$0.15 was pretty close to being Materially Adverse to a Horton's cashier just a few minutes ago!

This is so crazy that it's hard to believe it's true. Then again, I'm sure it is. Imagine how many people simply give up after being told "no" twice. That has to be tons of money saved, and what recourse does a person have if Verizon won't follow their own contract?

In the market for a phone myself, a few people have tried to convince me to go Verizon. After the whole 0.02 debacle and now this, fat chance. This latest act is simply disgusting.

Gee, this couldn't have anything to do with numerous websites encouraging people to claim a wind direction shift to the northwest as being "materially adverse", in order to get out of a contract you agreed to? Of course Verizon is cracking down and not being as lenient as they used to be.

A fuzzy term like "materially adverse" is going to be open to interpretation under a "reasonable person" standard, if ever really tested at an extreme like this. Would any "reasonable person" say that fifteen cents a month on a cell phone contract is materially adverse?

I hate to say this, but the answer is probably "no", and they're probably quite aware that you're just trying to get out of your contract.

It's a buck eighty a year. A minute and forty-five seconds or so of minimum-wage work a month. Sorry, that is not materially adverse.

I know the mode of the day is that anyone should and can be able to get out of a termination "FEe" with a little social engineering - but you did sign a contract, you know.

@tcp100: All they had to do was charge NEW contracts the new fee, and old contracts the old fee. Verizon would have to employ chimps to miss that easy fix. They decided to charge everyone the new fee, understanding that this would happen. Sorry, thems the breaks.

It seems with most Verizon call centers it is either hit or miss. I have always had more trouble when I am connected to one of the northern call centers, such as when I use my girlfriends phone to call. I never have any trouble out of any of the southern call centers, and it seems they have a little more wiggle room. I've received plenty of replacement devices and such from them with little trouble.

@WingZero987: You really think it's "disgusting" that Verizon won't let someone out of a contract over a $0.15 a month increase?

Do you not understand that complaints like these are going to make it more difficult for people that have real material adverse changes, like when T-Mobile changed the overage charges for text messages?

The idea behind this is that you can get out without penalty if the company does something lousy that changes the overall affordability or usability of a plan - not just a quick excuse to save yourself $200 because you want to break a contract.

The former protects consumers from companies like Verizon; the latter just protects you from your own bad judgement.

Check the title. :) ("FEe")

@iEddie: It's just Ben going into his native L33tsP3aK from his old haxor days.

@tcp100: yes, the OP signed a contract that had certain provisions that were later changed. that's the whole idea of "materially adverse". perhaps the OP would not have signed the contract in the first place if this administration fee existed (perhaps he would) - the purpose of the clause is to allow the contract to remain in force w/ changes.

the alternative is to not insert the clause (meaning that verizon would not be able to make changes while a person is in contract).

it's their choice, but they cannot have it both ways.

To all those who think this shouldn't be considered a "materially adverse" change to the contract: try notifying your service provider that you are changing the terms of your contract and reducing one of your fees by $.15 per month. Let us know what their response is.

This is actually a case where the Internet probably hurts you. Verizon does NOT want to set a precedent here, and get a flood of "I read it online, you did it for that guy!" calls.

If it were just you, then they might make the "dealing with him is costing us more than the ETF, let's just waive it and get him gone." As it is, the math is more like "give in to him, and we'll set a precedent for waiving hundreds, if not thousands of ETFs; we're saying no and sticking to it."

@tcp100: The point is that it's not fair for a company to make unilateral changes to a contract without giving the other party the option to exit the contract.

In fact, the contract is not valid unless both parties agree to it. The Contract states that it is assumed that if the user continues using the service, they have agreed to the changes. That means if they don't agree to the changes they must discontinue using the service. Charging an ETF for the only way to show that you don't agree with a Contract modification seems to be immoral at best, illegal at worst.

The term "materially adverse" is put in so that when a truly administrative change, such as fixing a typo, is instituted people will not be able to cancel - which is understandable. But other than internal administrative changes, it doesn't matter how big or small the change is - nobody has the right to make you accept a Contract change.

@tcp100:

Reasonable person standard FTW!

There's a reason it says "materially adverse," not just "adverse." There are certain changes that are so de minimus that they don't affect the validity of the contract as a whole.

Bottom line, if you can say with a straight face "if this provision had been in place when I became a customer, I wouldn't have signed up," that would meet a materiality standard. I very much doubt this does.

@tcp100: "You really think it's "disgusting" that Verizon won't let someone out of a contract over a $0.15 a month increase?"

Yes. IMO, Joseph has a very good case here, and if Verizon lets it go to litigation, then their attorneys are quite clueless.

Other posters are right. "Materially adverse" isn't quantified in the contract. Had the contract stated that, for example, 'any service or fee change resulting in an increase to Customer's bill of less than $1 US shall not be considered materially adverse under this Agreement,' then your argument would have some legs.

But they didn't, it doesn't and that's that.

@tcp100:

The letter of the law is, any increase in the amount that the customer pays is a materially adverse change. Maybe $.15/month isn't hugely adverse to a single person, but multiply it by a huge customer base, and Verizon gets perhaps millions of dollars extra per year. If you don't give people an out for such changes, then Verizon has no reason not to keep doing it, raising the fees over and over again in small increments.

Where's the threshold? What would *you* consider materially adverse? Also, in the real world, when such definitions must be legally binding, who should be the one who determines what materially adverse is? A regulatory agency? Or do you think the cell phone companies should be *snort* self-regulating on such a thing?

@BigElectricCat: You sir are exactly correct.

@NightSteel: The letter of which law? This is hardly a simple, straightforwardly defined term:

[law.fordham.edu]

The threshold, as I mentioned, is the "reasonable person standard". That is determined by a judge, and precedents are set that way.

Until it goes to a court, then it's going to be simply a disagreement between Verizon and the customer.

@NightSteel: No, I do not think the phone companies should self-regulate, but I do think issues like these will make it more difficult for people who have a truely damaging adverse change to get out of a contract.

@NightSteel:

Could you please cite the letter of the law?

As to who defines this, the short answer is, a court. If your definition and Verizon's vary, then you can sue, and a court will decide.

I have never seen a company campaign so hard to become the "Worst Company of the Year". When the time comes, I wonder if Ivan (Verizon CEO) will accept the award himself.

@NightSteel: Can you provide a cite for your claim that any adverse claim is necessarily material? I couldn't disagree with you more.

@WhoMee: Don't count out Comcast winning out with a surprise upset any day now.

@tcp100: Repeat- They could charge old accounts the same fee and sign up new accounts with the new fee. WHICH PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

@BigElectricCat: Why do you think it makes a difference whether or not a change is quantified? The words 'material' and 'adverse' have specific legal definitions. Your seem to be claiming that the word 'material' should simply be ignored when reading the contract. I wonder, why do you think they added the qualifier 'material' at all?

.15 on a 2 year contract is about a gallon of gas these days. that extra gallon of gas could keep me from walking.

So let's say they can change the policy by .15 and have it not considered material adverse.

How often can they do this?

Every month?
Every day?

Hey, it's only 15 cents...

@tcp100:

Pardon me, the letter of the contract, which is legally binding. BigElectricCat is right, the contract as written does not use the reasonable person standard, so until Verizon starts writing their contracts that way, they are stuck being legally obligated to let people out over fee increases, no matter how small.

Now, as for the reasonable person standard, I would have to say that suggesting it in such a case is idealistic to a fault. Invoking it would only give Verizon even more power than they already have in such a contract, because people would now have to go to court to get out of their contracts, no matter how large the change is.

Do you really think that if such a standard were used, Verizon would define *any* materially adverse change as 'reasonable'? Of course not. They would force their unhappy subscriber to go to court over it, which would be a double whammy; it ties up the courts, AND it would be more expensive than just paying the ETF, so nobody would do it. It would take a class action, which would of course be settled without legal precedent, so future customers would still be screwed.

And you know that Verizon would fight tooth and nail to avoid class actions and get the court to accept its definition of reasonable, and appeal every decision that didn't go its way.

If this were a contract between two equal parties, then the reasonable person standard might be a good idea. But in the case of a giant service provider with deep pockets vs. individual subscribers, I can't see how it possibly could be.

What I don't get is why is Verizon allowed to change a contract without the consent of the other party? Can I change my contract with Verizon because I think I am paying too much for phone service?

For example, take two scenarios:
(1) Verizon says that they need to charge more money for administering your service and changes the contract to reflect this.
(2) You state the cell service you are getting is not worth the $45 you are paying, and so you are changing your monthly payments to $40, and you change the contract to reflect this.

Why can Verizon change the contract without your consent, but you can't without theirs?

What I would love to see is someone rewrite their contract to say they are now paying $40 instead of $45 (writing in a clause that says if no reply is received from Verizon within 3 weeks then the contract becomes valid starting the next billing cycle), and then send the contract to Verizon (via a kiosk in a mall). I wonder if that would fly...

I guess it depends upon which definition of "materially" one (a judge) would consider.

If materially = "more than a little, significant", then a 15 cent change in the contract does not pass muster

If materially = "existing in the physical world", which 15 cents does-- you can certainly hold it in your hand-- then the ETF should be granted.

So, as usual, contract language is carefully worded to be vague so that it can be argued to benefit one side no matter what.

@blainer:

I have to admit that I don't know the legal definition of a materially adverse change. If someone could find it for all of us, that might help. However, my understanding of it is, a change that results in actual negative effects for the customer, no matter how small.

rbf2000 said it best: The term "materially adverse" is put in so that when a truly administrative change, such as fixing a typo, is instituted people will not be able to cancel - which is understandable. But other than internal administrative changes, it doesn't matter how big or small the change is - nobody has the right to make you accept a Contract change.

@JustThatGuy3:

There's a reason it says "materially adverse," not just "adverse." There are certain changes that are so de minimus that they don't affect the validity of the contract as a whole.

If it's such a little deal, why is Verizon instituting it in the first place? Obviously the $.15 per line/account is material to them. And, as has been pointed out, the contract does not state what is material and what is not material.

Since this is a small amount, could a person go to small claims court and get the money back and have the contract voided? Could Verizon force you into arbitration (I believe it is in the contract)?

Not that I'm a fan of Verizon however I was a Verizon customer for 3 years. They're customer service isn't perfect, however they work hard on having good service and I doubt they were as bad as he said.

"when I criticized the poor customer service, she began screaming at me." doubt that. seriously doubt that.

I think this is a case of a guy who wanted to get his way because he thought he was right and when he was told he wasn't, he got ugly.

I think looking at this in absolute terms is a mistake. Verizon was charging him an admistrative fee of 70 cents, not for any specific service, but just as part of ongoing costs to maintaining a subscription with this provider.

By raising it to 85 cents,, the increase is a 21% jump is what Verizon is charging for this "service." I have a hard time seeing how a 21% jump in price does not qualify as material.

Does anyone recall the story of a clever man petitioning a king? If I remember correctly, he asked for 1 grain of rice for the first square on a chessboard, 2 for the second, 4 for the third and on and on until he had a butt load of rice.

In the same way Verizon doesn't want to set a precedent for getting out of the ETF, the consumers shouldn't allow them to set a precedent of allowing seemingly minor contract changes and charge increases. In my opinion (based on common sense, not law) the official position that $.15 isn't materially adverse is an interpretation that is ABSOLUTELY materially adverse.

You blocked out his last name once but did not block it out at the end.

"And, as has been pointed out, the contract does not state what is material and what is not material."

They don't have to. Words like that have a fairly well defined legal meaning -- including a threshold underneath which a change just does not qualify.

@NightSteel: I would consider rbf2000 to be describing either a ministerial or administrative change. The key in the contract definition is that it uses the term [i]adverse[/i]. How could a mere administrative change be adverse to a party?

The definition of material isn't as difficult as the non-lawyers on this board are making it out to be. It simply means, as shown in a earlier post, "of such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person's decision-making process." The notion that it involves the first Black's definition regarding matter is ridiculous.

rfb2000 is also incorrect when he states, "But other than internal administrative changes, it doesn't matter how big or small the change is - nobody has the right to make you accept a Contract change." If the contract says that you have to accept a contract change, and I believe that this one does, then you have to accept a contract change.

Comment on Verizon Interprets "Materially Adverse" Differently From Reality So You Can't Cancel Without Termination Fee "materially adverse" essentially means that had one known about this in the first place, it would have affected their decision to purchase said/service or good. given that other networks charge lower administrative fees than Verizon, then as a rational self-interested utility maximizing consumer, I would choose to go with the network that offers the lowest rates, with everything else being equal. Pretty much all of the networks sell the same handsets and offer roughly the same service set, so yes, it is materially adverse. I had to argue with them for an hour before they relented; i was hung up on by supervisors, told in no uncertain terms that the particular clause i was referring to DID NOT apply to administrative charges, etc, etc. Verizon even had the cheek to try to school me by actually referring me to the same clause i was using and claiming it as their defense as to why i couldn't cancel; the irony. i was of course offered compensation for the increased charge, and a particularly rude supervisor asked me what difference does it make, why don't you just accept the credit and then there is no materially adverse situation as you are no worse off than before. my response: i caught you guys with your hand in the cookie jar, you would never have called me to offer the credit, i had to ask for it. that indicates that were i not an informed consumer, you would have been more than happy to stick it to me...so i'm sticking it to you. VZW, stop treating customers like dumb cash cows.

@WhoMee: yeah, likely he is to abide by the "mandatory arbitration" agreement. Many cell phone companies have you agree to that before you get service.

[en.wikipedia.org]
i'm still working on submitting working links so if this doesn't work when you click on it just copy/paste... anyway, this is the wikipedia version of material adverse change in case people want to review

If 15c is not "materially adverse" then what's to stop them from simply increasing the fee by this amount every month forever? I'm reminded of the Family Guy where Quagmire flips out over Peter tapping his golf ball and not counting it as a stroke. Quagmire then "accidentally taps" his ball 10 times into the hole. I think we all agree that's not a hole in one.
If Verizon doesn't have a dollar value defined in the contract then we must go with available definitions of 'materially adverse' which do not have a minimum dollar value.

@MayorBee: Per the contract: "IF THE CHANGES HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON YOU." Whether it is material or not to the company is irrelevant.

@KyleOrton: how much is a buttload?

@NightSteel:

"I have to admit that I don't know the legal definition of a materially adverse change. If someone could find it for all of us, that might help. However, my understanding of it is, a change that results in actual negative effects for the customer, no matter how small."

The very fact that the word "materially" is in there means that your definition (any effect, no matter how small), is by definition incorrect. Materially is a _limitation_ on adverse, is means that not all adverse changes qualify.

For example, if Verizon added a clause saying that persons who magically grow to 100 feet tall, turn green, and sprout wings, must pay $9 extra per month. That wouldn't be material provision, since the clause would never impact anyone.

As to the reasonable person standard, that's how a lot of contract disputes get resolved. Even extremely well-drafted contracts have elements that are slightly ambiguous, and the reasonable person standard is a key elements that courts use to resolve disputes over what the contract actually requires. For example, if you have a provision half way through a contract between Bob and Joe that says "Bob will pay Joe $44/month," and then Bob makes the claim that, for that clause only, "Bob" refers to some _other_ guy named Bob, it's highly unlikely a reasonable person would agree with him.

At the end of the day, again, contract disputes are resolved by courts. That's what they're there for. I maintain that, if you actually took this to trial, the charge would not be deemed as materially adverse. That being said, we will never know unless someone actually does sue over it.