[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.