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".

Could another party replay this case, and they would have to settle again?

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.

They paid a 100M settlement. Pretty sure that's not a charitable donation.

And the cost of the settlement will be recovered with the higher fees.

That makes as much sense as "he agreed to a plea bargain; he must be guilty of something".

> "he agreed to a plea bargain; he must be guilty of something".

What do you think they would be pleading to?

To piggy back on this.

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 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.

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.

>Technicalities are [...]

Plaintiffs settling is hardly a "technicality".

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.

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

> 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.

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!

Prosecuting cases in lieu of the pontiff is what criminal justice and regulatory enforcement is all about.

It’s not the Spanish Inquisition.

The adversarial legal approach is highly overrated.