Verizon in violation of Truth in Avertising laws?

[WallaceD]

This thread is honestly silly.

+1

 

[anon(632115)]

Totally agree. These people have their compliance team and lawyers to ensure the law is not broken and I would say they are better placed to take a view. I disagree with the OP and find it quite tiresome. If the OP feels he needs to contact the relevant authorities, he should do so and report his findings

 

[tdizzel]

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.

Exactly.
Remember, Bill Clinton got off partially by using the defense "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
Like I said, the legal world is different than the real world

 

[JasW]

Oh, brother.

Let me start by saying that I'm bothered by the ad because I bought my Pixel XL from the Google Store and I'm on AT&T. The statement that the Google Pixel is "only on Verizon" is patently false no matter how you slice it.

Having said that: how has anyone been damaged? The only damages I can think of is that someone who sees you using a Pixel may assume you're on Verizon when you're not. While I do take considerable umbrage at being associated with a trash company like Verizon that has the nerve to use a CDMA network, those are not what would be deemed legally cognizable damages under the FTC Act.

If it were actually offered by AT&T as well as Verizon, AT&T might be able to make something of it because the ad suggests you can only get the phone from Verizon, which would arguably deprive AT&T of sales. But of course the only place aside from Verizon (and its authorized agent, Best Buy) that one can get the phone is the Google Store. Which means that Google is the only one "damaged." But of course Google entered into an agreement with Verizon under which Verizon bought a ton of phones from Google (presumably along with certain rights, perhaps even the right to make the subject statement). So it's "OK [by] Google," even if it might not be by some of us.

 

[SteelGator]

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.

This is getting to the point. By power the ability they could mean, sell it in store, set it up, and start it running. They are the only service that can do that.

It is a lot of double talk, but as everybody has said, they all do it.

I also think you need an aggrieved party. Fi won't be playing that roll, Google signed the exclusivity agreement. The rest of the carriers would not want all their claims reviewed, so they won't be that party -- Glass Houses and all that. That leaves you with consumers. I don't see a class action suit getting very far. What monetary harm was done? What are you suing for?

 

[1213 1213]

Oh, brother.

Let me start by saying that I'm bothered by the ad because I bought my Pixel XL from the Google Store and I'm on AT&T. The statement that the Google Pixel is "only on Verizon" is patently false no matter how you slice it.

Having said that: how has anyone been damaged? The only damages I can think of is that someone who sees you using a Pixel may assume you're on Verizon when you're not. While I do take considerable umbrage at being associated with a trash company like Verizon that has the nerve to use a CDMA network, those are not what would be deemed legally cognizable damages under the FTC Act.

If it were actually offered by AT&T as well as Verizon, AT&T might be able to make something of it because the ad suggests you can only get the phone from Verizon, which would arguably deprive AT&T of sales. But of course the only place aside from Verizon (and its authorized agent, Best Buy) that one can get the phone is the Google Store. Which means that Google is the only one "damaged." But of course Google entered into an agreement with Verizon under which Verizon bought a ton of phones from Google (presumably along with certain rights, perhaps even the right to make the subject statement). So it's "OK [by] Google," even if it might not be by some of us.

Consumers who wanted the pixel but can't because only Verizon has it, lose out. Other carriers lose out if some of those consumers switch.

 

[Zendroid1]

I was at BestBuy yesterday looking at the pixel and an employee asked me if I was interested and what carrier I was on. I said T-Mobile. He said that the Pixel won't work on T-Mobile and will only work on Verizon. I tried to correct him but he said nope, it absolutely won't work. I gave up and left.

 

[JasW]

Consumers who wanted the pixel but can't because only Verizon has it, lose out. Other carriers lose out if some of those consumers switch.

A consumer on another carrier would lose out if it actually were "only on Verizon," much like non-AT&T customers did during the iPhone exclusivity days, or like NFL fans with cable lose out on Sunday Ticket. Yet those aren't unfair or deceptive trade practices. And if a manufacturer contracts with a seller to allow the seller "exclusivity" even though a consumer can still purchase the product directly from the manufacturer in addition to the seller, that isn't an unfair or deceptive trade practice either.

As far as the carriers go, that's just the nature of fair competition in a free enterprise system. Verizon clearly got the deal to attract customers, just like AT&T did with the iPhone.

 

[1213 1213]

A consumer on another carrier would lose out if it actually were "only on Verizon," much like non-AT&T customers did during the iPhone exclusivity days, or like NFL fans with cable lose out on Sunday Ticket. Yet those aren't unfair or deceptive trade practices. And if a manufacturer contracts with a seller to allow the seller "exclusivity" even though a consumer can still purchase the product directly from the manufacturer in addition to the seller, that isn't an unfair or deceptive trade practice either.

As far as the carriers go, that's just the nature of fair competition in a free enterprise system. Verizon clearly got the deal to attract customers, just like AT&T did with the iPhone.

I'm sorry, are you arguing that what they did isn't even deceptive? Seriously? Saying only on Verizon when it isn't only on Verizon isn't deceptive to you?

 

[juliesdroidsync]

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.

The way it came across to me is, "Wow! this is really misleading... surely this can't be legal???" But that's the bottom line here, isn't it? Although lawyers (and AC folks) can argue all day long about whether it's legal, it seems much harder to argue that it's not misleading...

 

[Jeremy8000]

"As of January 1, 2017, Verizon will be the only carrier providing wireless service. Don't wait till the holiday chaos - Switch now and don't get caught unprepared."

(oh, by 'service' we don't mean to say that others won't be capable of providing similar connectivity on phones, we mean the service our network provides).

There's no statement that cannot be changed to meet a preferred definition when you allow rampant revision of the dictionary. If someone yells out "I am robbing this bank!" to the teller at their bank while donning a ski mask and waving an empty sack, thereby inciting a panic, is it a viable legal defense for an attorney to argue that he was just exuberantly sharing his delight in how much better his loan rates at that bank are than at its competitors, and the ski mask and sack were part of a costume for a party to which he was heading?

The above example is extreme to the point of absurd, but it doesn't deviate from the mechanism some are suggesting legitimizes the defense. Which is why we generally see disclaimer small print - as Verizon did provide for many other aspects of the commercial, such as 'no surprise overages.' They could have left that out and, if challenged, said 'well we meant they wouldn't surprise us, not that they wouldn't surprise the customer.'

 

[JasW]

I'm sorry, are you arguing that what they did isn't even deceptive? Seriously? Saying only on Verizon when it isn't only on Verizon isn't deceptive to you?

I think when I said that the statement is "patently false," I made it pretty clear I found it deceptive. But is it the kind of deceptive act that constitutes an actionable violation of the FTC Act? That's another question altogether.

 

[Ry]

I was at BestBuy yesterday looking at the pixel and an employee asked me if I was interested and what carrier I was on. I said T-Mobile. He said that the Pixel won't work on T-Mobile and will only work on Verizon. I tried to correct him but he said nope, it absolutely won't work. I gave up and left.

Maybe there's an incentive for the rep to sell on/for/with Verizon service.

 

[1213 1213]

I think when I said that the statement is "patently false," I made it pretty clear I found it deceptive. But is it the kind of deceptive act that constitutes an actionable violation of the FTC Act? That's another question altogether.

People have been sued for claiming exclusivity or superiority when they don't have it. The question is whether they can manoeuvre the courts into saying that they didn't claim exclusivity and that they just meant they're the only carrier that sells it.

I'm not too familiar with what US carriers do, but I have a feeling what Verizon did hasn't been done like it has here, and we may very well see them be sued by their competitors. US carriers are already under scrutiny in the US, given how anticompetitive and dodgy they are compared to elsewhere.

 

[dsignori]

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.

This.

 

[JasW]

People have been sued for claiming exclusivity or superiority when they don't have it. The question is whether they can manoeuvre the courts into saying that they didn't claim exclusivity and that they just meant they're the only carrier that sells it.

I'm not too familiar with what US carriers do, but I have a feeling what Verizon did hasn't been done like it has here, and we may very well see them be sued by their competitors. US carriers are already under scrutiny in the US, given how anticompetitive and dodgy they are compared to elsewhere.

I'm not necessarily arguing with you, but note that it is Google that granted Verizon this variety of "exclusivity." What's the difference between that grant and a grant of actual exclusivity, i.e., a phone that will only work on the Verizon network and is not available from Google? As far as other carriers go, there is no real difference. They don't sell the Pixel either way. In fact, with the current arrangement, one can argue that it is less harmful to the other carriers than actual exclusivity because they get to keep customers like me. I am on AT&T without a contract, and I wanted the Pixel. I could have left for Verizon, but because Google offered the Pixel unlocked, I am sticking with AT&T.

 

[Richard Servello]

People have been sued for claiming exclusivity or superiority when they don't have it. The question is whether they can manoeuvre the courts into saying that they didn't claim exclusivity and that they just meant they're the only carrier that sells it.

I'm not too familiar with what US carriers do, but I have a feeling what Verizon did hasn't been done like it has here, and we may very well see them be sued by their competitors. US carriers are already under scrutiny in the US, given how anticompetitive and dodgy they are compared to elsewhere.

But they are exclusive...as stated by Google.

 

[vzwuser76]

"As of January 1, 2017, Verizon will be the only carrier providing wireless service. Don't wait till the holiday chaos - Switch now and don't get caught unprepared."

(oh, by 'service' we don't mean to say that others won't be capable of providing similar connectivity on phones, we mean the service our network provides).

There's no statement that cannot be changed to meet a preferred definition when you allow rampant revision of the dictionary. If someone yells out "I am robbing this bank!" to the teller at their bank while donning a ski mask and waving an empty sack, thereby inciting a panic, is it a viable legal defense for an attorney to argue that he was just exuberantly sharing his delight in how much better his loan rates at that bank are than at its competitors, and the ski mask and sack were part of a costume for a party to which he was heading?

The above example is extreme to the point of absurd, but it doesn't deviate from the mechanism some are suggesting legitimizes the defense. Which is why we generally see disclaimer small print - as Verizon did provide for many other aspects of the commercial, such as 'no surprise overages.' They could have left that out and, if challenged, said 'well we meant they wouldn't surprise us, not that they wouldn't surprise the customer.'

I seriously can't believe you're still on about this. There are literally hundreds of other companies advertising as deceptively or more so. You act like you want to start a class action suit or something. I mean really, what was the point of this thread? That companies try to deceive consumers to get them to part ways with their money? It's nothing new, and this isn't the worst example of it.

You want to see a really blatant false advertisement, rewatch the entire election.

 

[tdizzel]

The above example is extreme to the point of absurd, but it doesn't deviate from the mechanism some are suggesting legitimizes the defense. Which is why we generally see disclaimer small print - as Verizon did provide for many other aspects of the commercial, such as 'no surprise overages.' They could have left that out and, if challenged, said 'well we meant they wouldn't surprise us, not that they wouldn't surprise the customer.'

What's extreme to the point of being absurd is how obtuse you're being over this. I don't know if you're just angry and hateful towards Verizon or have a fundamental lack of understanding of law, but there is nothing in this advertisement that violates truth in advertising laws. It's been explained why. Maybe you don't like it but it's the fact of how the law works. You can come up with whatever analogies you think fit and none of them matter. If you don't like it, write your congressman, maybe they'll change it. But the way the law is now, Verizon did nothing illegal. Period. Full stop. End of story.

 

[Jeremy8000]

What's extreme to the point of being absurd is how obtuse you're being over this. I don't know if you're just angry and hateful towards Verizon or have a fundamental lack of understanding of law, but there is nothing in this advertisement that violates truth in advertising laws. It's been explained why. Maybe you don't like it but it's the fact of how the law works. You can come up with whatever analogies you think fit and none of them matter. If you don't like it, write your congressman, maybe they'll change it. But the way the law is now, Verizon did nothing illegal. Period. Full stop. End of story.

I've presented an argument that it is, technically, in violation of the law. If you want to make the argument that it doesn't warrant the efforts entailed, that's a different debate, but when asked for to cite the code wherein it would fall, I did. The only person who responded with something to the contrary said the section I'd cited referenced a section on product labels (which it didn't). I checked it out, wondering if I'd find something that would clear Verizon. Section 45 had nothing opposing unless you're going to argue that Verizon is either a banking institution, foreign government, or foreign corporation. Below that is 45(a), the actual section regarding product labeling, but that only applies to designations of 'Made in the USA" and the like - and would be made irrelevant regardless due to section 55(a) which states "The term "false advertisement" means an advertisement, other than labeling, which is misleading in a material respect..."

An argument has been raised that Verizon has the ability to hold personal definitions as it sees fit without regard to the interpretation viewers would take, and cite those definitions retroactively if called to task. There are limitations to which this can extend before one can be held responsible. If you disagree, please give me an example of any statement promoting a product or service versus its competitors that you would construe as absolutely being false advertising and I'll create an alternate interpretation for you. The code isn't there for the heck of it, and just because a company's legal team approves something doesn't mean they're automatically correct or in the clear.