Verizon in violation of Truth in Avertising laws?

[pbike908]

I think this thread should be moved to a legal section if there is one. Or perhaps rants or opinions.

I respect everyone's opinion, but this really doesn't apply to the Pixel.

 

[WallaceD]

I thought this Computerworld article summed it up rather nicely.

"Verizon is simply the only carrier that's selling the phone directly -- on its own website and in its own stores. That's it."

 

[1213 1213]

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

Google can say whatever they want. But Verizon can't claim to be exclusive when they aren't, regardless of what they have agreed with Google. Because it is other carriers and consumers who lose out from this deceptive marketing, and if they decide to sue then it doesn't matter what Google has said they can say if it isn't true.

 

[tdizzel]

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.

No, you presented an argument that you believe is in violation of the law, but you're wrong. You just refuse to accept that you're wrong even though it's been explained why. You seem to be forgetting one tenet of law. If you bring the case against Verizon, you have to prove they're in the wrong. So unless you can prove that the phrase "can power" only has one meaning and can only be understood one way, you're just wrong and your argument completely fails. You have the burden of proof, and even if you bring up ten million examples involving things like someone saying they're going to rob a bank, or Sprint saying only they provide data service, your argument fails unless and until you can prove the phrase "can power" has one universal meaning.
You don't seem to understand how law works. If it was as simple as reading a code and saying "guilty" or "not guilty" there would be no lawyers(and I would argue that would make the world a better place but that argument doesn't belong here). Until you can understand how law works, you really have no business trying to say if someone broke it.

 

[1213 1213]

No, you presented an argument that you believe is in violation of the law, but you're wrong. You just refuse to accept that you're wrong even though it's been explained why. You seem to be forgetting one tenet of law. If you bring the case against Verizon, you have to prove they're in the wrong. So unless you can prove that the phrase "can power" only has one meaning and can only be understood one way, you're just wrong and your argument completely fails. You have the burden of proof, and even if you bring up ten million examples involving things like someone saying they're going to rob a bank, or Sprint saying only they provide data service, your argument fails unless and until you can prove the phrase "can power" has one universal meaning.
You don't seem to understand how law works. If it was as simple as reading a code and saying "guilty" or "not guilty" there would be no lawyers(and I would argue that would make the world a better place but that argument doesn't belong here). Until you can understand how law works, you really have no business trying to say if someone broke it.

That's not true. It doesn't need to be explicit. You can still be sued if it is implicit. I don't even think it has to be intentional, but that part may not be true in the US. It is blatantly obvious what 'only on verizon' implies to people and it isn't hard to look around and see what people thought about that. We are all armchair lawyers here, but you don't seem to have done any research at all, and you are surprisingly arrogant about that.

 

[Jeremy8000]

No, you presented an argument that you believe is in violation of the law, but you're wrong. You just refuse to accept that you're wrong even though it's been explained why. You seem to be forgetting one tenet of law. If you bring the case against Verizon, you have to prove they're in the wrong. So unless you can prove that the phrase "can power" only has one meaning and can only be understood one way, you're just wrong and your argument completely fails. You have the burden of proof, and even if you bring up ten million examples involving things like someone saying they're going to rob a bank, or Sprint saying only they provide data service, your argument fails unless and until you can prove the phrase "can power" has one universal meaning.
You don't seem to understand how law works. If it was as simple as reading a code and saying "guilty" or "not guilty" there would be no lawyers(and I would argue that would make the world a better place but that argument doesn't belong here). Until you can understand how law works, you really have no business trying to say if someone broke it.

If your argument were correct, there would not be one instance in history of anyone actually being sanctioned in any way for violating that code. Sorry to disappoint, but that's not the case. Take the challenge in bold text above, please. Provide an even more egregious example if you like, and if unlimited twisting of definitions is allowed, I'll justify it. Asking me to accept that I'm wrong because you feel like they wouldn't have done it if they didn't think they could get away with it is poor logic - people do it all the time on a risk/reward basis. Doesn't mean that if the issue were to actually be raised they wouldn't be found at fault.

 

[vzwuser76]

If your argument were correct, there would not be one instance in history of anyone actually being sanctioned in any way for violating that code. Sorry to disappoint, but that's not the case. Take the challenge in bold text above, please. Provide an even more egregious example if you like, and if unlimited twisting of definitions is allowed, I'll justify it. Asking me to accept that I'm wrong because you feel like they wouldn't have done it if they didn't think they could get away with it is poor logic - people do it all the time on a risk/reward basis. Doesn't mean that if the issue were to actually be raised they wouldn't be found at fault.

Ok, I'll ask this again. What are you hoping to accomplish with this? Say you get enough people to agree with you that they're in violation of the law. Are you going to try and get some governing body to sanction them? Are you going to sue them yourself? And even if you're doing this to make advertising more transparent, you picked a strange one to mount the argument. What about all the advertisements where their deception can lead to physical harm? Wouldn't there be a more suitable example of advertising deception causing actual harm to use rather than a cellphone's exclusivity?

I mean the consequences to consumers in this case is right up there with a hangnail. How about the e-cig industry for example? They tout it as being safer than normal cigarettes yet no studies have been performed to prove that sentiment. That example has the capability to actually physically harm someone. In the case of the Pixel, the consequence is they might end up changing carriers. Not quite the same thing.

 

[Jeremy8000]

I think this thread should be moved to a legal section if there is one. Or perhaps rants or opinions.

I respect everyone's opinion, but this really doesn't apply to the Pixel.

Valid point - the Verizon forum would've been a more appropriate venue.

I thought this Computerworld article summed it up rather nicely.

"Verizon is simply the only carrier that's selling the phone directly -- on its own website and in its own stores. That's it."

True. Though to the lesser argument of complete carrier exclusivity, Project Fi is selling them directly as a carrier on its site (but as a low profit initiative, they won't make a fuss)

Ok, I'll ask this again. What are you hoping to accomplish with this? Say you get enough people to agree with you that they're in violation of the law. Are you going to try and get some governing body to sanction them? .....

This was just raising a discussion point. If I were personally seeking action I'd have sought to file a complaint, but have no interest in investing the effort into compelling a formal legal battle.

 

[juliesdroidsync]

It's a forum, something we should perhaps all try to remember... sometimes it's easy to forget that we're supposed to actually enjoy the conversation. I forget that myself sometimes.

It reminds me of some of my family dinners... Grandfather was a "corporate" lawyer (for the mob...<sigh>), Father was an inventor , Uncle was a newspaper editor...

Thanksgiving was always very interesting, but no one ever actually got whacked over it

Maybe the OP wasn't trying to accomplish anything other than having a stimulating conversation... I think he makes a reasonably compelling argument myself.

 

[vzwuser76]

Valid point - the Verizon forum would've been a more appropriate venue.


True. Though to the lesser argument of complete carrier exclusivity, Project Fi is selling them directly as a carrier on its site (but as a low profit initiative, they won't make a fuss)


This was just raising a discussion point. If I were personally seeking action I'd have sought to file a complaint, but have no interest in investing the effort into compelling a formal legal battle.

Ok, so arguing to argue. Even if everyone comes around to your way of thinking, then what? Say we all agree what Verizon did was illegal and then....nothing. I have no problem arguing a point of fact, if it at least changes the way a person does something or helps them solve an issue. But arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless IMO. Also, if you're accusing a person or company of a crime and they're in fact not guilty, isn't that slander which is also a crime? Food for thought.

Now I could argue that the OnePlus was deceptive in saying the OP2 was a flagship killer when it didn't include something as common as NFC. Take it too the extreme as you did and say in the future someone calls their phone a flagship killer that doesn't have a camera onboard.

 

[Jeremy8000]

Ok, so arguing to argue. Even if everyone comes around to your way of thinking, then what? Say we all agree what Verizon did was illegal and then....nothing. I have no problem arguing a point of fact, if it at least changes the way a person does something or helps them solve an issue. But arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless IMO. Also, if you're accusing a person or company of a crime and they're in fact not guilty, isn't that slander which is also a crime? Food for thought.

Now I could argue that the OnePlus was deceptive in saying the OP2 was a flagship killer when it didn't include something as common as NFC. Take it too the extreme as you did and say in the future someone calls their phone a flagship killer that doesn't have a camera onboard.

You're asking the same question, again, that I answered, again, in the post you quoted. As it would an exercise in futility to answer it yet again, I'll give you an alternative source from an answer: do a google search for "definition of forum."

As to slander, it would literally be impossible for me, you, or even a professional news reporter to slander another through writing a post in a forum, an article in a newspaper, etc.

Both of the above points, by the way, are derailments to the discussion. Not sure if that was your intent, but if the discussion is to be furthered, please keep it on topic with direct evidence-based points in opposition to one view or the other of the primary subject.

Also, it's not the end of the world if we end simply choosing to disagree.

 

[vzwuser76]

You're asking the same question, again, that I answered, again, in the post you quoted. As it would an exercise in futility to answer it yet again, I'll give you an alternative source from an answer: do a google search for "definition of forum."

As to slander, it would literally be impossible for me, you, or even a professional news reporter to slander another through writing a post in a forum, an article in a newspaper, etc.

Both of the above points, by the way, are derailments to the discussion. Not sure if that was your intent, but if the discussion is to be furthered, please keep it on topic with direct evidence-based points in opposition to one view or the other of the primary subject.

Also, it's not the end of the world if we end simply choosing to disagree.

In the basest definition of a forum, sure it's only there to discuss or argue points. But that doesn't mean it's all it has to be. Nothing is going to get accomplished here by simply discussing it, other than some general animosity towards Verizon, which they've proven they don't need help in that area.

As for it being impossible to slander, let's look at the definition.
slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation
So if Verizon is not in fact guilty and you're accusing them of guilt, and it damages their reputation, which it could among the people reading this, then that would be slander. Of course, since this is printed on a website, it would probably be libel.

How about you let the moderators moderate. And what discussion is being furthered anywhere here? All I've seen happen is any arguement against your sentiment is dismissed. If you seriously think Verizon's lawyers would open themselves up to possible litigation then they've hired some incompetent legal advisors. Their whole reason to exist is to eliminate legal issues for their client. Since they deal with this for a living, have spent 5½-7 years learning the laws, they probably know what's legal and what isn't better than you or I. If you'd like, I can pass this on to my cousin who is a recently retired lawyer who dealt solely in business law. At least that way we'd have someone with an actual handle on the law making a determination.

 

[Jeremy8000]

In the basest definition of a forum, sure it's only there to discuss or argue points. But that doesn't mean it's all it has to be. Nothing is going to get accomplished here by simply discussing it, other than some general animosity towards Verizon, which they've proven they don't need help in that area.

As for it being impossible to slander, let's look at the definition.
slander: the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation
So if Verizon is not in fact guilty and you're accusing them of guilt, and it damages their reputation, which it could among the people reading this, then that would be slander. Of course, since this is printed on a website, it would probably be libel.

How about you let the moderators moderate. And what discussion is being furthered anywhere here? All I've seen happen is any arguement against your sentiment is dismissed. If you seriously think Verizon's lawyers would open themselves up to possible litigation then they've hired some incompetent legal advisors. Their whole reason to exist is to eliminate legal issues for their client. Since they deal with this for a living, have spent 5½-7 years learning the laws, they probably know what's legal and what isn't better than you or I. If you'd like, I can pass this on to my cousin who is a recently retired lawyer who dealt solely in business law. At least that way we'd have someone with an actual handle on the law making a determination.

The base definition of a forum is the general definition. If you want to slap on additional criteria, you can, but it's an unreasonable expectation that everyone else should conform to your personalized definition. Discussion doesn't have to lead to external end results to be valid and worthwhile. If you disagree, that's fine - you're free to not participate.

And yes, it would be impossible to slander in writing - that could only be libel. Interesting point to this is that if you're going to discuss something in which the essence is defined by exact details and very intricate wording, you need to focus on using the properly applicable terms. And no, it is not libel, as I prefaced it as a question fpr discussion at the outset (check the thread title) and then suggested an argument as to why they may well be in violation. Again, focusing on the details and specifics, and not omitting those things you simply missed or choose not to acknowledge, will lead to a more productive discussion.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of letting the moderators moderate - I've stayed on topic except where needed to respond to people derailing the discussion, as here, to try to redirect it back on course. If any moderator feels I've been disrespectful or otherwise inappropriate in my postings, I ask that they contact me accordingly. Many of the arguments have been to a point I've repeatedly stressed is not the focal point (talking about carrier exclusivity rather than the phrase of capability of delivering services). Those pointing to defining 'power' I've responded with a challenge to provide an example of a similarly designed competitive statement that would indeed be false advertising in such an ad that I could not similarly 'defend' with an omnipotent right to change definitions, where a history of FTC sanctions demonstrates that such instances do exist. None have responded - and you yourself have been requested to meet that challenge specifically a couple of times now and have dismissed it, which I can only take to mean that you can't conceive of one, which means that the point is not resolved.

Challenge still stands, and I again welcome you to provide an example that will require me to withdraw my point to an example that will change my mind. Because discussion is about evolution of ideas, a purpose for which forums can serve well when not handicapped by expectations that they must eventually form into external action.

Final point, to try to restore this thread, should the be future contributions, back to topic, I request that if you don't have anything to contribute towards the current stage of the discussion (responding specifically to the last point made with reference to the topic accented in the original post with counterpoint), please don't post, as it derails the thread and hinders the discussion which other interested parties, if any, may have.

 

[vzwuser76]

The base definition of a forum is the general definition. If you want to slap on additional criteria, you can, but it's an unreasonable expectation that everyone else should conform to your personalized definition. Discussion doesn't have to lead to external end results to be valid and worthwhile. If you disagree, that's fine - you're free to not participate.

And yes, it would be impossible to slander in writing - that could only be libel. Interesting point to this is that if you're going to discuss something in which the essence is defined by exact details and very intricate wording, you need to focus on using the properly applicable terms. And no, it is not libel, as I prefaced it as a question fpr discussion at the outset (check the thread title) and then suggested an argument as to why they may well be in violation. Again, focusing on the details and specifics, and not omitting those things you simply missed or choose not to acknowledge, will lead to a more productive discussion.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of letting the moderators moderate - I've stayed on topic except where needed to respond to people derailing the discussion, as here, to try to redirect it back on course. If any moderator feels I've been disrespectful or otherwise inappropriate in my postings, I ask that they contact me accordingly. Many of the arguments have been to a point I've repeatedly stressed is not the focal point (talking about carrier exclusivity rather than the phrase of capability of delivering services). Those pointing to defining 'power' I've responded with a challenge to provide an example of a similarly designed competitive statement that would indeed be false advertising in such an ad that I could not similarly 'defend' with an omnipotent right to change definitions, where a history of FTC sanctions demonstrates that such instances do exist. None have responded - and you yourself have been requested to meet that challenge specifically a couple of times now and have dismissed it, which I can only take to mean that you can't conceive of one, which means that the point is not resolved.

Challenge still stands, and I again welcome you to provide an example that will require me to withdraw my point to an example that will change my mind. Because discussion is about evolution of ideas, a purpose for which forums can serve well when not handicapped by expectations that they must eventually form into external action.

Final point, to try to restore this thread, should the be future contributions, back to topic, I request that if you don't have anything to contribute towards the current stage of the discussion (responding specifically to the last point made with reference to the topic accented in the original post with counterpoint), please don't post, as it derails the thread and hinders the discussion which other interested parties, if any, may have.

You can call it a discussion, but when you say what they're doing is illegal, you've made an accusation. I said slander before because I generally term posts like on forums as verbal communication, forgetting that anything posted on the internet in print form would fall under libel, not slander. Regardless, asking is this illegal or wouldn't it be illegal wouldn't be libel. But you have made a statement a few times saying it is illegal, not asking, stating.

That was my point. It's up to the mods to direct people back on point if they feel things have gone astray.

Ive already posted a challenge. E-cig manufacturers advertise their products as safer than regular cigarettes, yet there are no studies to back that up. And that claim if willfully deceptive has the consequences of being harmful to consumer's health, a much more serious matter than trying to get people to switch carriers.

 

[Aquila]

For the moment the mods feel this thread had run its course.