“New rule: Only YOU should have the power to change what you pay,” T-Mobile said in a January 2017 announcement of its “Un-contract” promise for T-Mobile One plans. “Now, T-Mobile One customers keep their price until THEY decide to change it. T-Mobile will never change the price you pay for your T-Mobile One plan.”
Except the possibility to keep the current price is no longer available, therefore, the consumer does not have the option to continue paying the same price, ergo TMobile forced the customer to change the price they pay, either to a higher amount for the same contact or to 0 for no contact. The original advertisement stated that TMobile would never change the price a customer pays, but it directly forcing this change by not offering the same contact.
People should be reading the small print though, or in this case an FAQ.
There’s a place for more strict regulations on advertising here though. You shouldn’t be able to make out a product is one thing in the headline, then tell us it isn’t further down the page.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there already precident set in the 90s that EULAs do not have any holding in a court of law as a contract if the terms are labeled to be unrealistic? I swear someone sued microsoft because they did something in their EULA for Windows 95, and when it went to court, the judge said “yeah, fuck this…”
And the thing about precidents is, once they’re established, courts generally tend to follow that precident, else it would mean that two similiar cases with similiar backgrounds were judged differently.
deleted by creator
From the article:
Explain how that is not a blatant lie.
deleted by creator
Except the possibility to keep the current price is no longer available, therefore, the consumer does not have the option to continue paying the same price, ergo TMobile forced the customer to change the price they pay, either to a higher amount for the same contact or to 0 for no contact. The original advertisement stated that TMobile would never change the price a customer pays, but it directly forcing this change by not offering the same contact.
As you said. it’s not false, but it is deceptive.
People should be reading the small print though, or in this case an FAQ.
There’s a place for more strict regulations on advertising here though. You shouldn’t be able to make out a product is one thing in the headline, then tell us it isn’t further down the page.
deleted by creator
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there already precident set in the 90s that EULAs do not have any holding in a court of law as a contract if the terms are labeled to be unrealistic? I swear someone sued microsoft because they did something in their EULA for Windows 95, and when it went to court, the judge said “yeah, fuck this…”
And the thing about precidents is, once they’re established, courts generally tend to follow that precident, else it would mean that two similiar cases with similiar backgrounds were judged differently.