Sprint Charges Developmentally Disabled Girl $10,000 For Text Messages

Red Tape Chronicles has followed up on the Developmentally disabled 18-year old Amanda Clark who ran up $10,000 in premium text messages whom we told you about last week. The text messages were part of teenage text chat services advertised in the back of her teen mags. “Hook a hottie,” they said. Sprint agreed to cut the bill in half but won’t budge further. The UK-based text message company says that since she texted “Y” in response to the message, ‘Y’ to: ’74447′ to start. 14+ textconnectusa.com Help?1-866-662-7132. Send STOP to end.100c per msg rcvd + std msg fees,” the girl should have been completely informed as to the service’s cost and the family is plumb out of luck. In all, 642 messages were received.

The cost for so-called “premium” text messages can quickly skyrocket. Cellphone companies need to also develop early-warning and fraud protection systems similar to credit card companies. Parents paying for their kids’ cellphone bill should check it more than once a month so they can catch charges before they get out of hand. Also, it might be wise to include text message services among the list of “stranger dangers” you tell your kids to stay away from.

In a related story, we told you how to partially and/or fully turn of text messages to fight text message spam.

Price for ‘premium’ text messages? $10,000 [Red Tape Chronicles]

PREVIOUSLY: “Premium Texting” By Disabled Daughter Results In $10,000 Sprint Bill

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. mike1731 says:

    I’m sorry, but this really sucks. Sprint and other cell phone providers should make it very easy for the primary account holder — i.e. parents, typically — to lock down premium services without the primary account holder’s approval. Otherwise, it should be prepared for chargebacks on cases like this.

    I think the parents should not pay for this.

  2. Jaysyn was banned for: http://consumerist.com/5032912/the-subprime-meltdown-will-be-nothing-compared-to-the-prime-meltdown#c7042646 says:

    Another duplicate? At least this article has a bit more information.

  3. MeOhMy says:

    It’s the new 900 number. I see these all the time…do mobile operators provide a way to block access to these premium services? If not, they really need to.

  4. DeeJayQueue says:

    It sucks when people run up $10k bills, it really really does, especially when the phone company won’t budge.

    My concern is that an 18 year old developmentally challenged girl was given unfettered access to a cell phone with no supervision. How developmentally challenged is she? Can she get along on her own for the most part but has trouble with certain things? Is she dependent on people to come help her do basics? Somewhere in the middle?

  5. backbroken says:

    @mike1731:
    It’s already really easy for parents to ‘lock down’ these types of services. It’s called ‘take away the phone.’

    My parents can’t even figure out how to use their cell phone, so either they are more developmentally challenged than this girl ,or this girl is not so developmentally challenged. I’m open to both possibilities.

  6. 90014 says:

    18 and already in need of bankruptcy. Welcome to the USA.

  7. bradanomics says:

    I know this is a consumer-oriented website, but I am going to side with the company on this one. They did nothing wrong. The parent signed the contract, not the girl. The parent needed to realize what he was handing his developmentally disabled daughter. People need to take more responsibility for their actions. Make the girl get a job and pay it off. There are many grocery stores that will hire developmentally disabled persons as long as they aren’t deemed a threat.

  8. hypnotik_jello says:

    I’m pretty sure Verizon requires a double-opt in confirmation, so simply hitting ‘Y’ once wouldn’t have resulted in the girl getting signed up for the service.

    Oh Premium billing is complete crap anyway, usually the charges aren’t reflected to the subscriber right away. So even if the account had a $500 spending cap (for example), it wouldn’t be triggered since the carrier will receive premium billing from the service vendor later (not real time).

  9. Bladefist says:

    As much as I hate sprint, they did nothing wrong. In fact they tried to help make it easier.

  10. hypnotik_jello says:

    @hypnotik_jello: Obviously I don’t know if Sprint has double-opt-in requirements for premium SMS. Also, what’s up with the chick in that photo? She’s using a Nokia Communicator!

  11. bohemian says:

    They need to make these premium services locked (by the cell phone provider) unless the account holder unlocks the option.
    Most teenagers and not so smart adults don’t understand that these things enter them into an ongoing relationship of fees. They advertise these stupid things but then downplay the ongoing charges.
    My teenager found this out the hard way, luckily it was on his prepaid phone so they only sucked about $5.00 of his money before his phone minutes ran out. Virgin was nice enough to reverse it and explain what happened.
    Now he gets it.

  12. TexasScout says:

    Another “I’m not responsible” for MY KIDS actions story. They have offered to cut the bill in half, I’d say cut your losses and put the phone in your purse.

  13. gibwar says:

    @mike1731: Here’s the problem: I myself have contacted Sprint asking for the useless text messaging to be turned off – but no matter how hard you try, they apparently aren’t able to. I never use it, and I only get spam that I have to pay for. If anyone knows of a way to get it turned off (short of getting a phone that doesn’t support it!) let me know! Please…

  14. Riddar says:

    You don’t even need to take away the phone, simply disable text messaging. I did that on my own phone to stop the marketing messages after realizing I really didn’t like using it anyway (not to mention the prices).

    Anyway, like DEEJAYQUEUE said, she had unlimited access to a phone and the parents were not monitoring it. While that in no way means they deserve what happened, they can’t expect to not be responsible for it in the end.

    It says in the Sprint article that parents can limit texting to a list of approved numbers. That seems like the right solution; not as easy as just not accepting premium services, but still simple enough.

  15. mammalpants says:

    why does she have a text messaging plan in the first place? if her family is concerned about this, then they should be better parents and monitor what their daughter is doing. yes, it is that simple. this is just a another case of our Point-the-Finger Society.

    i have to agree with sprint on this one. in fact, it is pretty nice that they are even offering to split the bill.

    it seems that the actions and behaviors of the family enabled this girl to make decisions that she probably should have been prevented from making in the first place.

  16. hypnotik_jello says:

    @mammalpants: You can’t turn off text messaging. Even if you don’t have a text messaging plan you can still send and receive messages ala carte.

  17. zentec says:

    Do the same regulations apply for supplemental services on cellular lines as they do for traditional landlines? If so, then simply refuse to pay it and let this British company come knocking for the money.

    If not, well, then a few more of these and I’m sure the cellular companies will try to get that regulation so they’re not stuck fighting with these third parties for who owes the other money.

    However, I have to agree with the multitudes of posts who say that the parents should have their head examined for giving this girl the ability to cause that kind of damage. I’m sure they simply didn’t realize these services exist.

  18. ancientsociety says:

    I also side with the company on this one. Sounds like, instead of being responsible and monitoring their daughter’s actions, these parents want to play the “handicapped” card and shift the responsibility to the giant faceless telecom co.

    Sounds like this is a good time to pay the (very generous offer, btw) $5K, disable text msging, and either a) monitor your daughter’s actions more closely or B) teach here to be responsbile about her money and choices.

  19. nonzenze says:

    @bohemian:

    So let’s see, a small minority of people can’t handle themselves responsibly so we need to lock down the service for everyone?

    How about roaming? That used to cost me $.35 a minute but I’d be pissed as hell if they locked that down without asking me.

  20. Riddar says:

    @hypnotik_jello: “You can’t turn off text messaging.”

    Sure you can, it’s very easy. Just call the company, tell them the request, and you are set. No more promotional, premium, or personal text messages. It’s what I did for quite a while.

  21. the_mdg says:

    This reminds me of all the people who try to make companies pay for things that they are not obligated to pay for. I.E. Insurance companies & the people who sued to get flood damage covered. I’m sorry but if a company says ‘we don’t cover flooding’, then they shouldn’t have to pay for flooding just because a bunch of people whine and complain. They don’t pay for it because they can buy FLOOD INSURANCE! This is similar. I agree with the people who’ve stated that a contract was signed, there should have been better supervision, and Sprint cut the bill in half (which they weren’t obligated to do). People in our society today are so enthralled with getting something for nothing. (Remember the lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled hot coffee on her. What? Coffee is HOT??? Talk about developmentally disabled!)

  22. majortom1981 says:

    You can turn off text messaging . well on cingular phones. All you have to do is put in garbage for the text messaging settings for servers and stuff. and there you go non working text messaging on the phone.

  23. Youthier says:

    I’m with Sprint as well. They’re actually offering to drop half the bill, which they don’t have to do and that’s probably only because the parents are milking the “But she’s handicap!” for all it’s worth.

    I do think it would be nice if phone companies had the credit card style “fraud protection” that the father mentions. Of course, that would result in people bitching when their phone service is cutoff for “unusual use”.

  24. pinkbunnyslippers says:

    @gibwar: Not sure how Sprint’s online portal works, but I’ve got Verizon which allows me to go online and limit who sends me text messages. It’s not as granular as I’d like, but it allows you to block “Messages from the web” – surely these annoying spam texts would fall into this category. Give it a try. Companies CAN block texts – don’t let them tell you they can’t.

  25. cosby says:

    I’m glad to see so many people saying sprint didn’t do anything wrong here. I really think this falls on the parents.

  26. hapless says:

    @the_mdg:

    The woman who sued McDonalds sued after receiving third degree burns, burns down to the bone, from coffee that was considerably hotter than the industry standard.

    Goodness gracious do I ever hate that anecdote. I think it’s the perfect case of a justifiable lawsuit.

  27. scoopy says:

    @hapless: Don’t forget “too many Twinkies” Now THAT’S a classic.

  28. BearTack says:

    McDonald’s served a dangerously liquid, known to cause severe burns, in a flimsy container. There had been a number of such accidents in the past with McDonald’s coffee, and management KNEW of the problem. They were obligated to provide both a safer cup, and coffee at a safer temperature.

    The woman in question had $20,000 worth of medical care, and requested only that McDonald’s pay her medical bills. When McDonald’s refused, she then sued. McDonald’s should have sought reimbursement from the attorney who gave them the lousy advice about settling out of court for the medical costs in the first place.

    Almost all of the clogging of the civil courts are business to business suits, which typically make up 80-90% of all civil cases. A large number of these actions make the most ridiculous consumer suits look sane.

    In a three sentence soundbyte, any trial decision can be made to sound ridiculous, pro or con.

  29. Charles Duffy says:

    @hypnotik_jello: I had no problem going into a Cingular store and asking them to turn texting off. (Actually, that’s not quite true — I asked them to turn off their proprietary ‘net access, since the button making use of this paid service was much too easy to push by accident; they did so, and texting went with it. The point stands, though, that they can enable and disable a-la-carte services).

    That said, my preferred solution is to use a prepaid phone with unlimited normal texting and no support (or prepaid support) for premium texting. Granted, the big telcos don’t offer good plans along those lines — but then, the big telcos suck, and competition exists.

  30. LionelEHutz says:

    Well, Sprint charged me for messages that came from Sprint. For that, the SOB’s just lost a customer once my contract expires.

  31. Amelie says:

    @bohemian: They need to make these premium services locked (by the cell phone provider) unless the account holder unlocks the option.

    I couldn’t agree more. It’s ridiculous that all sorts of predatory companies have free access. Does the provider – in this case Sprint – make any money off these services?

  32. hypnotik_jello says:

    @zouxou: Yes, they make a ton of money off the premium rate SMS. up to 75% of the charge levied by the premium rate operator.

  33. vladthepaler says:

    Is the implication supposed to be that Sprint is wrong for charging the girl for services which she used? Cause they’re not. Charging people what they agreed to pay for services which they voluntarily used is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate business model.

    If the girl is incapable of making intelligent decisions about her phone use, that is her (or her parents’) problem, not Sprint’s.

  34. max andrews says:

    Am I missing something here? 100c Per message received, plus standard fees say 15c per message, times 642 messages is about $740. How on Earth do they get $10000 from $740?

  35. pinkbunnyslippers says:

    This guy kinda makes me sick. What if this daughter was 10 and NOT mentally disabled? What excuse is there then for racking up $10k of text charges? Not much of one, I’m afraid, other than “my daughter’s 10 and doesn’t understand the repurcussions”…well then said daughter needs not to have a cell phone that YOU, the parent, are unable to manage adequately.

    I side with Sprint on this one. Glad to see so many like minds on here today. That’s pretty rare! ;)

  36. Anonymously says:

    I’m not sure how much involvement Sprint has with these companies. Do they have to sign a contract with Sprint? Does sprint get a cut of the charges?

    Regardless of where the blame lies, it should be impossible to generate a monthly bill that’s 50x higher than usual. You can’t expect a consumer to actually be able to pay that.

  37. Tigerman_McCool says:

    My credit card company can send me alerts when my balance reaches a specified level. Or alert me if a transaction exceeds a specified amount. Do any cell phones companies do this? Maybe they should.

    There are so many reasons the parents should be this…

  38. girly says:

    @max andrews: You’re right 10000/642 = $15.58 per message!
    What is that?!

  39. girly says:

    Maybe somebody can make money making software to create a usage cap for kids’ phones (except for 911) if something like that doesn’t already exist.

  40. Little Miss Moneybags says:

    @pinkbunnyslippers: very well put!

    @Greg P and Tigerman_McCool: Great points!

  41. kc2idf says:

    @gibwar:

    I myself have contacted Sprint asking for the useless text messaging to be turned off – but no matter how hard you try, they apparently aren’t able to.

    Interesting. They have offered me this option several times whenever I have called them about spam. It’s not a suitable or adequate solution, though, because I actually use SMS.

  42. Bunnymuffin says:

    @pinkbunnyslippers: Actually a 10 year old child cannot enter into a legally binding contract. So if it was his 10 year old daughter he’d have a better legal leg to stand on.

  43. lincolnparadox says:

    @gibwar: You need to go to your cell phone provider (kiosk in the mall, store, whatever), tell them your dilemma and ask for a new SIM card. You’ll probably want to get a new number, as well.

    It’s a pain, but they shouldn’t charge you for the switch.

  44. othium says:

    The parents are the ones responsible for the bill in this case. They should have been keeping better track of the bills/phone set-up. It’s an unfortunate situation, but in my opinion, the offer to cut the bill in half was quite generous and I feel they should take it and count themselves lucky. Chalk it up to a life lesson and move on. Hopefully this story will help to alert others in similar situations to the potential problems involved with allowing unfettered cell-phone usage by DD Adults/Minors.

    “Responsible person” means the parent or guardian of a developmentally disabled minor, the guardian of a developmentally disabled adult..”

  45. Cogito Ergo Bibo says:

    @Bunnymuffin: The phone is in the parent’s name. No one is going to put a phone contract in a 10-year old’s name. Whatever happens on that phone is the responsibility of the account owner. Parents can’t hide behind “it’s my kid’s phone” when they are the account owners.

  46. shades_of_blue says:

    With Cingular, you can disable texting features and others of a phone by phone basis by logging into your account, from their website. I looked into this because we’ve been considering the removal of our lan line, but weren’t sure if there would be any issues removing features that my mentally incapacitated [stoke victim] father could accidentally use.

    Her father should have acted more responsible, knowing his daughters condition. So it’s his fault, still the phone company should have killed all charges. Most lan line plans will void false charges, to me this is no different.

    Shame on Sprint, and shame on her father. Shame, shame, shame… :::waves index finger:::

  47. MaliBoo Radley says:

    @max andrews:

    I think that in addition to the text message fees, there was also some sort of subscription fee charged for each sign up. Something like $15 bucks weekly subscription fee. If she signed up a few hundred times … well it’d add up.

  48. posturific says:

    Just so we’re clear, she’s retarded right?

  49. Crazytree says:

    before going to law school I worked with disabled children.

    let me call COMPLETE BS on this story.

    most of the kids I dealt with had a hard time spelling and reading at the most basic levels.

    if the girl was intelligent enough to sign up for all these text message services, she was probably BARELY developmentally disabled, if at all.

    I have a lot of experience testing these types of kids with everyday tasks and a lot of involvement with their educational curricula.

    If she could figure out how to “TEXT IDIOT TO 48489″ then she is probably on the highest end of the DD spectrum.

  50. UpsetPanda says:

    It kind of looks like this parent needs to put a big limit on his child, take the phone away. I think the lot of us think the OP used his daughter’s story as a way to get out of his bill. I can kind of see how one could be desperate enough when confronted with a $10,000 bill to do such a thing, but it still makes it wrong. And kind of sleezy.

  51. bdgbill says:

    Why is “Developmentally disabled” part of this story? Either the girl is responsible enough to have unsupervised access to a phone or not.

    I have to imagine she knew what she was doing and just didn’t give a shit. If we are going to start claiming A.D.D. to get out of paying our bills the economy will crumble.

  52. GitEmSteveDave says:

    @hapless: Unless the water is boiling/near boiling, how the heck can you sustain thrid degree burns to the bone in the thigh area? I mean, unless your sitting in a pool of it, wouldn’t the temperature drop as you got up and danced around, and thus, started getting the water off of your body?

    I’m just having trouble with this.

  53. Aladdyn says:

    So almost all of you have no problem that its possibkle to rack up a 10,000 dollar phone bill??? I find it hard to beleive that a company expects people to pay 10,000 dollars for phone texting, it sounds like they are operating a scam where they hide the costs of what they are offering and just try to get as much money from people before they realize they are getting scammed.

    A similar situation to compare to is back in the day where people got their first internet dial up account going, not realizing that if they didnt have unlimited local dialing, and they left the ol aol chat running all day, they were racking up a good sized phone bill. Usually the phone companies were good enogh to retroactively apply unlimited local calling since its obvious that people had made a mistake.

  54. Aladdyn says:

    @GitEmSteveDave: umm the water WAS near boiling?? Plus how do you stand up in your car in and dance around. If you spill it on your lap wouldnt you then be sitting in a pool of it? try thinking about it more.

  55. Trai_Dep says:

    @GitEmSteveDave: scope out the wiki for this: [en.wikipedia.org]

    Of note-worthiness:

    * jury found shared liability (plaintiff was found partially at fault)

    * amt was based on two days coffee profit for McDonald’s (wasn’t simply pulled out of the air)

    * the super-heated coffee was so hot it fused her labia to her thigh. Ask yourself how much you’d suggest if someone offered you cash to fuse your scrotum to your thigh… Pretty horrible to contemplate, huh?

  56. JustRunTheDamnBallBillick. says:

    @Aladdyn: There is no way for the cell company to catch these fees as they happen, since they get bills on a monthly/bimonthly basis from the premium service. Much like Roaming, the cell company doesnt know its coming until its presented to them for payment.

    That said, there should be a system in place to flag those bills so they can contact the customer immediately to discuss payments.

    As for the people who claim its illegal for her to enter a contract, there are no contracts here. This is no different from that same child using a 900 number or even buying stuff in a store. If they make a PURCHASE then they have to pay (or the parents do).

  57. M3wThr33 says:

    Sprint can block text messages that cost money to sign up for. We have one on the account for my sister after she did something similar.

  58. Bunnymuffin says:

    @Cogito Ergo Bibo: Doesn’t matter if the phone is in the parent’s name, the business isn’t creating a contract with the parent. A child cannot be held to a business contract, this is like legal 101 stuff. I dealt with this issue with my kid once, I told the company that they had contracted with a minor and they apoligized and gave me my money back. Then the boy and I sat down and had a talk about “free stuff” on the internet.

  59. erratapage says:

    @Crazytree: Glad you have so much experience with disabled children. My stepdaughter has cerebral palsey. My stepson has Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Both are considered disabled. My stepson lives in a staffed group home.

    Both of these kids know more about cellphones than I do. Both are capable of text messaging, albeit with really bad spelling.

    My stepson who is 21, is under legal guardianship, so he cannot legally contract. But the cell phone companies sure want him to try!

    I would NEVER put either of these kids on my wireless account. My stepson has a prepaid phone, and my stepdaughter has her own account.

    Hard experiences tells me that sometimes, you don’t know what your disabled kids are capable of until you get the bill. So, I’m somewhat sympathetic to these parents, especially if they know as little about cell phones as I do.

    Nevertheless… I get the feeling that Sprint did what they could, given that the premium text services were third party numbers. I do hope the parents of this girl get a little more relief.

  60. nardo218 says:

    What irritates me on my sprint phone is that you have no option to refuse a text message. Is this standard? I’d like an AIM-inspired option to say yes or no to a text message from an incoming number, and then the option to block all messages from that number.

  61. Rider says:

    lesson to parents, only give your kids prepaid cell phones.

  62. girly says:

    @radleyas: how can they even allow one phone to be signed up 600+ times?

    isn’t the point of a subscription fee to only be paid once?

    If it is weekly, there should have been a max of $60 in subscription fees before the parent found out?

  63. MaliBoo Radley says:

    @girly:

    I dunno. Maybe it’s like placing an order on an e-commerce site. The button will say “click only once”. What she did is sorta the equivalent of clicking a few hundred times …

    I have no answers for your … just positing …

  64. girly says:

    @radleyas: thx. Don’t worry, I know it doesn’t make sense to any of us!

  65. CyberSkull says:

    Text messaging plain sucks. They are charging large amounts of money for short messages that fit into 1 TCP/IP packet! 1!

    No reasonable person can justify these charges.

  66. MaliBoo Radley says:

    @CyberSkull:
    I think you made the mistake of thinking that we’re reading about reasonable people ….

  67. Cogito Ergo Bibo says:

    @Bunnymuffin: You cannot equate an internet purchase with a cell phone charge. Using the internet to affirmatively seek out a purchase unrelated to service is very different from using a cell phone to rack up related charges. In the internet purchase, your kid went out of his way to create an unrelated contractual obligation (one which the parent actually WOULD have been required to honor, if it had been for a necessary item; comic books or cool gadgets, not so much). To use your example, a similar transaction where a parent wouldn’t be liable would be the same, unrelated ordering of an item (comic book or cool gadget) over the phone. That isn’t what happned here.

    This is more like your kid getting charged for roaming on a phone in your name. It’s a charge directly related to use of the phone; texting service (a phone service) was requested. No amount of “my kid did it, so I shouldn’t have to pay” will get you out of the responsibility to monitor use of your own phone, or one in your name.

  68. Sasquatch says:

    Cell phone providers will usually gladly “blacklist” premium content providers… after you’ve already racked up hundreds of dollars worth of charges. This should be an opt-in service offered at the point of sale, especially when the salesperson knows it’s going to be for children.

    Conversely, a little time spent explaining to your children that these services are verbotten for them could probably save the headache. But in this case, Sprint should seriously consider doing the right thing for the developmentally challenged child who geniunely may not have known better. Then again, I stopped expecting corporations to do the right thing a long time ago.

  69. Elvisisdead says:

    As an anecdote, a close friend of mine has a cousin with downs. Frannie is around 20, I think, and texts constantly to other friends from school. Frannie is functioning enough to be able to use a cell phone and order items online. She’s very crafty, as well. She knows that lifting her mom’s CC and ordering crap off the internet is wrong (like a massage chair from sharper image), and pulls the “I didn’t know” card all the time. She’s not functioning enough to live on her own, but is definitely of a high enough ability to get into tons of trouble if not properly supervised.

    All that being said, she’s a very sweet person and doesn’t mean any harm by what she’s doing. She just knows what gets her out of trouble when she needs it to.

    This isn’t the company’s fault. Parents/Guardians are responsible for their charges (not $$$, people) and their actions. If you have a 17 yo that runs their car into somebody’s house, you get to pay for it. If you give your kid a cell and they’re under 18, you have to pay for whatever they do with it. Not saying it’s fair or right, that’s a judgment call. However, it is according to the contract, and they’re being gracious by cutting it in half.

  70. GitEmSteveDave says:

    @trai_dep: Well, except for the part about the labia, which wasn’t the wiki article, it makes more sense now. I didn’t realize how old she was, and I also didn’t know that she held the darn cup between her knees, which explains how it could pool in a small area very quickly.

    I admit my ignorance, and I thank you for pointing me to the right source.

  71. gingerCE says:

    I feel bad for the parent, but Sprint, the parent, and his daughter all share responsiblity in this. I feel like he is blaming everybody else but himself and his daughter by making excuses. First, it’s not because his daughter has a disability. I know a parent with a 4K bill. It’s cause she’s a teen. I sponsor a family cell phone plan with my sis who is in college. Do you think I trust her? I go online and check to see if she’s going over etc . When she downloaded games/music I saw this early on and told her she was paying for it and exactly how much it would cost. She stopped. When she was using her cell phone for email I signed her phone up for unlimited email and told her she had to pay for it. Each time I prevented a bigger problem and let her know she would pay for anything she did above and beyond our phone deal. And it worked. I hate to say it but to teach your daughter a lesson, she’ll need to get a summer job and pay off this bill. She signed up for those services. Had she been under 18 you’d have a case, but I don’t think you do here. Sorry.

  72. gingerCE says:

    Just to respond to some comments, the 642 messages were about $1300 and only part of the $10,000 worth of messages. That was just an example of one company where each message was $1.99. She received probably closer to 5000 messages to rack up that kind of bill and that doesn’t include the non-fee regular portion of their unlimited texting so add maybe 500-1000 additional free texts. Okay, I consider my sis in college to be a rabid texter (texting while in class, driving (!), and everywhere else). She only texts about 1000 messages a month. If his daughter is in college he might not notice, but if she was at home, how did he not notice such an increase in texting? She’d have been texting all day and night. Her phone must’ve been beeping or vibrating like it was possessed.

  73. gingerCE says:

    Hmm–sorry if I am double posting (can’t see my response post) but to answer the question on the 642 messages–that equated to only $1300 of the $10,000 bill. Each message was 1.99. Overall to rack up to 10K she had closer to 5000 messages in a month and because they were on an unlimited text plan, she probably had 500-1000 additional no fee text messages. If she was in college, I can understand why the parent didn’t notice, but if she lives at home, her phone must’ve been beeping and vibrating like it was possessed. Didn’t her dad notice how much her phone was going off?

  74. Paul says:

    @hapless: The coffee was not above the industry standard, and McDs was not required to make the coffee any cooler. The burns were not down to the bone…you could boil water (which would be hotter than the coffee she was served) and spill a cup directly on your bare thigh and not expose your femur. For someone who “hates” seeing this anecdote thrown around, you sure don’t seem to know anything about it. Or physics.