Verizon Makes Canceling Over Their Txt Msg Hike Impossible

Our readers are having a hell of a time canceling their Verizon contracts despite the fact that Verizon’s Customer Agreement says the following:

    IF THE CHANGES HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON YOU, HOWEVER, YOU CAN END THE AFFECTED SERVICE, WITHOUT ANY EARLY TERMINATION FEE, JUST BY CALLING US WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER WE SEND NOTICE OF THE CHANGE.

What it should say is: “Go ahead and call us, we’ll just argue that our changes do not constitute a ‘material adverse effect’, despite the fact that we were required to send you something called a “Legal Notice,” which sounds suspiciously like the sort of “Notice” we’re referring to in our Customer Agreement. Neener, neener, neener.”

Reader Chris tried to cancel, following the instructions in our post. It didn’t go well, in fact, it lead him to label the Verizon supervisor ” the biggest douchebag I have ever had the displeasure of speaking with.” Well! —MEGHANN MARCO

Read Chris’ email inside.

Chris writes:

    I just called Verizon Customer Service to cancel my contract from your article explaining the text messaging increase. I was greeted at first by a customer support rep who had no idea the text message increase was happening. Following your tip, I asked for a supervisor and was greeted by the biggest douchebag I have ever had the displeasure of speaking with.

    His name was Paul P. and asked why I was calling. I told him I wanted to cancel my contract without an early termination fee due to the text messaging fee increase. He asked how I could do that and told him of the text message increase essentially voiding the contract. I quoted him the part about the ‘adverse material effect’ in the contract and he said a 5 cent increase does not warrant an adverse material effect. He said it would have to be something that cost more. I pressed him, asking at exactly what amount of money consitituted a adverse material effect and he said ‘that is determined by our lawyers’. I asked for Verizon’s legal department contact information and he said I would need to get a lawyer to talk to them.

    Flabbergasted, I asked for his manager to call me back and informed him I wanted to speak to another supervisor. He said he could not transfer me to another supervisor and I would have to call back to get one. I’ve worked at many a customer service job and know he was just being an asshole so I hung up, redialed, was answered another supervisor Natalia, who again, said I don’t qualify for a waiving of the early termination fee because I haven’t used text messaging in the past. To my knowledge, in the customer service agreement there is no stipulation of having to have used the previous feature in order for an adverse material effect to come in to play. She passed me to her supervisor, Ali who stated she also needed ‘proof’ of previous text messaging behavior in order for me to qualify for an adverse material effect clause.

    Fuck Verizon and their asshole supervisors. Here’s a material adverse affect, your shitty attitude making me not want to purchase anymore of your services!

UPDATE: Verizon: 34 Txt Msgs = Material Adverse Effect
RELATED: Break Your Verizon Contract Without Fee, Thanks to TXT Msg Raise

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. pmm says:

    Why does life have to be so stressful?

    Poo to Verizon! :(

  2. Take ‘em to court. It’ll take all of 30 seconds to explain to a judge 1 text message was 10 cents, is now 12 cents. that is a material adverse affect of 2 cents per text message.

    Judgement for the plaintiff. In the amount of the termination fee plus filing fees.

    Next!

  3. Echodork says:

    Frame it in terms of percentages. A five cent increase in peanuts. A FIFTY PERCENT increase is not.

    Now, if you’ve never used text messaging, then I think you’re probably up a creek. If this pricing change doesn’t affect you, then you probably WILL have a hard time justifying “adverse material effect.” In short, if you don’t text, this change DOESN’T have an adverse material effect on you.

  4. blander says:

    Their lawyers don’t determine what amount a material adverse effect is, a court would, and unless they pulled the whole a la carte bs, a court would most likely find that any increase at all is a material adverse effect. It is a 50% change for a service. If you decided to pay 50% less on your bill they’d sure as hell think it was a material adverse change of contract terms.

  5. Smoking Pope says:

    Take ‘em to court, but do it in small claims court. Have the subpoena served to a Verizon kiosk in the mall (just looked for the link to an article where someone did just that, couldn’t find it. Blah.)

    If they show up, you’d probably win on the merits of your case. But chances are they won’t show up, and you win by default. Sue for the cost of the remainder of your contract, filing fees, and time wasted talking to them on the phone.

    Then call Paul P., Natalia, and Ali and lord it over them just because, you know, you can.

  6. Smoking Pope says:

    Oh, and IMHO, whether or not you’ve used the service in the past is irrelevant. You may have planned on using it in the future when you signed, and so the change has a material adverse effect on the remainder of your contract.

    And blander has a wonderful argument. Ask them in court if you owed $100 for text messaging and only paid $80, whether they would consider that a material adverse effect on Verizon. Make them say they’d refer you to collections and possible litigation, and that pretty much proves your point.

  7. Baz says:

    …So if I’ve used SMS with Verizon in the past – then I should be all good, right?…

  8. Ben Popken says:

    Ben writes:

    “Why doesn’t Chris send one txt message, and then call back saying that the forthcoming increase will affect him and his messaging habits?”

  9. Kromem says:

    Use of the service in the past is irrelevant. The fact is it was enabled on the phone from the start. If it’s possible for someone else to send a txt message to your phone and have it charge you 50% more than it would have charged you before, it’s an adverse effect.

    If you recall from the Cingular hike cancellation, some people had better results w/o going to supervisors, and when they explained that it wasn’t an opt-in service because they could get jacked for receiving txt messages.

    I’m going to be trying this with Verizon either this week or next week. Hope I’ll have better luck.

  10. non-meat-stick says:

    You had a case, but since you never previously used the service the rate increase has zero effect on you.

    I can see both sides, but this guy will loose.

    I would have to look at a contract to see if you are agreeing to the rate at the time of signing. Can we get one of those up?

  11. Falconfire says:

    You had a case, but since you never previously used the service the rate increase has zero effect on you.

    doesnt matter, its in the contract as costing a certain amount. Verizon changed that. You can never use it in the past and CONTINUE to not use it in the future its still contracted as such and thus falls under a “material adverse effect” in that its being changed.

    any change in any price (up or down infact) in your contract that has a clause saying such a change is grounds for termination of said contract means its just that, grounds for termination REGARDLESS of intent to use or not said clause of the contract.

    Verzion can try to escape out of it all they want, in the end whatever jackass decided to raise the rate across the board instead of upon new contract didnt realize that legal had put a clause in telling them they cant do that.

  12. Antediluvian says:

    Merely because he hadn’t used it thus far doesn’t mean he never intended to do so. The fact that the cost of the service will be 50% greater than it was before may well have an impact on whether he chooses to use it in the future.

  13. As long as text messaging is contained in your contract, I don’t see how whether you used it or not is relevant. Verizon made a change to the contract, you have the right to not “initial” the change as it were by voiding the contract.

    I love the example of paying 50% less of your bill. Funny how Verizon seems to think they can arbitrarily change their end of the bargain, but you cannot.

    I have Verizon, though I also have had text messaging disabled since signing on. I cannot abide by the idea of paying for an email. However, this idiocy gives me good reason not to renew my contract.

  14. not_seth_brundle says:

    The most egregious part of this whole thing, as far as I’m concerned: “I asked for Verizon’s legal department contact information and he said I would need to get a lawyer to talk to them.”

    That is a completely ridiculous strong-arm tactic. You are not required to lawyer up in order to resolve a dispute.

  15. JT says:

    You don’t need to actively use text msgs for the change to apply to you. It is in the contract you signed, the effect is negative or ‘adverse’ to the user. Plus, anyone can send you a text msg. and you will be charged.

  16. bluwapadoo says:

    If he never used the service then how is it a MATERIAL adverse effect, if the charges have never materialized? I agree with Verizon on this one.

    The argument that he COULD have used this doesn’t make much sense to me either. If, for example, Verizon decides to charge an extra 5 cents for residents of Alaska, could I void my contract by saying “but I COULD have moved to Alaska.”? If they give you legal notice ahead of time and you decide to move, then it seems like your loss. That is why they require a MATERIAL adverse effect.

    This is why the argument about paying 50% of your bill is also stupid. If you don’t pay 50% of your bill, then you put Verizon at a MATERIAL loss. If you don’t pay what you don’t owe them, then why does Verizon care? And if you aren’t charged with something you don’t use, why should you care?

    I’m not Verizon apologist. I think Verizon is shitty for raising the rates. But until someone says that Verizon won’t let someone out of the contract who actually text messages, then this is just whining. He is trying to exploit a loophole that really has no MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT on him and they called him out.

  17. itzsoweezee78 says:

    A $.05 increase per message is not going to be treated as “materially adverse,” especially if you compare that cost to your actual monthly bill.

    Let’s say your current text message costs are $5 per month ($.05 x 100 messages). With the increase to $.10 per message, your text message costs would be $10 per month. If you’re currently paying $35 per month on your cell bill, an increase to $40 per month is not going to be considered materially adverse.

    You might have a chance if you send hundreds of text messages every month and those messages therefore constitute a large portion of your bill. Otherwise, you’re SOL.

  18. blander says:

    Non-meat-stick: Why should it matter if they’ve used this service in the past or not? It could materially affect whether or not they choose to use the service in the future. Also, this change affects receiving text messages as well, which may be out of your control.

    Though you are right that other terms of the contract may control, rather than the one shown here.

  19. blander says:

    bluwa: Ok here’s an example, Verizon decides to change the text fee to $50 a text. You don’t use your text messaging. They say you can’t get out of your contract and you get two text messages from a friend. You get hit with a $100 bill. So that change had no material adverse effect? Or you’d only let him out after he’s been hit with the fee?

    Basically, any change that could make a reasonable person want to choose another plan/contract should allow you to get out of the contract in my book. I think different text rates falls under that.

  20. bluwapadoo says:

    blander: Well if you get charged for text messages received, then you have an argument. I’ll concede. Although, why didn’t he just say that instead of foaming at the mouth?

    Although, it seems that according to the contract it says you can end the AFFECTED SERVICE, meaning I bet the most Verizon would do would be to agree to disable text messaging from his phone (if that’s possible).

  21. fbohab says:

    Hi guys,

    I’m Chris, the original poster of this article. To clarify a few points:

    When they stated I did not qualify for cancellation sans the early terimnation fee I told them I did not want to agree to the new contract. They stated they would note that on my account but it would have no effect on my acceptance of the new contract.

    How is this possibly fair to the consumer? They’ve ammended a new contract that will go into effect 60 days after this notice has been sent — and if I don’t call and cancel I am agreeing to the price hike — but there’s no way for me to cancel. This is an incredibly shady business tactic and should not be tolerated.

    Also, when stating I did not want to accept the fee hikes they said they have many ‘well priced’ text messaging packages that would save me money. An upsell when a customer is trying to explain a rational argument, how classy.

    Further, I have used text messaging 5 times. I apologize if that was not stated previously. When told I still did not qualify for the cancellation without a early termination fee, I inquired exactly how they quantify a material adverse effect, and they stated quote:

    “It would have to be hundred of text messages in a month”.

    I’m sorry, but that is selective reasoning on Verizon’s part to shoot down my request.

    I would love to pursue them in court, but I’m not going to waste my money fronting for a legal battle I could possibly win over 200 dollars. Verizon employs lawyers full time to fight on their behalf — it’s a case again of a gigantic corporation pushing around their consumers because we have no other avenue for complaint than the BBB, or wasting our own resources in court.

  22. magic8ball says:

    I’m surprised the words “class action” haven’t come up yet. Verizon is clearly trying to make changes to their end of the contract without giving customers the option to get out. IANAL, but I thought that was kind of the deal with a “contract” – both parties sign it, and then neither party can make changes without giving the other party a chance to decline service under the new terms. Obviously that’s a simplistic description, but really, I thought that was the point of having a contract in the first place.

  23. Crim Law Geek says:

    You: “Legal department, please”
    VZW: “I’m sorry, you need to be a lawyer to talk to them”
    You: “I am a lawyer”
    VZW: “Um, um”

    It’s not like some random CSR is going to know whether you’re actually a lawyer or not (bonus points if you are though ;-) ). Personally, I find checking a company’s SEC filings is a good place to find a company’s corporate contact info (except in the case of Verizon, where it sent me to the Verizon Subpoena Hotline).

  24. Thirdgen, I have ACTUALLY HAD THAT HAPPEN (I was about to comment on the earlier post about not having to lawyer up). DHL’s legal department told me they’d only talk to lawyers. I told them I WAS the lawyer. They said they still wouldn’t talk to me and refused to give me their address for service of process. So I served ‘em somewhere inconvenient and the judge smacked them when they whined.

  25. Sudonum says:

    Magic8ball hit the nail on the head. Why can they make changes to the contract without giving you the option to agree to those changes? And as Falconfire points out, they just shouild have raised the rates on new contracts. How many people would have objected then?

  26. Optimistic Prime says:

    Lawyers are not magic, and you don’t need one to talk to another one.

  27. thatabbygirl says:

    Lawyers are not magic. However, lawyers are licensed, and while telling Verizon you are one just to get to talk to their lawyers probably won’t come back to bite you, it is technically illegal to hold yourself out as a lawyer if you’re not one.

    But I am, so I guess I’m allowed to talk to them! ;)

  28. manbeast7 says:

    I have already called once and spoke to a rep. After arguing with the rep for a while I asked to speak to their supervisor. The supervisor was supposedly busy and had to call me back a while later. She wasn’t having it at all and tried to get off the phone as quickly as possible. The manager was supposed to call me within 48 hours and that was about 5 days ago.

    The funniest thing about the conversation is that I read the agreement (http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/globalText?textName=CUSTOMER_AGREEMENT&jspName=footer/customerAgreement.jsp) where it talks about “Our Rights To Make Changes” at least 3 times. She said that “the agreement can mean anything and I am just reading it one way”. So, I said “I guess you are telling me that I signed an agreement that you can make mean anything?” She was like “Yes.” Total BS.

    I am planning on taping my conversation next time I call.

  29. itzsoweezee78 says:

    blander wrote: “Basically, any change that could make a reasonable person want to choose another plan/contract should allow you to get out of the contract in my book.”

    that’s not how any court would interpret it. The contract says materially adverse; in no way is “material” equivalent to “any” in a legal sense.
    for a customer to be able to get out of the contract, he’d have to show that verizon changed something of real importance or great consequence.

  30. Falconfire says:

    The contract says materially adverse; in no way is “material” equivalent to “any” in a legal sense.
    for a customer to be able to get out of the contract, he’d have to show that verizon changed something of real importance or great consequence.

    in this sense material means money, which in this case even if they raised it .005 cents would mean they give you a loophole to break the contract.

    doesnt have to be a significant amount, just has to be a amount.

    and to answer someones question, yes Verizon charges you for every txt message sent and recieved on your phone, including their OWN SPAM as I found going through messages for the month on my bill and knew I had neither sent nor gotten any besides two txt messages about a promotional contest they where running.

  31. Motor_Head says:

    Just pay the cancellation fee and be done with them. Never do business with them again. Never do business with any of their partners again. Think of it, the most they will ever get out of you is the $200 or whatever to cancel.

    After several months of inept service from Dish Network, my contract finally ran out. I wish I had just paid the termination fee and gotten on with my life.

  32. Falconfire says:

    its the principle of the matter Motor_Head. Yes you could wuss out and pay them to leave, but you can also stick it to them. Sure in the end they are still corupt evil evil men who will die from STDs from prostitutes and their copious blow addictions, but you can actually say “see that bloated carcass over there. I managed to fuck over one of his 200 dollar caviar lunches!”

  33. blander says:

    itsoweez: I think that something that would cause a reasonable person to not choose a contract would be material in the eyes of the law, of course it would be up to a judge. If the judge saw that it was a 50% increase, and that competitors had lower rates and that these fees could add up to substantial amounts of money, the court would probably decide it to be material. If Verizon could show that the change would result in a minimal change then that might be different.

    I didn’t say any change I said any change that would change the mind of a reasonable person.

    I think a court could find the change material, now I’m not a judge but I am a lawyer.

  34. LTS! says:

    Well I vote for less yammering and more hammering. Instead of threatening in some Consumerist forum… do what’s necessary. All the lawyers on here can step up to the plate.

    While you don’t necessarily need to be a lawyer to speak with Verizon’s legal department Verizon may very well have a policy that says you need to be one. The rest is irrelevant. You have no right to speak to them either. They have chosen their path and are waiting for you to make a move. If you leave it with the “biggest douchebag ever” then Verizon wins. They certainly don’t care what you think of them if you are still paying them.

    Besides.. are you planning on dropping cellular service entirely? Are you going to go to Cingular who will be featured next week in a Consumerist post?

    All of this speculation is great, it doesn’t mean anything until someone’s feet are held to the fire and someone wearing a robe makes a ruling.

  35. ZeroCruel says:

    Actually – my unbiased opinion (I don’t use Verizon) would be this:

    If it is really worth using the cash to fight this in court; the strongest argument would be to compare it to rent. e.g. You can not change a monthly rate on rent during a lease (contract) nor can you do a utility hike (one that is collectively paid by all tenants of the rental property) without stipulating it before-hand in a lease (contract). Therefor, the same would apply to your contract with Verizon. Usage before or after the increase is irrelevant as, you have no control over the increase which they inflicted upon you. The same would be argued, indeed, if you tried to change your minute (or text msg) rates down even by $0.01 increments.

    I believe that would be a very strong and convincing argument if whomever were to use it came prepared with all documentation and recorded conversations with verizon (make sure you announce at the beginning of the call that you will be recording the conversation for quality purposes, lol, but seriously you have to notify parties of recording phone conversations).

    I would love to see someone with enough resources (time, money, sanity) actually go to court SOLO and get a ruling thus setting a precedence for all service providers to have a little more customer service oriented toward their consumers. After all, they work for us – and it is high time they and we start acting accordingly!

  36. Buford T. Justice says:

    It’s a unilateral change to the contract’s pricing structure. That’s material. Doesn’t matter if it’s five cents, five thousandths of a cent, or five thousand dollars, or whether the fee is charged monthly, per use, etc. It can result in you paying more money for the service provided. If you don’t accept the change,the contract is null and void.

  37. bobjr94 says:

    I tried to cancel too. After about 25 minutes and talking to the supervisor I finally gave up. There response, dont use text messaging and then your not affected by the price increase.

    I said I do use it and it will affect me, she was like that is up to you. Ive had them for over 5 years and still in a damn contract. When ever you call them it seems like you must extend your contract to change service plans or anything.

  38. Focher says:

    I have a suggestion for people. If you aren’t a lawyer, please don’t try to act like one. Not even if you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

    The term “material adverse affect” does NOT mean that the change has to be actually affect the party (in this case, the customer). The term “material” in contracts refers to whether the particular terms being changed are particularly relevant. If, for example, Verizon simply changes some language or minor component but not any of the actual terms of the agreement then it is not material. If the change is to the advantage of the consumer, it is not adverse.

    Pricing is almost always going to be a material component in a contract for services. I am hard pressed to think of when it would not be a material component. Increasing the pricing terms to the advantage of Verizon and the disadvantage of the customer is definitely an adverse affect to the customer.

    One last thing. Use of the service component is also irrelevant. It’s a service covered by the contract.

    The problem this guy has is that the people in the customer service center have obviously been told not to accept the argument that the price change allows a termination. Easiest solution is to pay the cancellation fee and then go to small claims court to recover the money.

    I smell a class action lawsuit coming here if Verizon really has taken an official stance that they are not going to allow people to cancel their contract because of a price hike.

  39. pete says:

    I think class action is in order.
    In fact, stuff like this comes up so often on the ol’ Consumerist, doesn’t it make sense that the site partner up with a law firm that can bring about these suits when necessary?
    We can all whine and complain about all this screwing we’re all taking, or we can start fighting back. I vote for the latter.

  40. bugmenot586 says:

    It’s pointless to debate whether the change actually is material. (Legally, changing a fixed price in an option-for-services contract is a textbook example of a material change, no matter what the People’s Court-educated authorities on this thread say to the contrary.) Cell phone carriers would love nothing more than to require people to go to small claims court to get out of their contracts. Since so few people would go to that length — even if, as in this case, they’re guaranteed to win — Verizon would consider that setup to be a tactical victory.

    This is a prototypical situation calling for a class-action lawsuit — many individuals with identical causes of action, none of which is economical to take to court by itself. Unfortunately it’s unlikely a competent class-action lawyer would take the case because there isn’t enough money involved; most individuals are interested in the issue only because they want out of their contracts, and it’s hard to take a percentage lawyer’s fee out of “want out of their contracts.” So if a lawyer did take the case, he or she would seek damages of 5 cents per 15-cent text message, rather than trying to get people out of their contracts. That’s not the remedy we want. It’s a shame.

    Meanwhile, a reasonable individual strategy is to box Verizon’s CSR into a corner on the phone. Send one text message, even if it’s the first you’ve ever sent on your contract. When the bill arrives for 15 cents, call Verizon customer support (taking names and numbers, of course, and informing them that you’re recording the phone call and whatever else it takes to make such recordings legal in your state) and demand that the bill for the message be adjusted down 10 cents. If they refuse, then you’ve effectively refuted their (ridiculous) argument that price is not a material term in the contract. (If it were material, they’d accept payment of 10 cents for every 15 cents charged on the bill.) At this point, any supervisor with a shred of a conscience will terminate the contract.

    This will probably work once or twice. At that point Verizon will instruct its CSRs to grant all requests to adjust bills, rather than let themselves be argued into admitting that they’ve breached the contract.

  41. itzsoweezee78 says:

    i’m a lawyer too. “material,” as used in every other instance in the law essentially means significant. in my first post, i noted possible circumstances where this change to the text message rate might be deemed material. at best, those circumstances are very narrow and thus this out clause will probably only apply to those tiny few who do a great deal of text messaging and who were covered by the old $.05 pricing scheme.

    of course all of these contracts are between individual customers and verizon. so in determining whether this change has had a materially adverse effect on the individual, the correct examination is to look at the individual’s previous use and determine whether an increase by $.05 per text message is a change that is materially adverse to that individual. So a general argument that this is a 50% increase and therefore a materially adverse change is not going to fly for the vast vast majority of people.

    the verizon lawyers are no dummies.

  42. CharlesV says:

    Not to be a dick, but you realize that you are trying to screw them out of money? Yes they are a big company, and yes you are probably paying more in cancellation fee then they would get otherwise, but they give you a discount on a phone, in exchange for a service commitment. You break that commitment you owe them money. I agree that their terms have been violated on their end and the contract should be void, but I don’t think that you should be so upset that you can’t weasel your way out of a contract you’ve signed, for a change in terms that clearly don’t affect you.

  43. loraksus says:

    CharlesV says:
    but they give you a discount on a phone, in exchange for a service commitment

    Yeah, but lets ignore the fact that you’re not actually getting that phone, but one with crippled firmware that locks you to that provider and is also crippled in functionality so that the carrier can get you to pay $1 for every compressed, low quality 320×200 “picturemail” or some other inferior piece of shit service.

    Funny how nobody talks about that when they bring up the “oh teh noes, the contracts are why you get the discounted phone” argument.

  44. loraksus says:

    Oh, you get their logo on your phone too! Yay!

  45. maskedverizonavenger says:

    I would like to provide some contact information for you guys.. as I too have had problems with verizon wireless customer service, and managed to get passed the single / two celled organisms known as customer service reps and customer service supervisors.

    Barbara Trinko …
    VP customer sevice
    barbara.trinko@verizonwireless.com

    Her assistant
    Cindy Granroos.
    assuming e-mail addy
    cindy.granroos@verizonwireless.com
    480-783-5052 or 602-206-6882

    All I would say is to use this information responsibly :) hehe.

  46. swapper says:

    iPhone is available with Cingular ONLY? And What if I am stuck under contract with a carrier OTHER than Cingular but still want a iPhone?

    Well, only solution I could fine was with http://www.Cellswapper.com – they get you out of any cell phone contract!

  47. Based on the comments by some of the lawyers on this board about Verizon’s ability to change terms in the contract at will and without voiding said contract, perhaps “contract” is an incorrect term.

    Perhaps with Verizon and other cellular service providers, “contract” should be replaced by “Articles of Surrender.”

  48. agentUrge says:

    If your service sucks, if you have problems making changes to your account or if you have problems with your phone, you can always try a being convincingly pissed off and/or try a well crafted letter.

    I had a phone problem so I got to a TMo store, got a new phone and a box to send off the old one. It got sent off and they never recieved it. They were going to hold me accountable for the lost phone (claiming a stocking fee of about $300). Long story short: my wife wrote an extensive letter siting cases with our account where TMo screwed up…..my phone, billing errors, one of the stores allowed my daughter, who was 13 at the time, to purchase a new phone and set it up on our account. No verification of ID, no contact to either my wife or, nothing.

    End result: waived restocking fee, a month’s credit on our bill and a replacement phone for crappy one my wife had before.

    Be pissed…it pays

  49. Carisma84 says:

    Is it possible to get out of the contract without paying your overage fees. Like say you went over on text messages and minutes.

    I plan on calling when I get home from work today and I want to make sure I can get out of it. I already have a new phone coming.

    Also is it possible to still change my number over once I get out it.

    Thanks.

  50. picopico says:

    I’m sorry. how on earth is 2 cents a material adverse impact. You’d have to send 1000 text messages a month to get charged an incremental $20. Even if you make minimimum wage, how on earth is that a material adverse effect?

  51. stenk says:

    I cannot believe how hard it is for you people in the United States to get out of a Mobile Phone Contract.

    Here in New Zealand we have Vodafone and Telecom New Zealand that offer Mobile contracts 12 Months or more if you wish!

    If you want to cancel before this time it does cost you a little extra but it is in no way hard to do, or so costly!

    All I can say is make sure NEVER to do business with Companies like that again!

    Big Business that treats it customers like this will not last!

    Good luck and good night!

  52. Roosh says:

    I just cancelled my text messaging plan (3.99 a month for 200) and was warned that the price of text messages was going up. I told her to go ahead anyway. In one month I will call them back and give the cancellation a go. I will prepare talking points based on these comments.

  53. RealityBites says:

    Why not file a complaint with the state Attorney General? Former AG Eliot Spitzer went after America Online, and brought them to their knees for deceiving New York customers. Let’s see if Andrew Cuomo now has what it takes.

    Not only is Verizon wrong on this, they have way too many foreigners now working for them. They have put “politically correct” employees on their payroll, who can’t do the job for which they were hired. But, hey, they’re being PC, so that makes up for it.