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
More From Consumerist
-
Sprint Raising Rates On Nextel Customers At Same Time As It Shuts Down Nextel Network
-
Picky Thieves Steal $19K Worth Of Girl Scout Cookies — All In Thin Mints & Shortbread
-
Sprint Sells Blind Man Wrong Phone, Charges Restocking Fee, Shrugs
-
Turkey Plant Ordered To Pay Mentally Disabled Workers $240M After Years Of Awful Conditions
-
Should Sprint Tell Me That I Could Switch To A Cheaper Data Plan?
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.
Another duplicate? At least this article has a bit more information.
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.
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?
@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.
18 and already in need of bankruptcy. Welcome to the USA.
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.
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).
As much as I hate sprint, they did nothing wrong. In fact they tried to help make it easier.
@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!
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.
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.
@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…
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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!)
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.
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”.
@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.
I’m glad to see so many people saying sprint didn’t do anything wrong here. I really think this falls on the parents.
@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.
@hapless: Don’t forget “too many Twinkies” Now THAT’S a classic.
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.
@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.
Well, Sprint charged me for messages that came from Sprint. For that, the SOB’s just lost a customer once my contract expires.
@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?
@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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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…
@max andrews: You’re right 10000/642 = $15.58 per message!
What is that?!
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.
@pinkbunnyslippers: very well put!
@Greg P and Tigerman_McCool: Great points!
@gibwar:
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.
@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.
@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.
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..”
@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.
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:::
@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.
Just so we’re clear, she’s retarded right?
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.
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.