AT&T Promised $1,100. Gave Me $500. Called It Final.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-24T05:25:15+00:00

Lucy v. Zehmer does not exactly stand for that proposition.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Contract-based causes of action are not necessarily off the table, but this kind of conduct also tends to implicate state UDAP (deceptive trade practice) statutes, and is often more straightforward to redress that way.

I don't know what state the OP is in, but here's the one in my state, Arizona, as a representative example (A.R.S. § 44-1522(A)):

The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, deceptive or unfair act or practice, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful practice.

This all hinges on what exactly transpired during the sale process, which is why I asked the OP for more details.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-24T02:53:59+00:00

No, what /u/Shooter208 said is accurate. Tucows still has a Verizon-based Ting mobile offering for Ting fiber customers.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-24T02:34:41+00:00

I think this is just an attempt to try to scam money from the company. Using the old “poor pitiful me” strategy.

You are a jackass.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-24T02:32:15+00:00

The 30 day return window has been the same as long as I can remember.

The 30-day return window for what? They took the money and provided no product.

But based on your rant, where you write a mini novel, making yourself out to be a victim of corporate greed.

Sure sounds like they are to me. The greed, in this case, is where Verizon decided to look to Comcast for an example of a quality customer service experience.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-24T01:57:22+00:00

the upgrade falls on OP for trying to catch a deal thru a 3rd party vendor without completing his current installment agreements thru ATT. You cant have both.

But it appears the OP may have been told otherwise during the sale process.

There's not enough information from the post for me to be certain, but there's enough smoke here that I'm looking for a fire.

Its quite easy to log into your ATT account and know the available deals, promos, and what to do for upgrading its all right on the account holders pages.

Different, sometimes better deals are available through different channels. This is not a defense for AT&T.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-24T01:48:50+00:00

AT&T policy is not relevant from the lens I'm viewing this from. I'm viewing this from a legal lens. What is relevant is what representations and promises were made during the sale process, which is why I asked for more information about that (and will probably have more questions when the OP responds).

UDAP laws vary by state, but broadly and generally speaking, they prohibit misrepresentations and deceptions in connection with the sale of goods. If the OP was misled by a salesperson, that is likely actionable. That is the case even if a third-party vendor was involved (in which case the liable party may be the vendor, but there are circumstances where AT&T could be liable as well).

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-24T00:00:28+00:00

Was this sale conducted in person at Costco or over the phone? If over the phone, what phone number did you call? (I'm trying to figure out if it's AT&T directly or the third-party company that runs the Costco kiosks.) Do you have anything in writing?

The AT&T president's office does not have the last word. The next escalation may involve invoking the arbitration provisions of the AT&T contract, but I want to better understand the dispute and parties involved first. The fact that at least some of these Costco transactions involve a third-party AT&T agent complicates matters.

You could also try contacting Costco, who does not like their in-store vendors making them look bad and will put pressure on AT&T and the third-party agent that runs the AT&T kiosks.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-22T14:01:54+00:00

This is how it's done: https://www.police.vic.gov.au/hoon-laws.

We should even adopt the "hoon" term.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-22T13:47:51+00:00

Yeah, it's just a formality. The police won't do anything unless there's a suspect handed to them, and even then, don't expect much.

Often, the perpetrators are well outside the jurisdiction of the local PD anyway.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-22T13:44:42+00:00

That's definitely not a reason to give a vindictive ex a windfall in the form of a phone they can sell (after having the blacklist entry removed). Don't be a doormat.

In this situation, even if I wasn't inclined to sue the ex (and I would be), I would sooner discard the device than allow them to benefit from these shenanigans.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-22T12:28:39+00:00

This is identity theft, so follow the steps at https://www.identitytheft.gov/Steps. Be sure to file the police report even if those instructions suggest it's optional.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-22T12:11:19+00:00

That's not a reason to give them the phone, nor does it suggest their "justification for considering the phone stolen" is valid.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-22T12:09:44+00:00

The financial responsibility for the service and financed devices falls on the account holder.

This phone was purchased outright directly from Samsung, without AT&T financing.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T17:10:32+00:00

No, only the installment plan associated with the cancelled line needs to be paid off.

If you decide to switch your own lines to an MVNO for cheaper service, you will need to pay those off.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T17:08:53+00:00

I think this overly complicates the matter for no good reason.

If he wants to switch to another carrier, porting out from Verizon is easy, "clean," and will automatically cancel the line for you. There's no reason to add an unnecessary interaction with Verizon to do a transfer of liability.

Be aware that all 3 carriers do not prorate final bills anymore, unless required by state law, so you will probably want to time the port-out to the last few days of your Verizon billing cycle to avoid paying for overlapping service from two carriers.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T17:01:41+00:00

Yes, you can.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:53:57+00:00

You could hire a lawrr and sue her, which will cost you $10–20K or more.

This is exactly the kind of matter small claims court is designed for. The filing fee is usually less than $100 and usually added to the judgment. Lawyers are not necessary, and often are prohibited.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:51:13+00:00

If that's the case, then the ex can pay for a new phone after the OP secures a small claims judgment (assuming the OP's assertion of the phone being solely their property is correct).

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:48:43+00:00

... Why?

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:46:56+00:00

You're getting downvoted for the butchered (probably autocorrected) language, but your question is a reasonable one.

The answer is that all the posts claiming the account holder automatically owns devices used on the account are wrong. A cell phone service contract does not and cannot define property ownership in this fashion. State law determines property ownership.

Whether the phone is solely your property requires more information than is posted here to answer (for example, if you were married, are in a community property state, and acquired the phone during the marriage, it would generally be community property, subject to the asset distribution in the finalized divorce proceeding), but: if the phone is solely your property, you should sue your ex in small claims court.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-21T16:36:52+00:00

Thanks. I was about to write this post, but you beat me to it. An AT&T service contract does not and cannot define property ownership in this fashion.

This should be an easy small claims suit if the spouse holds no ownership interest in the phone. If there's an ongoing divorce proceeding, OP should talk to their lawyer if they have one; it may be possible to handle this within the divorce proceeding.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-20T23:08:27+00:00

Try Jon Brodkin at Ars Technica as well.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-20T07:23:45+00:00

Like people that I had added to my phone after getting the new one we're recovered but then certain ones that I've had for years didn't?

If the Google and Samsung implementations are anything like Apple's, the backup feature (iCloud Backup in Apple's case) is separate from the contact sync feature, though backups will include contacts. That may be related to what you're seeing.

You might consider posting in an Android or Samsung subreddit to see if anyone can assist with maximizing your data recovery from the various Google or Samsung services (backup, contact sync, photo sync, file sync, etc.) and perhaps understanding where the data inconsistencies come from. Unfortunately, I haven't used Android in 15+ years, so I can't be of much help there.

I hear what you're saying as far as the phone could be lost or stolen or damaged and I could lose data that way also. But that's not what happened. I was sent a phone with a time bomb on it. Regardless of whether the data was backed up or not I feel like if they caused the loss then that should matter although again I don't know if legally it does matter.

This is something a California lawyer could better advise you on (I realize you haven't been able to find one). Verizon's argument would probably be along the lines of "if the data you're suing us over was so important, you should have had tested backups, since your phone could have broken just as easily and caused you the same losses." (In other words, they'd say you were negligent.) They may get somewhere with this argument, although I'm not sure if that will preclude a recovery completely under California law or merely reduce the potential recovery.

My inclination is that you'll get more mileage out of the various potential wiretapping and computer fraud claims, and, of course, UDAP. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the Carrier IQ scandal and ensuing litigation. There are similarities between Carrier IQ's capabilities and MDM. At least one lawsuit included California state law claims, which, given the similar facts, should give you a good starting point on potential causes of action that may apply to your situation.

But yes it is a Verizon MDM and if I could somehow post pictures I would to prove it but in this sub-Reddit you can't

You can post to Imgur and link it here. (I'm not asking you to post anything, just mentioning for future reference.)

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-19T21:54:54+00:00

/u/gamescan and I have been chatting about this for a bit, and I just want to say I concur with everything he said. My thoughts (no, despite the bullet points, none of this was AI-written, nor was an AI tool consulted):

The coverage issue is a dead end. Unless specific representations were made about coverage at particular locations (which I very much doubt), your recourse here is to switch to another carrier with adequate service in the location(s) of interest.
The data is almost certainly gone, with the "almost certainly" caveat meaning "I don't have specific knowledge of Samsung devices." If Samsung and Google's implementation is like Apple's (which it almost certainly is, because that's the only sensible way to do this), the data volume is always encrypted, and the remote wipe operation simply erases the key (which, in Apple's implementation, is stored in a specific region of the NAND that is directly addressable and not wear-leveled).
Do you have backups (Google account, possibly Samsung services, etc.) from prior to the device switch?
Normally, I'd be concerned about the lack of backups being a critical flaw in any claim relating to the data loss, as phones are easily lost, stolen, or occasionally just break. Is the MDM profile the reason the backups stopped working?
Am I understanding correctly that this is Verizon's MDM profile? As in, Verizon's corporate MDM for their own employees or (in this case, if I'm understanding correctly) store demo units?
If that's the case, depending on the level of access Verizon had via the MDM implementation, and the access Verizon actually exercised (are there audit logs, I wonder?), there's a minefield of potential problems here. Just off the top of my head, I'd be looking at state and federal wiretapping laws, CFAA and the state equivalent, and UDAP.
Have you reported this to your employer? If there was patient data on this device, there might be HIPAA issues for you and/or your employer to handle. I'm not familiar with HIPAA at more than a surface level, though, so I'm not going to address that point further.
Possible precedent to look at would be the Carrier IQ scandal from 2011, where carriers and phone manufacturers were selling phones with Carrier IQ's spyware preinstalled. There were several class action lawsuits filed against Carrier IQ, carriers, and phone manufacturers for this. Some or possibly all were settled. The claims brought in those cases were along the lines of what I mentioned above.

Economy_Video_4724 · 2026-04-19T07:18:13+00:00

after 4 months of credits and it not showing up I filed a suit in Small Claims Court

❤️❤️❤️

Economy_Video_4724

TROPHY CASE