[gruez]

>Why are you defending a billion dollar company?

"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.

[ok_dad]

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.

[gruez]

>Technicalities are [...]

Plaintiffs settling is hardly a "technicality".

[danaris]

Did Verizon charge deeply misleading fees whose sole purpose is to make it hard to tell how much you'll actually be paying when you sign up for the "$59.99*†‡" plan?

Yes, unquestionably.

Is this morally reprehensible?

Unless your entire notion of "morality" is "what it's possible to get away with legally," yes, unquestionably.

Do they plan to continue doing this, despite it being abundantly clear that it's morally reprehensible and legally at least questionable?

Yes, that's the entire point of the article.

So yes: the plaintiffs settling is absolutely a "technicality" if what you're concerned about is justice, rather than pure legal procedure.

[gruez]

> Did Verizon charge deeply misleading fees whose sole purpose is to make it hard to tell how much you'll actually be paying when you sign up for the "$59.99*†‡" plan?

>Yes, unquestionably.

Here's a verizon brochure I dug up from 2016, when the alleged wrongdoing started: https://web.archive.org/web/20160709005827/http://www.verizo...

On page 10 the administrative fees are clearly spelled out. I think it's safe to say that the fees are buried, but is that "deeply misleading"? I don't know, because the question in fundamentally subjective. The same goes for "morally reprehensible".

>Do they plan to continue doing this, despite it being abundantly clear that it's morally reprehensible and legally at least questionable?

The article mentions they changed their marketing/communication materials to make it more obvious. It's not like they're doing everything the same. That would be dumb.

>So yes: the plaintiffs settling is absolutely a "technicality" if what you're concerned about is justice, rather than pure legal procedure.

Justice arguably includes legal procedure. Summarily executing a rapist on the scene isn't justice, even if we know for a fact the perpetrator did it.

[ok_dad]

Thank you, I’m not very good with words and your explanation is way better than mine!