False Advertisement of Coverage

[slider5634]

My question involves a consumer law issue in the State of: Iowa/ Entire U.S.

Since I am not certain of the validity of this potential case, I will refrain from mentioning the name of the wireless carrier involved. Because of a semi-related issue I've been having with my wireless carrier, I have discovered that my current carrier is falsifying their coverage area at the phone end and am hoping this can be termed false advertisement. However, I'm no legal expert and thought I should get a second opinion before I proceed any further.

The Problem:
(Wireless Carrier)’s phones are programmed to always indicate that they are connected to their towers, even when they are connected to partner towers.

The legal definition of False Advertisement:
To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

Please match the statements below to their corresponding numbers above. How this relates to all users on (Wireless Carrier)’s network:

1) All phones on (Wireless Carrier) are programmed to always indicate that they are connected to said provider's towers, even when they are connected to partner towers. (Wireless Carrier) has the power to show partner coverage at the phone end, but has chosen not to.

2) As there is no way to tell who you're connected to, this affects all users under (Wireless Carrier) service.

3) User's looking for cellular service may think twice about getting service with (Wireless Carrier) if they know who's towers they're actually connected to during the 30 day trial period; especially those living in partner coverage only areas.

4) (Wireless Carrier) provides service in the majority of this United States.

5) This will affect different people in different ways, but in my case this false advertisement is basically forcing me to drop (Wireless Carrier)’s service in favor of another provider’s service. As passing the usage caps in my case was unavoidable, this is something I would have eventually needed to do. However, if I had known that I was not connected to (Wireless Carrier) at home, I could have better prepared to limit my usage at home and been able to save the appropriate money to switch services. If this does not change, users will continue to exceed ridiculous data and voice caps under partner coverage that they are unaware that they’re even using. This has the potential to lead many users into the same situation that I’m now experiencing and trying to resolve.

I believe that the stature of this problem warrants a class action suit, but as I have already indicated, I am no legal expert. I would appreciate it if someone could tell me if I have a solid case.

[Mr. Knowitall]

What difference does it make whether it's a tower they own or a tower they license? If they're connected, they're connected.

[slider5634]

What difference does it make whether it's a tower they own or a tower they license? If they're connected, they're connected.

I had really hoped not to get into my personal issues with (Wireless Carrier), but it would appear obvious that my situation specifically relates to this coverage issue and should show you how this matters.

The problem lies in usage of the partner towers that they're renting for coverage. They've place extremely restrictive caps in voice and data usage on partner coverage -- probably because they're being charged an obscene amount by the owning company of the towers. Caps to the extent of 40% of voice minutes and 24MB of data transfers.

I recently moved to a smaller town and after a year and a half of service with said provider, they are threatening to shut me off for passing the data cap. Here's where the problem occurs. I didn't even know I had been passing the cap until I had received the threatening email. Why you ask? Because I was 100% unaware I was on partner coverage in the first place.

For those that don't understand how little 24MB is, that equates to roughly 4 iTunes music files. I have called their customer service in an attempt to negotiate a change in caps on usage, but they are unwilling to work with me on this problem.

Unfortunately, my job necessitates that I have constant reliable access to my email and I will be unable to avoid passing this cap again which is basically forcing me to switch wireless services with the snap of a finger. This is something that is causing me fiscal damage. I don't have the money on hand to just up and change services -- including cancelling my old service, activating new service, and purchasing comparable phones.

I visited the site of my new residence several times in the months before I moved there and never had any reason to believe I was on anything except for (Wireless Carrier)'s towers. If my phone had correctly advertised whose towers I was on, I could have fiscally planned for a change in wireless providers.

I don't understand how (Wireless Carrier) can possibly do this to their user base. It's not acceptable to expect each and every user to visit the coverage website to find out who they're connected to. This is especially true for our older generation for which many don't even have readily available access to the internet. How can (Wireless Carrier) expect its users to stay within these cap limits unless their phones are advertising whose towers they're actually connected to?

This is something that really needs to change, but probably won't unless they're forced to make that change.

[Scott67]

I don't know of any wireless company that is without problems. A personal issue with me is, I would prefer that they would put money into improving coverage so I can maintain a connection while driving instead of getting dropped as I enter a pocket of poor coverage. Instead, they put their investment capital into adding more and more frills - probably because people are willing to pay for them.

That being said, I don't think you'd be able to build a viable class action suit on this. But, the simplest way to find out is to contact a law firm that handles class action suits and ask. Be ready for them to turn you down. They get plenty of inquiries from people who are looking for class action status as a way of avoiding legal fees for a suit. This situation has that feel to it.

It seems that the simplest solution for you, given that you state you need your phone for work, is to stop using it to download music. I'm guessing that 24MB will handle all the email traffic that you are physically capable of reading.

[slider5634]

That being said, I don't think you'd be able to build a viable class action suit on this. But, the simplest way to find out is to contact a law firm that handles class action suits and ask. Be ready for them to turn you down. They get plenty of inquiries from people who are looking for class action status as a way of avoiding legal fees for a suit. This situation has that feel to it.

It seems that the simplest solution for you, given that you state you need your phone for work, is to stop using it to download music. I'm guessing that 24MB will handle all the email traffic that you are physically capable of reading.

I thank you for your honesty. I figured this was a little shakey, but I thought I should give it a shot anyway. I have no intention to pursue a suit against this carrier in my own case. I am clearly in violation of my contract by passing the cap and I'm sure I don't have a case for that.

This is more of a consumer rights issue. I believe the consumer has the right to know who's service he/she is using to prevent exceeding contractual usage of that service. That's why I asked about class action status.


P.S. The cap I passed was from email, not music. I have many emails roll through that has 2-3MB attachments and I guess I received a few too many in the last few weeks. I simply put down music as an easy way to equate how little 24MB actually is.