Verizon in violation of Truth in Avertising laws?

[Jeremy8000]

They are the ONLY carrier that exclusively sells pixel in their stores...what is misunderstood here???

The misunderstanding seems to be coming from your continuing to the content of my original post and my repeated reminders to you that I'm not commenting on their sales exclusivity claims, but rather their assertion regarding functionality of device on different networks. To be candid, I don't see how I can be more clear on the specific advertising point I'm addressing, and will have to take any further 'misunderstanding' as willful.

To be abundantly diligent, I'll emphasize it more to avoid further confusion...

"The only network that can power the first phone with the new Google Assistant, unlimited photo storage, and a stunning VR experience."

Let's just focus on that statement. It has nothing to do with where you can or can't buy it, or whether the device can be activated only on certain networks. It's saying that Verizon's is the only network capable of providing those functionalities. There is no truth in that. Plenty of people using Google Assistant and unlimited photo storage with their Pixels powered by Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile. And when the VR ships, they'll be able to use them the same as Verizon (who isn't selling them yet either, so can't claim that they're powering them now as a defense).

It isn't stopping at saying they're the only one who does power those things. It's going so far as to state that they're the only one who can power them. They might as well say "The only network that can power a phone with Internet access."

 

[tgrsnpr]

Verizon isn't violating anything since this phone (as of now) is exclusive to Verizon. However it works for other networks because the phone is being provided by Google and Google probably did not allow CDMA only version of the pixel. Verizon is also required to have their phones sim unlocked thus this allowing people to buy it from Verizon and using it with other networks.

 

[miyanc]

Verizon isn't violating anything since this phone (as of now) is exclusive to Verizon. However it works for other networks because the phone is being provided by Google and Google probably did not allow CDMA only version of the pixel. Verizon is also required to have their phones sim unlocked thus this allowing people to buy it from Verizon and using it with other networks.

I think of this in 2 ways. The real violation in the statement is not the fact that you can remove the sim card and put your own in. That's like ford saying our cars are sold only with goodyear and the dealership modifies a truck with special tires on before you get and run back in and say HAHAHAHAAH. your in violation of advertising laws. or you buy it and put your own tires on it. Also as of now the only phones that will run daydream is the pixel. so far all is good legally.
Now to where someone may have an issue, Google FI. Isnt that suppose to be a carrier? So if anyone could have an issue it would be GOOGLE, but as we all know they are the ones who made this deal so it may not matter.

I bet google and verizon could come up with variations in the phones full potential and show that it does work better or to the fullest potential on there network and as a result of this, and the daydream only working on pixels, for now, then the commercial is fine, until its released on other networks.

By then they will have changed there commercials. Oh and btw can you put the att card in and still get access to go90, my verizon and verizon messanger? oh well then its not up to its full potential.

 

[Jeremy8000]

Verizon isn't violating anything since this phone (as of now) is exclusive to Verizon. However it works for other networks because the phone is being provided by Google and Google probably did not allow CDMA only version of the pixel. Verizon is also required to have their phones sim unlocked thus this allowing people to buy it from Verizon and using it with other networks.

Exclusivity or lack thereof, and claims relative to such exclusivity, are 100% irrelevant to this post which is focusing on a totally different claim regarding actual network capability of supporting three specific features of the Pixel.

Verizon stated they are the only network capable of powering those features. It would take only one example of another carrier (at least in the US, where they are performing this advertising) to be capable of driving all three of those features to prove their claim illegitimate. As it stands, all major US carriers can disprove them.

This isn't about 'can the phone work on other carriers' as Verizon has never said it couldn't. What they did say is that they are the only ones for whom three very specific features would work, and they lied.

By then they will have changed there commercials. Oh and btw can you put the att card in and still get access to go90, my verizon and verizon messanger? oh well then its not up to its full potential.

Snipped part of it because again we have a post ignoring the core of the argument. Just to point on this, the statement issued by Verizon did not say anything about those items. It spoke solely to their network's unique capability to power Google Assistant, unlimited photo storage, and VR. These take nothing more than an internet connection as offered by any of their competitors.


Also... added emphasis in OP to the main point, since most seem to miss it.

 

[shady195]

Each independent declaration, or sentence, has to stand true on its own, unless directly augmented by another or qualified by 'fine print.' So let's read the fine print and see if I missed anything (spoiler: I didn't):

1. "Daydream View Headset sold separately"
2. "Device payment purchase req'd. Up to $300 trade-in credit applied over 24 mos. w/ trade in of eligible phone in good, working and cosmetic condition; credit starts w/in 2-3 cycles and ends when balance is paid. Line must be active for 2 yrs. for full credit."
3. "No surprise overages when you choose Safety Mode. 4 smartphone lines on device payment agreement on the Verizon 12GB promotional plan req'd. 2 GB of bonus data applied per month/line, as long as line remains active on $20 line access on new Verizon Plan size L (8GB) or above; applied w/in 2-3 cycles & does not carry over. Limited time offer. Subject to VZW Agmts, Calling Plan, and credit approval."
4. "No surprise overages when you choose Safety Mode."

None of these offer any qualification or modification in reference to Verizon's ability, or other carriers' inability, to power the three aforementioned capabilities when Verizon is claiming exclusive ability to collectively empower.

You can choose to prefer to look at the ad collectively, but it is the sum of its parts when each, as a claim, is a wholly separate component. If one part of the ad is blatantly and demonstrably untrue, it is in violation.



Yes

Potentially people who see the ad, absolutely want the Pixel, and don't buy it (even from the Google store) to use on another network because, even with exercising a cautious eye to detail, they are led to believe that the Pixel would not be able to provide all three of these functionalities on their other preferred network.

Google isn't being hurt by this, but I'd be surprised if T-Mo, Sprint, nor AT&T take action.

By that logic, just about every single phone company who has a carrier exclusive model (which can be purchased directly and used on other networks) would be in the wrong here as well..

Because there is no "deal" with the other phone carriers, just google offering the unlocked version on their own account, they are not in any sort of legal wrong doing. Other carriers would have absolutely 0 grounds to sue Google based on your statement.

This thread is honestly silly, a bunch of internet law experts debating on if Verizons marketing scheme is illegal when its not.

 

[miyanc]

Is Ford the number one truck? Is T-Mobile the only network to be able to bring the iPhone to its fullest potential? Wait, no one tops the copper top, but energizer is the longest lasting. Tide has the whitest whites. 4 out of 5 dentists prefer.

Any of these can be taken against those claims and the company would line up there objections and proof. I get what you are saying, but stop omitting and changing things each time we trim out parts of you argument and say well I was only referring to this or I mean just that. In order for you to do what you are saying someone has to augment the phone. They have to change it with products not sold by Verizon or Google. That puts the argument into a different category. Verizon has no control over what you or any of us do with our phone. Sold as is they are correct. Does the phone come with a att or T-Mobile sim card. Your whole argument is based on customer augmentations. Yes Google says it will work with other networks. But that doesn't mean that's how it is sold. So the parts of my comments you feel are ignoring the op, are not.

I am not a lawyer and in terms of any argument nobody is right until all the lawyers are done in all levels of court and all the judges have rules in as many directions as they do. I am not right, you are not right and it really doesn't matter.

 

[Jeremy8000]

By that logic, just about every single phone company who has a carrier exclusive model (which can be purchased directly and used on other networks) would be in the wrong here as well..

Because there is no "deal" with the other phone carriers, just google offering the unlocked version on their own account, they are not in any sort of legal wrong doing. Other carriers would have absolutely 0 grounds to sue Google based on your statement.

This thread is honestly silly, a bunch of internet law experts debating on if Verizons marketing scheme is illegal when its not.

1. No, this isn't about exclusivity of who can sell it (for the n'th time).
2. This is about Verizon stating no other carrier is capable of delivering the set of those three services. They don't disclaim it by saying that they're the only ones who can provide you the phone and power all of those services, which would have been something they could validate. By leaving any aspect of their exclusive provision of the hardware out of the comment, they have to truly be the only network on which all three would work. They're not. It works on all of them.
3. OTHER CARRIERS NOT DIRECTLY SELLING THE PHONE DOES NOT GIVE VERIZON THE RIGHT TO FALSELY STATE THAT THESE THREE FEATURES WILL SIMPLY NOT ALL WORK FOR PIXELS ON ANY OF ITS COMPETITORS.
4. Google cannot be held responsible for ads by Verizon; it would be Verizon who I am suggesting may be subject to sanctions/penalties.

Marketing spin is fine, or at least not illegal, when the truth can be discerned by close inspection. Verizon leaves no avenue by which a consumer could interpret anything differently than their assertion that if the consumer wants to have those three features, they have no other network on which they can use a Pixel than Verizon.

Heck, if you want to play the carrier exclusivity card and say that if a carrier doesn't sell them they can't complain (which isn't the case as the assertion could impact sales for any of them), you only have to go so far as Project Fi to find another carrier that does sell Pixels - just not through retail stores - to find one that Verizon is denying has the ability to power those features. Is Google likely to make a fuss? No - Fi's not a big deal for them. Will T-Mobile/AT&T/Sprint? Who knows - but they've got a very strong case if they were to choose to pursue it.

 

[tdizzel]

"The only network that can power the first phone with the new Google Assistant, unlimited photo storage, and a stunning VR experience."
This is 100% false. In order for this statement to be valid by any interpretation, Verizon doesn't have to be the only carrier capable of powering any of these three - it has to be the only carrier capable of powering all three. If any one other carrier can power all three, it's fraudulent advertising. Problem for Verizon is that every wireless carrier in the world that can deliver reasonably high speed data can power all three (and all of the major players in the US easily meet that criteria).
[use/unlimited data options.

So what other networks"can power" the Pixel? What does "can power" even mean? It means whatever they want it to mean. They don't say it's the only network that it works on, they say they're "the only network that can power" it. And since they're the only network that can give it the power of Verizon, they're in the clear on this one.

 

[Jeremy8000]

Any of these can be taken against those claims and the company would line up there objections and proof. I get what you are saying, but stop omitting and changing things each time we trim out parts of you argument and say well I was only referring to this or I mean just that. In order for you to do what you are saying someone has to augment the phone. They have to change it with products not sold by Verizon or Google. That puts the argument into a different category. Verizon has no control over what you or any of us do with our phone. Sold as is they are correct. Does the phone come with a att or T-Mobile sim card. Your whole argument is based on customer augmentations. Yes Google says it will work with other networks. But that doesn't mean that's how it is sold. So the parts of my comments you feel are ignoring the op, are not.

I am not a lawyer and in terms of any argument nobody is right until all the lawyers are done in all levels of court and all the judges have rules in as many directions as they do. I am not right, you are not right and it really doesn't matter.

I have continually attempted (to woefully inattentive results) to refocus wandering arguments on the core point. Take a look at it. I've addressed it in every single post.

To address your point: Nobody has to augment the phone in any way whatsoever moreso with any other carrier than with Verizon. Two of the features are only dependent on an internet connection, which all offer. The third requires a hardware accessory equally available. Please advise me as to how I cannot power my Pixel to do all of those three things on any combination of Tmobile, Sprint, AT&T, and heck, let's even add in Google's Project Fi. There is none, because all three can be powered by any of them.

The rest is moot. Verizon isn't saying 'we're the only ones who can power these features under these conditions' - if they were, those conditions might enable that statement to be true. Without conditions, it's false, end of story.

 

[Jeremy8000]

The problem with that is its an extreme interpretation that is deliberately misrepresentative at best on its own. I doubt people would accept it if Sprint ran and ad saying "Sprint is the only wireless carrier on which you can access the Internet." that they might define "access" differently...

There's a floodgate that opens when you yield to extremes, and there's the requirement for fine print for clarification when truth is otherwise obfuscated. Verizon didn't opt to clarify or qualify. You stretch to far, and you're liable to get snapped.

At any rate, I've made the argument despite most seeming to be unwilling or unable to actually look at those core lines (Tdizzel, I appreciate your actually focusing in on them even if we have a difference in opinion as to what meets reasonable requirements for diligence in compliance).

 

[pbike908]

I think the most blatant falsehood in this advertisement, is one can't take a passenger train to Boulder, CO...

 

[vzwuser76]

The problem with that is its an extreme interpretation that is deliberately misrepresentative at best on its own. I doubt people would accept it if Sprint ran and ad saying "Sprint is the only wireless carrier on which you can access the Internet." that they might define "access" differently...

There's a floodgate that opens when you yield to extremes, and there's the requirement for fine print for clarification when truth is otherwise obfuscated. Verizon didn't opt to clarify or qualify. You stretch to far, and you're liable to get snapped.

At any rate, I've made the argument despite most seeming to be unwilling or unable to actually look at those core lines (Tdizzel, I appreciate your actually focusing in on them even if we have a difference in opinion as to what meets reasonable requirements for diligence in compliance).

The way you're talking reminds me of this video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0

 

[ggendel]

I would assume that this falls into the FTC's "Truth in Advertising" regulations" https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising. You could start a complaint https://www.ftc.gov/faq/consumer-protection/submit-consumer-complaint-ftc

 

[Almeuit]

Mod Note - I cleaned some posts. If you want to contribute to the conservation then cool... If not then just move along. Belittling and being down right rude isn't needed. The OP is allowed to bring up concerns they see to talk about it if they want.

Thanks.

 

[xocomaox]

They're using the word power to also mean they sell it in stores. There's no lawsuit here.

 

[tdizzel]

The problem with that is its an extreme interpretation that is deliberately misrepresentative at best on its own. I doubt people would accept it if Sprint ran and ad saying "Sprint is the only wireless carrier on which you can access the Internet." that they might define "access" differently...

There's a floodgate that opens when you yield to extremes, and there's the requirement for fine print for clarification when truth is otherwise obfuscated. Verizon didn't opt to clarify or qualify. You stretch to far, and you're liable to get snapped.

You might think that but the legal world is different than the real world and any lawyer would focus on the "can power" phrase and what they mean by it, and any judge would agree with them.

 

[Jeremy8000]

You might think that but the legal world is different than the real world and any lawyer would focus on the "can power" phrase and what they mean by it, and any judge would agree with them.

So AT&T running an ad saying "AT&T is the only wireless carrier capable of providing you data service" would be defensible, because AT&T can say "well by service we mean not just connectivity, but our customer support behind the service, etc...

Pizza Hut can run an ad saying "If you want a pizza at your home, look no further, as we're the only option you have if you want one delivered" and defend it on basis of what they mean by delivered.

Gotcha.

 

[gabbott]

You might think that but the legal world is different than the real world and any lawyer would focus on the "can power" phrase and what they mean by it, and any judge would agree with them.

I agree with this. It all has to do with that phrase "can power".

I'm not saying it makes it right but you can be sure Verizon had the ad agency's wording looked over by their legal counsel.

 

[anon(9072051)]

They're using the word power to also mean they sell it in stores. There's no lawsuit here.

What?! Lawsuit or no lawsuit, that argument is perverse.

 

[anon(632115)]

So I'm no attorney, but I think this ad meets the criteria. Verizon is corporation. Check. They disseminated an ad intended to have an effect on commerce to induce purchase of devices. Check. The disseminated ad was a false advertisement. Check. It's in violation, being an "unfair or deceptive act or practice" as defined under subsection (b) within the provisions of subsection (a) of the section.

Correct, you are no attorney. I suggest you read S45 as referred to in 52(b) which refers to product labelling. How ironic!