This is a discussion on iPad class action within the iPad General Discussions forums, part of the Apple iPad Discussions category; Originally Posted by figmo10 McDonalds doesn't heat the coffee to 180 degrees anymore, even by accident. The optimal brewing temp according to the Specialty Coffee ...
Hey guys, we're sorry. No more free use of AT&T hotspots. Can't afford to do that any longer. From now on starting July 1st, you need to pay us $5 per occurrence to use the hotspots. Sorry about that, too bad I guess, huh?
Also the next software update coming in August/September, it will lock down your wifi and only allow the ipad to connect to AT&T ssid's.
Of course, none of this is true (yet), but I'm sure a couple million sheep would simply swallow hard and leave it up to the rest of us brave enough to step up on their behalf.
Its simple. If I get annoyed enough, they wont get my money. I dont need a lawsuit to make my voice heard. I dont need any lawyer to stand up for me. They care more about our money. If they lost a million customers over these changes, they would think again about doing it.No contract - cancel anytime
Last edited by pallentx; 06-30-2010 at 10:22 AM.
Fortunately we don't live in the lawless / justice free country that you desire - and there is re-dress for this type of situation. Apple deserves to get their knuckles rapped over this - for nothing less than the message it will send to Microsoft and Nokia and HP and BP and the hoards of other companies who are secretly in their board rooms wondering why Apple thought of this before they did.
Most probably tapped on my iPad!
Consumer protection is a matter of law. Lawmakers make laws that regulate advertising, contracts, etc. The courts exist to enforce those laws. If ATT has broken a law, then they deserve any punishment they get. Unless there are factors I am unaware of (and that is certainly a possibility), ATT has broken no law. They made no promises as to how long they would continue to offer unlimited data. They explicitly stated that there is no contract.
I'm not advocating lawlessness. In fact, I am advocating the opposite - that we follow the law and nothing more. How unhappy you are with their business decision is irrelevant to the law. I would say that making a company pay a settlement when they have broken no law is the definition of lawlessness. When you can be punished for breaking laws that dont exist, you have chaos.
Fuzzy stuff is the fuel of arguments, including arguments before the Court.