to join and invest in a company rather than selling a product as claimed by the company. Other schemes include deceptive employment opportunity claims and misleading or deceptive game or contest promotions. Some states do not specifically include these schemes in the statute, but courts in those states may have applied provisions of the relevant deceptive trade practices statute in cases involving these schemes.
Remedies for Violations of Deceptive Trade Practices Statutes
A consumer who has been the victim of a deceptive trade practice has a variety of remedies. State deceptive trade practices statutes have been particularly successful due to the damages provisions included in the statutes. About half of the states provide minimum STATUTORY damages to a litigant who has proven a deceptive trade practice, even if the litigant has not proven actual damages. Many states also permit courts to award treble damages, which means the actual damages to a party injured by a deceptive trade practice are tripled. Several states also permit courts to impose PUNITIVE DAMAGES and/or attorney's fees for these practices.
In addition to monetary damages, several other options may exist for a person injured by a deceptive trade practice. When the FTC has JURISDICTION over a case, it may enjoin a deceptive trade practice of a company under the FTCA. Statutes in each of the states also permit government enforcement officials to seek cease and desist orders to prevent businesses from engaging in deceptive trade practices. These remedies may be available in addition to civil remedies sought by private litigants.
I think at this point you've got a strong case, as Edelson McGuire has stated. I too purchased both my wife and myself a Vibrant under the false promise that 2.2 would be arriving around the corner (back in August, this was), which would allow me to do the things that I wanted to do which was not available in 1.6, and 2.1 to some extent. Let me know how I can help, if I can that is.
This is moronic. You have zero proof that either party intentionally harmed a consumer. Your attorney is lucky to bilk hours against your retainer.
people, it's a blog post on androidspin! Not a sworn statement. Stop getting all worked up.
sent from my galaxy s
Yes I do find Samsung very unfair. Paying full price for a defective phone. Then getting tossed to the side, and forgotten about. They NEED to be held accountable!
I too wanna sue tmo and samsung
They haven't delivered, phones too pricey, constant irritation.
I'm excited by this news.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
I hope they are not terrorists.
Sammy was always careful in there language. They never said "The Vibrant will receive 2.2"... it was always "All the Galaxy S phones are capable of 2.2 and we are working with the phone companies to make this happen"
Nothing verbatim of course.
I was very hesitant on buying the Vibrant given my personal history with Samsung (crappy BluRay player) and the fact that they are slow at updating there phones. I knew it was a gamble buying it but i did it anyway.
I love my phone, but i am rooted and have been running 2.2 for a long time now.
ekeefe41 said:
Sammy was always careful in there language. They never said "The Vibrant will receive 2.2"... it was always "All the Galaxy S phones are capable of 2.2 and we are working with the phone companies to make this happen"
Nothing verbatim of course.
I was very hesitant on buying the Vibrant given my personal history with Samsung (crappy BluRay player) and the fact that they are slow at updating there phones. I knew it was a gamble buying it but i did it anyway.
I love my phone, but i am rooted and have been running 2.2 for a long time now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung actually said all carriers will receive froyo in september in the showcase of the galaxy s line.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
lol i hope not!!!
I agree,... a little premature.
Flash through ODIN?
How's the battery life?
Any Screenshots?
Thnx
howetechnical said:
I think at this point you've got a strong case, as Edelson McGuire has stated. I too purchased both my wife and myself a Vibrant under the false promise that 2.2 would be arriving around the corner (back in August, this was), which would allow me to do the things that I wanted to do which was not available in 1.6, and 2.1 to some extent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have that promise in writing, I'm sure the OP would love a copy. If not, you have been delivered no such promise as far as the law's eye can see.
We are at the whim of Samsung, and they are not stupid. They may do the bare minimum with regard to customer support, but (atleast IMHO) they have broken no laws. The only thing wrong with this phone is a defective GPS on certain units, which has and continues to be replaced anytime the issue is brought to their attention.
The only way to hit them is to take your business elsewhere. No sense in paying hundreds or thousands of dollars to some local law firm who has no qualms about losing to a giant like Samsung as long as your retainer clears the bank. Especially not over some phone that you paid no more than $500 for, $200 in many cases.
/rant
fstathes said:
Flash through ODIN?
How's the battery life?
Any Screenshots?
Thnx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wtf, omg, lol
fstathes said:
flash through odin?
How's the battery life?
Any screenshots?
Thnx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lololololol!!!
If this will fix my crappy gps I'm down! Just tel me where to sign!
Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk
here's the message from Sammy about the recent Vibrant 4G and Vibrant Froyo "hostage" situation...
CNET
We reached out to Samsung for comment and a company spokesperson sent CNET the following response:
Samsung Mobile does not comment on rumors or speculation. With regard to the Froyo update, we recently issued the following statement: "Samsung feels it is important to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available only after we feel that we can give the millions of U.S. Galaxy S owners a simple and reliable upgrade experience. Due to the complexity and unique functionality of each Galaxy S device, we are performing additional testing and are working to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available to all U.S. Galaxy S owners, including the Samsung Vibrant, as soon as possible.
never again
I will never buy another Samsung product!
samyvibrantuser said:
here's the message from Sammy about the recent Vibrant 4G and Vibrant Froyo "hostage" situation...
CNET
We reached out to Samsung for comment and a company spokesperson sent CNET the following response:
Samsung Mobile does not comment on rumors or speculation. With regard to the Froyo update, we recently issued the following statement: "Samsung feels it is important to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available only after we feel that we can give the millions of U.S. Galaxy S owners a simple and reliable upgrade experience. Due to the complexity and unique functionality of each Galaxy S device, we are performing additional testing and are working to make the Android 2.2/Froyo upgrade available to all U.S. Galaxy S owners, including the Samsung Vibrant, as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That just makes me think every bit of the rumor is true.
Not to be an ass but why is this in the development section? I see nothing in the for of development aside from a lawsuit.
Sent from my SGH-I897 using XDA App

Help make this known please - people are being defrauded

I truly hope this appeal comes across to other members on this board as sincere and reasonable; for the record I am in my mid-30s; I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, having served honorably in times far safer and far less treacherus than my Marine brothers serve today; I have an undegraduate degree from UCLA, and a law degree from Chapman University School of Law. I am very fortunate to call myself employed, having graduated in the middle of the worst economy and job market that this country has seen in multiple generations. After nearly a year of fruitless searches for a job, indeed ANY job, I landed a career with a historic, admired financial services company as a fiduciary for client assets. I am disclosing this not for any reason aside from my need to communicate, as clearly as possible, that I am not here to fling poo, rant and rave about a minor error, or throw a temper tantrum in a public forum. I am not perfect, but I do believe I am rational and reasonable, and I hope to rationally and reasonably communicate this problem in order to facilitate some method of combating it.
This evening, I spent a number of hours attempting to fix a major billing error made by Verizon wireless. This is not the first call I have made since purchasing my Xoom, and the promises made by Verizon employees on previous phone calls and store visits were apparently nothing more than stall tactics. This billing error is directly related to my Xoom, which my girlfrend purchased for me for my birthday, the 26th of February. We are not wealthy, but she saved for some time to buy what she knew I wanted but did not expect. Even with the early adopter issues I and many of you have experienced, I still thoroughly enjoy my Xoom and know that I will continue to enjoy it as much, and likely more so, than I have enjoyed the moto Droid 1 that has capitalized my inner geek's attention for the past year.
In my capacity at my job, I have personally invested in, and compelled clients and coworkers to invest in, the companies that I believed would prosper as Android grew in popularity. My knowledge and experience with high performance desktop rigs and mobile devices allowed me to understand, in mid 2010, the potential value of companies like ARM Holdings, nVidia, and Atmel, when their stock values hovered at near all-time lows. And I was correct in predicting the changes in the consumer technology landscape - what I failed to take into consideration was just how deep into the grey areas of law and morality the major channel of android devices, Verizon Wirelss, would venture in order to give it a market advantage over its competitors.
I have been a happy customer of Verizon, and have had virtually zero complaints since becoming an Android user in early 2010. In fact I have been instrumental in converting a fairly large number of friends and coworkers into Android users on Verizon's network, something I would not have done if I thought for a second that my recommendation would lead to the kind of issues I am beginning to see with customers similarly situated to me.
Without explaining the details of my current complaints against Verizon, understand that I have very little faith that Verizon is going to address my complaints with any sort of good faith or fair dealings. After my repeated attempts to reverse the questionable actions of Verizon employees relating to my account, it appears as though Verizon is engaged in a series of de minimus infractions against a customer base lacking any bargaining power and damaged in amounts small enough to pass quietly over the heads of those tasked with protecting consumers from such activities.
If you bought a Xoom at full retail and declined any data plans, you will likely discover that you are being billed for the data plan you declined to use. If you already discovered this and think you have already fixed the "error" by contacting verizon, you will likely see that your call to verizon was completely ignored. If you contact verizon to ask why verizon has repeatedly ignored your desire to be free of any data plans, you will likely be treated like a child and misled to believe that purchasing a Xoom requires that you pay for a month-to-month data plan. Never mind that we know this to be untrue, because it is clear that verizon intends to collect as much revenue as it can during a product launch mired in confusing, contradictory and misleading terms.
Banking on the inability of an individual consumer to withstand delay tactics and phone shuffling from ineffective customer rep to ineffective customer rep, verizon is hoping that only a fraction of the erroneus and fraudulent charges will be fought hard enough to warrant reversal. For every $10 million that verizon will overcharge xoom buyers, if only 10% of defrauded customers fight the good fight and see theirncharges reversed, Verizon will see a $9 million windfall. Thisnis not a new tactic in business, just one I did not expect Verizon to take.
We do have some leverage, we just need to figure out how to utilize it. I presumr this is a good enough forum to seek out other not willing to take a $300 shaft from verizon, especially after paying $800 for a luxury like a xoom.
Any thoughts? Ideas? How can we become a squeaky enough wheel such that we're made right and others are not subject to deceitful tactics with little or no recourse?
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
SInce you already took the time to write this post. I would suggest you sending the story to The Consumerist website also.
These companies don't like the bad publicity they get from organizations like Consumer Reports. I'm suggesting this as a way to alert potential consumers about the risk and not to use it as a way to get revenge.
Good Luck
Wow!!!!
You posted all of that on your Xoom? I thought it kind of weird that we would have to pay full price AND still have to activate (get a # from Verizon) myself. But on launch day I decided to go ahead anyway since it wasn't really a lock-in type of plan. However, I began to experience an uneasy feeling about the whole thing after playing around with the Xoom, remembering what it cost as I went along, remembering how things usually worked (in the past anyway) in relation to price of these types of things, you know, FULL PRICE = no having to deal with a wireless provider..etc, and decided pretty darn quickly (I had the device for a total of 3 hours) that I didn't want to continue with the current setup. I therefore took the device back to BB where I purchased it. They accepted the return and called VZW to deactivate everything, which they did, but I still recieved a bill for $38.27. I was told that that was for activating the device...etc., during my call to them to try and get a refund since I had the device for only 3 fricking hours. The rep I got was pretty nice and understanding and said that she could cancel the bill and I would owe nothing. I left it at that and a couple of days later, I recieved a bill for that same amount in my mailbox, so I called again to talk them about it. Well, by the time I got done with that phone call, I was told that I owed $3.27 and that that amount was the taxes that was on the bill to begin with. I thought, and said to the rep., HUH!!!, and she told me that their system has no way of reversing taxes. Rather than argueing over $3.27, I told her that I would just send them a money order. Does this sound plausible to anybody? Does anyone else think that their system is incapable of reversing taxes and that the money is actually going to be paid on the taxes? Just all so weird to me.
Oh yea, AND a couple of days later I went back to BB to see if the activation crap with Verizon was still going on (I thought I'd at least check things out) and sure enough it wasn't. I guess it was only a launch day thing. I ended up getting another Xoom WITHOUT having to deal with Verizon's crap.
so uhh... long story short? There was a billing error? I don't even see in your post about what.
I see all kinds of stuff about the army, your job, Android in general, and your gf, but nothing to do with the thread title...
ixobelle said:
so uhh... long story short? There was a billing error? I don't even see in your post about what.
I see all kinds of stuff about the army, your job, Android in general, and your gf, but nothing to do with the thread title...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I got a bet that says this asshole isn't from the United States or has any idea what a person in the military means to the average american like myself. We have the liberties and rights because they fight for them. Go Troll somewhere Gollum
VegUnited said:
Go Troll somewhere Gollum
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What You Said
They are a former Marine just so'you know
OP: I would for starters file with the BBB in your area
ixobelle said:
so uhh... long story short? There was a billing error? I don't even see in your post about what.
I see all kinds of stuff about the army, your job, Android in general, and your gf, but nothing to do with the thread title...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
androidlurker said:
I truly hope this appeal comes across to other members on this board as sincere and reasonable; for the record I am in my mid-30s; I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, having served honorably in times far safer and far less treacherus than my Marine brothers serve today; I have an undegraduate degree from UCLA, and a law degree from Chapman University School of Law. I am very fortunate to call myself employed, having graduated in the middle of the worst economy and job market that this country has seen in multiple generations. After nearly a year of fruitless searches for a job, indeed ANY job, I landed a career with a historic, admired financial services company as a fiduciary for client assets. I am disclosing this not for any reason aside from my need to communicate, as clearly as possible, that I am not here to fling poo, rant and rave about a minor error, or throw a temper tantrum in a public forum. I am not perfect, but I do believe I am rational and reasonable, and I hope to rationally and reasonably communicate this problem in order to facilitate some method of combating it.
This evening, I spent a number of hours attempting to fix a major billing error made by Verizon wireless. This is not the first call I have made since purchasing my Xoom, and the promises made by Verizon employees on previous phone calls and store visits were apparently nothing more than stall tactics. This billing error is directly related to my Xoom, which my girlfrend purchased for me for my birthday, the 26th of February. We are not wealthy, but she saved for some time to buy what she knew I wanted but did not expect. Even with the early adopter issues I and many of you have experienced, I still thoroughly enjoy my Xoom and know that I will continue to enjoy it as much, and likely more so, than I have enjoyed the moto Droid 1 that has capitalized my inner geek's attention for the past year.
In my capacity at my job, I have personally invested in, and compelled clients and coworkers to invest in, the companies that I believed would prosper as Android grew in popularity. My knowledge and experience with high performance desktop rigs and mobile devices allowed me to understand, in mid 2010, the potential value of companies like ARM Holdings, nVidia, and Atmel, when their stock values hovered at near all-time lows. And I was correct in predicting the changes in the consumer technology landscape - what I failed to take into consideration was just how deep into the grey areas of law and morality the major channel of android devices, Verizon Wirelss, would venture in order to give it a market advantage over its competitors.
I have been a happy customer of Verizon, and have had virtually zero complaints since becoming an Android user in early 2010. In fact I have been instrumental in converting a fairly large number of friends and coworkers into Android users on Verizon's network, something I would not have done if I thought for a second that my recommendation would lead to the kind of issues I am beginning to see with customers similarly situated to me.
Without explaining the details of my current complaints against Verizon, understand that I have very little faith that Verizon is going to address my complaints with any sort of good faith or fair dealings. After my repeated attempts to reverse the questionable actions of Verizon employees relating to my account, it appears as though Verizon is engaged in a series of de minimus infractions against a customer base lacking any bargaining power and damaged in amounts small enough to pass quietly over the heads of those tasked with protecting consumers from such activities.
If you bought a Xoom at full retail and declined any data plans, you will likely discover that you are being billed for the data plan you declined to use. If you already discovered this and think you have already fixed the "error" by contacting verizon, you will likely see that your call to verizon was completely ignored. If you contact verizon to ask why verizon has repeatedly ignored your desire to be free of any data plans, you will likely be treated like a child and misled to believe that purchasing a Xoom requires that you pay for a month-to-month data plan. Never mind that we know this to be untrue, because it is clear that verizon intends to collect as much revenue as it can during a product launch mired in confusing, contradictory and misleading terms.
Banking on the inability of an individual consumer to withstand delay tactics and phone shuffling from ineffective customer rep to ineffective customer rep, verizon is hoping that only a fraction of the erroneus and fraudulent charges will be fought hard enough to warrant reversal. For every $10 million that verizon will overcharge xoom buyers, if only 10% of defrauded customers fight the good fight and see theirncharges reversed, Verizon will see a $9 million windfall. Thisnis not a new tactic in business, just one I did not expect Verizon to take.
We do have some leverage, we just need to figure out how to utilize it. I presumr this is a good enough forum to seek out other not willing to take a $300 shaft from verizon, especially after paying $800 for a luxury like a xoom.
Any thoughts? Ideas? How can we become a squeaky enough wheel such that we're made right and others are not subject to deceitful tactics with little or no recourse?
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, you gave them all your information for them to be able to bill you and now are complaining. I paid full price @ Best Buy and my information was not needed. Why would it be if i'm paying full price? If they would of asked for all my info I would of called V the next day to make sure I didn't have a paying cycle as it just depends on the rep.
But you my friend failed and are blaiming Verizon.
I think the most important point that he said was missed... his gf picked it up for him. need I say more?
/thread
also, all these threads that do not belong on the board, or are viewed as trolling should be voted on. I gave this a 1 star rating.
Verizon cancelled my data on day 1 and warned of the bill. Once it came in they told me to call and it would be cleared out. Bill went from 37 to 0.
Curious how can you be billed for a data bill you declined? You must sign the contract and submit your social security for credit checks before activation.
He is trying to help the community. Most of you suck anyways. Thanks for the post op.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
androidlurker said:
I truly hope this appeal comes across to other members on this board as sincere and reasonable; for the record I am in my mid-30s; I am a veteran of the United States Marine Corps, having served honorably in times far safer and far less treacherus than my Marine brothers serve today; I have an undegraduate degree from UCLA, and a law degree from Chapman University School of Law. I am very fortunate to call myself employed, having graduated in the middle of the worst economy and job market that this country has seen in multiple generations. After nearly a year of fruitless searches for a job, indeed ANY job, I landed a career with a historic, admired financial services company as a fiduciary for client assets. I am disclosing this not for any reason aside from my need to communicate, as clearly as possible, that I am not here to fling poo, rant and rave about a minor error, or throw a temper tantrum in a public forum. I am not perfect, but I do believe I am rational and reasonable, and I hope to rationally and reasonably communicate this problem in order to facilitate some method of combating it.
This evening, I spent a number of hours attempting to fix a major billing error made by Verizon wireless. This is not the first call I have made since purchasing my Xoom, and the promises made by Verizon employees on previous phone calls and store visits were apparently nothing more than stall tactics. This billing error is directly related to my Xoom, which my girlfrend purchased for me for my birthday, the 26th of February. We are not wealthy, but she saved for some time to buy what she knew I wanted but did not expect. Even with the early adopter issues I and many of you have experienced, I still thoroughly enjoy my Xoom and know that I will continue to enjoy it as much, and likely more so, than I have enjoyed the moto Droid 1 that has capitalized my inner geek's attention for the past year.
In my capacity at my job, I have personally invested in, and compelled clients and coworkers to invest in, the companies that I believed would prosper as Android grew in popularity. My knowledge and experience with high performance desktop rigs and mobile devices allowed me to understand, in mid 2010, the potential value of companies like ARM Holdings, nVidia, and Atmel, when their stock values hovered at near all-time lows. And I was correct in predicting the changes in the consumer technology landscape - what I failed to take into consideration was just how deep into the grey areas of law and morality the major channel of android devices, Verizon Wirelss, would venture in order to give it a market advantage over its competitors.
I have been a happy customer of Verizon, and have had virtually zero complaints since becoming an Android user in early 2010. In fact I have been instrumental in converting a fairly large number of friends and coworkers into Android users on Verizon's network, something I would not have done if I thought for a second that my recommendation would lead to the kind of issues I am beginning to see with customers similarly situated to me.
Without explaining the details of my current complaints against Verizon, understand that I have very little faith that Verizon is going to address my complaints with any sort of good faith or fair dealings. After my repeated attempts to reverse the questionable actions of Verizon employees relating to my account, it appears as though Verizon is engaged in a series of de minimus infractions against a customer base lacking any bargaining power and damaged in amounts small enough to pass quietly over the heads of those tasked with protecting consumers from such activities.
If you bought a Xoom at full retail and declined any data plans, you will likely discover that you are being billed for the data plan you declined to use. If you already discovered this and think you have already fixed the "error" by contacting verizon, you will likely see that your call to verizon was completely ignored. If you contact verizon to ask why verizon has repeatedly ignored your desire to be free of any data plans, you will likely be treated like a child and misled to believe that purchasing a Xoom requires that you pay for a month-to-month data plan. Never mind that we know this to be untrue, because it is clear that verizon intends to collect as much revenue as it can during a product launch mired in confusing, contradictory and misleading terms.
Banking on the inability of an individual consumer to withstand delay tactics and phone shuffling from ineffective customer rep to ineffective customer rep, verizon is hoping that only a fraction of the erroneus and fraudulent charges will be fought hard enough to warrant reversal. For every $10 million that verizon will overcharge xoom buyers, if only 10% of defrauded customers fight the good fight and see theirncharges reversed, Verizon will see a $9 million windfall. Thisnis not a new tactic in business, just one I did not expect Verizon to take.
We do have some leverage, we just need to figure out how to utilize it. I presumr this is a good enough forum to seek out other not willing to take a $300 shaft from verizon, especially after paying $800 for a luxury like a xoom.
Any thoughts? Ideas? How can we become a squeaky enough wheel such that we're made right and others are not subject to deceitful tactics with little or no recourse?
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All you have to do and I have done this before and won against T-mobile is go to the Small Claims Court and open a case against verizon. your case will be heard in 30 days
You'll probably have more luck on the Better Business Bureau website than posting on here. There's nothing any of us can really do about it, unless the Verizon CEO secretly lurks in here.
Good luck!
Silly me for thinking I'd find sympathetic ears here. My bad.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
@lurker these forums are full of haters man. Thanks for your service and good luck with the ordeal.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
Well said my good man. Verizon is the devil, I have known this since my dumbphone days They are too big and I am praying for an event that sees them lose so many subscribers that they drop to #3 or #4 and have to change tactics. This won't happen, but I can dream.
monadzback said:
He is trying to help the community. Most of you suck anyways. Thanks for the post op.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only difference between your post and his is you took a lot less words to say nothing.
Thank you for being succinct OP
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App
I must say after reading all that I am still not sure what the problem is.. Did they get your GF in a contract instead of month to month you can cancel? Or will they just not cancel your data plan at all??
I had no issue and took 10 minutes on the phone and was told to call back if I did see a charge on my bill and they would remove it..
mjpacheco said:
The only difference between your post and his is you took a lot less words to say nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA App

Getting out a ETF - idea

Just spent 45 mins trying to download a Google voicemail. No dice. That's how bad sprint 3G is in downtown Chicago. It is pretty much unusable. After calling Sprint and getting nowhere as usual, I am done and want out of my contract (this is not a bash sprint thread - just the facts).
I really don't feel like paying the ETF considering I can't use something I am paying for. I was thinking of just filing a small claims lawsuit (not a lawyer or anything - but had a friend who did something similar). It takes about an hour to file (I think) and costs $75. I don't believe sprint would bother fighting it - they would prob just contact me to settle (I want out of contract sans ETF and they pay court fees). It sure would get their attention if a bunch of people started doing this.
Viable? Looking for opinions - never done anything like this before and I figure if nothing else it would be a learning experience. Judge Wapner here I come!
wiltok said:
Just spent 45 mins trying to download a Google voicemail. No dice. That's how bad sprint 3G is in downtown Chicago. It is pretty much unusable. After calling Sprint and getting nowhere as usual, I am done and want out of my contract (this is not a bash sprint thread - just the facts).
I really don't feel like paying the ETF considering I can't use something I am paying for. I was thinking of just filing a small claims lawsuit (not a lawyer or anything - but had a friend who did something similar). It takes about an hour to file (I think) and costs $75. I don't believe sprint would bother fighting it - they would prob just contact me to settle (I want out of contract sans ETF and they pay court fees). It sure would get their attention if a bunch of people started doing this.
Viable? Looking for opinions - never done anything like this before and I figure if nothing else it would be a learning experience. Judge Wapner here I come!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's my suggestion.
I'm assuming that you've called Sprint more than once and thus it is in the notes, right?
Call *2, dial 000000000 until it moves you along.
And explain that because you aren't getting the service you're promised you want out of your contract with no fee.
They will extend that to you. They have to because they aren't fulfilling their end of the contract. They actually extended that to me although I'm not cancelling.
Downtown Chicago as well and the worst service I've ever had...but mine is going on 2 months worth of horrible service...before my 3G was so fast I never even had to think about putting on the 4G...
I've loved Sprint but two months without proper service is making me want to jump...I may be a G2X owner shortly.
After countless calls and dealings with tech after tech about my data speeds. They are finally going to take care of me. My bill will be adjusted every month until the speeds are back to normal. And my upgrades have been reset as well my etf was waved too. I got so much because of how the "tech" handled my ticket. Basically told me to deal with it. I have been in contact with a very helpful and nice lady on the ceo's team and she made sure I was taken care of.
So send an email to the ceo's office be nice and they should take care of you
from my phone duh
They let me out when I moved here to Washington because there was no signal at all. All I had to do was email/fax them proof I was living here. They sent someone out to check it though to verify it was true. Going to miss my EVO but have to have service.
It states in your contract that they have the authority to assess an ETF upon termination of contract, tower and throughput issues are not valid nullification points.
If you take them to small claims, they'll just wave your contract in your face and be done.
In all seriousness, just escalate as far as it needs to go. Retentions will do just about anything, save for waiving ETF.
Sunsparc said:
It states in your contract that they have the authority to assess an ETF upon termination of contract, tower and throughput issues are not valid nullification points.
If you take them to small claims, they'll just wave your contract in your face and be done.
In all seriousness, just escalate as far as it needs to go. Retentions will do just about anything, save for waiving ETF.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are required to give you a certain level of service and if they can't provide it then they violate the contract.
They will waive it.
I knew how poorly it was going to go but I figured I was going to call anyway.
First person told me there were no problems with their towers and asked about hardware replacement. I said no, when I'm in areas that I get a good signal my phone works fine...2nd person said there were problems (i knew it) and that they are working on it. He also mentioned possibly letting me out ETF free.
I really don't want to go that route though, I just want the service I was getting to come back, I loved Sprint's service when it's working. I don't want to ditch the carrier just because of two bad months but nobody has confirmed anything on it getting any better, which I know they can't.
I called retentions awhile back, stated that tech support says the area is fine and working as it should, I said, no, it isn't and it hasn't been for months...I went to some local Sprint stores and asked the employees there, which informed me that, yes, the towers have been stuck in the middle of being upgraded for 6+ months now because Qwest hasn't installed the new T1 lines yet. All the lady in retentions would say was Okay and act dumb. I guess I could keep trying.
wiltok said:
It takes about an hour to file (I think) and costs $75.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It costs over $200 to file a suit in small claims court here in Miami-Dade county, so I'd look into that before digging any deeper into this. I doubt Sprint will send out a lawyer to contest a $200 case, but it may cost you as much as the ETF itself would just to TRY and get out of it this way.
Just continue to call and complain. Eventually, you will come across an employee who will help you.
Hrshycro said:
I called retentions awhile back, stated that tech support says the area is fine and working as it should, I said, no, it isn't and it hasn't been for months...I went to some local Sprint stores and asked the employees there, which informed me that, yes, the towers have been stuck in the middle of being upgraded for 6+ months now because Qwest hasn't installed the new T1 lines yet. All the lady in retentions would say was Okay and act dumb. I guess I could keep trying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I hope they are putting in like 30 T1 lines!
The Sprint CS rep told me that there was a notation associated with my area 'users may experience slower data speeds'. They are acknowledging there is a problem - and they aren't kidding! It doesn't take much bandwidth to download a voicemail. Data speeds are non existent.
wiltok said:
The Sprint CS rep told me that there was a notation associated with my area 'users may experience slower data speeds'. They are acknowledging there is a problem - and they aren't kidding! It doesn't take much bandwidth to download a voicemail. Data speeds are non existent.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed which is why they are violating the contract. Thus no ETF
OP - here. A previous poster was correct - looks like it costs $120 to file a small claims suit and i would also have to pay an appearance fee of $176. That ain't gonna work! Oh well - have to see what Sprint will do for me...
Hrshycro said:
I called retentions awhile back, stated that tech support says the area is fine and working as it should, I said, no, it isn't and it hasn't been for months...I went to some local Sprint stores and asked the employees there, which informed me that, yes, the towers have been stuck in the middle of being upgraded for 6+ months now because Qwest hasn't installed the new T1 lines yet. All the lady in retentions would say was Okay and act dumb. I guess I could keep trying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's hilarious about that is that a T1 line only has capacity to serve a single customer with a really good 3G speed (1.5Mbps), or two with a so-so speed (750 Mbps). My cable modem equals TWELVE T1 lines. So if they're waiting for T1 lines to be installed to the tower, that explains a LOT.
Or the reps just don't have a clue what they're talking about. That's probably more likely.
wiltok said:
OP - here. A previous poster was correct - looks like it costs $120 to file a small claims suit and i would also have to pay an appearance fee of $176. That ain't gonna work! Oh well - have to see what Sprint will do for me...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, I knew it. Once you take someone to small claims court, you usually end up suing for court costs, too. However, you have to pay the charges up front and you could still lose and end up having to pay the ETF anyway.
Call them or email them (or chat) and tell them you want a credit on your bill (even for now) they gave me $50 off my bill just for calling them and bugging them lol I also asked for credit off my bill.
Also just use a verizon prl and they will give you the boot.
mattykinsx said:
They are required to give you a certain level of service and if they can't provide it then they violate the contract.
They will waive it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, they are not. It's in the contract. Service is not guarenteed.
Just use the verizon roaming trick and use large amounts of data for a few months.
wiltok said:
I was thinking of just filing a small claims lawsuit (not a lawyer or anything - but had a friend who did something similar). It takes about an hour to file (I think) and costs $75. I don't believe sprint would bother fighting it - they would prob just contact me to settle (I want out of contract sans ETF and they pay court fees). It sure would get their attention if a bunch of people started doing this.
Viable? Looking for opinions - never done anything like this before and I figure if nothing else it would be a learning experience. Judge Wapner here I come!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sunsparc said:
If you take them to small claims, they'll just wave your contract in your face and be done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
(IANAL)
Alright, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but DO NOT take them to court. There is a section in the Sprint PCS Terms and Conditions of Service (that you signed) specifically stating that you agree that all disputes will not be taken to court but arbitrated. If you take them to court they will show that you agreed not to, judge will drop the case, and you will be liable for both your court fees as well as Sprint's (You are not liable for Sprint's arbitration fees though if you go that route). Quoting all relevant parts of the T&C now. There is an exception to that for small claims court, but you would definitely lose against Sprint and still have to pay their court fees.
It is almost always the better route to fight with them AND SEND THEM WRITTEN NOTICE OF YOUR DISPUTE until they let you out of contract. Also STOP using the phone during the dispute that way you can get them to waive any monthly bills AFTER the written notice of dispute.
Sprint PCS Terms and Conditions of Service said:
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
We Agree To First Contact Each Other With Any Disputes We each agree to first contact each other with any disputes and provide a written description of the problem, all relevant documents/information and the proposed resolution. We agree to contact each other as described in the Providing Notice to Each Other Under The Agreement section of the Ts&Cs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint PCS Terms and Conditions of Service said:
Instead Of Suing In Court, We Each Agree To Arbitrate Disputes We each agree to finally settle all disputes (as defined and subject to any specific exceptions below) only by arbitration. In arbitration, there’s no judge or jury and review is limited. However, just as a court would, the arbitrator must honor the terms and limitations in the Agreement and can award the same damages and relief, including any attorney’s fees authorized by law. The arbitrator’s decision and award is final and binding, with some exceptions under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), and judgment on the award may be entered in any court with jurisdiction. We each also agree as follows:
(1) "Disputes" are any claims or controversies against each other related in any way to our Services or the Agreement, including, but not limited to, coverage, Devices, privacy, or advertising, even if it arises after Services have terminated — this includes claims you bring against our employees, agents, affiliates or other representatives, or that we bring against you.
(2) If either of us wants to arbitrate a dispute, we agree to send written notice to the other providing a description of the dispute, previous efforts to resolve the dispute, all supporting documents/information, and the proposed resolution. Notice to you will be sent as described in the Providing Notice to Each Other Under The Agreement section of the Ts&Cs and notice to us will be sent to: General Counsel; Arbitration Office; 2001 Edmund Halley Drive VARESP0513-502; Reston, Virginia 20191. We agree to make attempts to resolve the dispute. If we cannot resolve the dispute within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the notice to arbitrate, then we may submit the dispute to formal arbitration.
(3) The FAA applies to this Agreement and arbitration provision. We each agree the FAA’s provisions, not state law, govern all questions of whether a dispute is subject to arbitration.
(4) Unless we each agree otherwise, the Arbitration will be conducted by a single neutral arbitrator and will take place in the county of the last billing address of the Device. We will agree on the arbitrator, and if we cannot agree, then the arbitrator will be appointed by the court as provided by the FAA.
(5) The arbitration will be governed by the arbitration rules selected by the Arbitrator. The federal or state law that applies to the Agreement will also apply during the arbitration.
(6) We each agree not to pursue arbitration on a classwide basis. We each agree that any arbitration will be solely between you and us (not brought on behalf of or together with another individual’s claim). If for any reason any court or arbitrator holds that this restriction is unconscionable or unenforceable, then our agreement to arbitrate doesn’t apply and the dispute must be brought in court.
(7) We each are responsible for our respective costs relating to counsel, experts, and witnesses, as well as any other costs relating to the arbitration. However, we will cover any arbitration administrative or filing fees above: (a) $25 if you are seeking less than $1,000 from us; or (b) the equivalent court filing fees for a court action in the appropriate jurisdiction if you are seeking $1,000 or more from us.
Exceptions To Our Agreement To Arbitrate Disputes Either of us may bring qualifying claims in small claims court. In addition, this arbitration provision does not prevent you from filing your dispute with any federal, state or local government agency that can, if the law allows, seek relief against us on your behalf.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sprint PCS Terms and Conditions of Service said:
No Class Actions
TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, WE EACH WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO PURSUE DISPUTES ON A CLASSWIDE BASIS; THAT IS, TO EITHER JOIN A CLAIM WITH THE CLAIM OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, OR ASSERT A CLAIM IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON BEHALF OF ANYONE ELSE IN ANY LAWSUIT, ARBITRATION OR OTHER PROCEEDING.
No Trial By Jury
TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, WE EACH WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LAWSUIT, ARBITRATION OR OTHER PROCEEDING.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Washington agencies continuously dropping BlackBerry

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the latest federal agency to drop BlackBerry smart phones for its employees, adding to the woes of maker Research in Motion (RIMM).
BlackBerry still remains the smart phone of choice for Capitol Hill, but cracks are appearing in RIM's stronghold among federal agencies.
The federal immigrations agency said last week it had bought $2.1 million Apple iPhones for its 17,676 users, saying that RIM's technology "can no longer meet" its needs.
Earlier this year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also announced they were switching from BlackBerrys to iPhones for their staffers.
It's bad news for RIM, which has already weathered a big drop in corporate users, a market it once dominated. In the past year, major corporations, ranging from Yahoo (YHOO, Fortune 500) to Halliburton (HAL, Fortune 500), have decided to stop using BlackBerrys for their staff.
RIM has come under a lot of criticism for being too slow in revamping its operating system. It is launching a new BlackBerry 10 next year.
RIM wouldn't talk about the effect of the fast-shrinking federal usage on its business. Rather, it pointed out that the company still has a million government customers in North America, some 400,000 of whom have upgraded their
BlackBerrys in the past year.
"Government organizations globally have relied on the security of the BlackBerry solution for over a decade," said Paul Lucier, vice president of RIM government solutions in a statement.
Carl Howe, a technology analyst with Yankee Group, said RIM can weather the losses because of its reputation of maintaining a highly secure system.
"For anyone who is really interested in high security systems, BlackBerry really remains the gold standard," Howe said.
Still, RIM appears to be hemorrhaging customers all around.
Federal contractor Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH, Fortune 500) also decided last week it would no longer use BlackBerry mobile devices, confirmed spokesman James Fisher. Most of Booz Allen's 25,000 employees use personal smart phones to check company mail. Those who have BlackBerrys will no longer be able to access company email, Fisher said.
Booz Allen advises the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Department of Homeland Security.

Categories

Resources