In this case they haven't been convicted of any wrongdoing, nor was there any precedent that what they did was wrong. Given the above, them continuing to do whatever they were doing seems like the justice system working as intended? Obviously many people think they're guilty of something, but in this case it seems like the plaintiff's case was weak rather than verizon being "Untouchable".
They "haven't been convicted of any wrongdoing" because we have developed a detestable habit, in this country, of allowing—in some cases even encouraging—large companies and wealthy individuals to simply settle major lawsuits "without admitting any wrongdoing" rather than forcing them to actually, yes, admit that lying and taking money they weren't owed and didn't need (or whatever other particular awful thing a given suit is about) is wrong, and requiring them to change their behavior.
All because it would be more expensive to actually see justice carried out.
It really makes me wonder just how expensive it would be, in net, to nationalize and/or break up companies like Verizon, and force them to be good corporate citizens either by running them directly, or by cutting them down to a much more manageable size and actually giving them meaningful competition again for the first time in far, far too long.
>They "haven't been convicted of any wrongdoing" because we have developed a detestable habit, in this country, of allowing—in some cases even encouraging—large companies and wealthy individuals to simply settle major lawsuits "without admitting any wrongdoing" rather than forcing them to actually, yes, admit that lying and taking money they weren't owed and didn't need (or whatever other particular awful thing a given suit is about) is wrong, and requiring them to change their behavior.
Except in this case it's not really clear that taking them to trial would result in a guilty verdict against them. It's also possible that they get off 100% scot free instead. I don't know about you, but if I was a consumer I'd rather get a paycheck in the mail right now, than having both sides' lawyers rack up thousands more billable hours (which will be paid from the settlement and/or future bills) for an uncertain promise of a bigger paycheck and them being declared as guilty.
Not a Verizon customer, but any regular consumer is only going to be getting $20 or $30, max. If they are guilty, then letting them buy their way out of it without admitting it is BS; if they're not, then letting them be shaken down without being at fault is BS. Reducing everything to expected value and probabilistic calculations means that an ever-increasing volume of commercial and legal decision-making is based on bluff rather than principle.
The "detestable habit" is just the nature of an adversarial court system. If both the defendant and plaintiff agree to drop the matter, how else can you continue the case? Do you have the judge start the Verizon inquisition[0] and become (or appoint) a new plaintiff? Who's going to pay for their time?
It sounds like what you want is the FTC to prosecute the case in lieu of the plaintiffs. That's possibly viable, but they also kind of have their hands full with Google.
[0] Yes, the alternative to an adversarial court system is literally the Spanish inquisition!
If you want to not admit guilt but also give up, you can also plea "No Contest" which is typically what you do every time you pay a traffic fine (i.e. Speeding Camera.
You might also hear it as nolo contendere (Latin for "I do not wish to contend") or an "Alford plea" (after the first person to use it).
I prefer the term "Alford plea" because it is indicative of the common use. Alford was charged with murder and plead guilty because the prosecution was going to seek the death penalty if he didn't.
Where an innocent or guilty plea addresses the facts of the case, an Alford plea solely addresses the case itself. Someone who makes an Alford plea is opting not to address factual evidence, but conceding that they believe the jury is likely enough to convict that there is no reason to oppose it.
To get on my soapbox for a moment, the existence and prevalence of Alford plea's is an indictment of the US judicial system. It's something people plea when they're innocent, but don't want to risk the enormous penalty the prosecution will seek at trial. Trial sentencing has become tantamount to punishing someone for exercising their constitutional rights to a trial. The prosecution is fine with a slap on the wrist until you want to exercise your right to a trial, and suddenly nothing but a lengthy jail term is appropriate.
Why are you defending a billion dollar company? Is Verizon so hard up that they need random people to defend their shit business practices? I don’t get why you’re so invested in this morally reprehensible practice.
"Why are you defending an accused rapist/pedophile/murderer?"
>Is Verizon so hard up that they need random people to defend their shit business practices? I don’t get why you’re so invested in this morally reprehensible practice.
I'm not sure how you got the impression I support "their shit business practices". If you read my comments more carefully you'll see I was only arguing that from both a practical and legal standpoint, they don't have to change their behavior. I did not make any sort of normative claim.
Technicalities are a bane of a civilized society. We have come so far that it’s acceptable to be dickheads in your business of it’s merely legal to do so. Arguments of “it’s legal” are fine in court but in society we should expect people and companies to behave better than the minimum. Arguments like yours lend credibility to things like this.
The article says that they ended up changing the language in their marketing/contracts, presumably to make it more lawsuit-proof. The plaintiff lawyers also settled, which suggests their case isn't a slam dunk. Given the two factors suing again is probably a very risky proposition.