• helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yeah but it’s just blatant false advertising when the FAQ or ToS directly contradicts the public advertising.

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s capitolism, baybeeeee!!! Regulation free, the way it was meant to be!!! Where huge corporate interests dominate not only politics, but also the legal system, and healthcare systems! Where the only punishment is a fine so big the average citizen would consider it lifelong crippling debt, but the average corporation would look at it as a fraction of doing business. Because they have more money than anyone would ever need. That makes them better than you, and you know it.

      I’d now like to quote one of philosophys greatest minds.

      “In case you can’t tell, I was being SARCASTIC!!!” ~Homer Simpson.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Hell. With the way life is going I’d settle for just regular roofies. I’m trying to adopt napping as a hobby. Seems like I’m happiest when I’m not awake

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      It also wasn’t in the ToS/T&C. The FAQ is not a legal document, and I wouldn’t expect to need to read it if I read the T&C.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        From the article:

        “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.”

        Explain how that is not a blatant lie.

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s not false, but it is deceptive. Does the USA have an advertising regulator, or does it fall under the FTC? This kind of marketing should definitely be banned.

          • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.