• Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Hell. With the way life is going I’d settle for just regular roofies. I’m trying to adopt napping as a hobby. Seems like I’m happiest when I’m not awake

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s capitolism, baybeeeee!!! Regulation free, the way it was meant to be!!! Where huge corporate interests dominate not only politics, but also the legal system, and healthcare systems! Where the only punishment is a fine so big the average citizen would consider it lifelong crippling debt, but the average corporation would look at it as a fraction of doing business. Because they have more money than anyone would ever need. That makes them better than you, and you know it.

        I’d now like to quote one of philosophys greatest minds.

        “In case you can’t tell, I was being SARCASTIC!!!” ~Homer Simpson.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        It also wasn’t in the ToS/T&C. The FAQ is not a legal document, and I wouldn’t expect to need to read it if I read the T&C.

            • the_tab_key@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Except the possibility to keep the current price is no longer available, therefore, the consumer does not have the option to continue paying the same price, ergo TMobile forced the customer to change the price they pay, either to a higher amount for the same contact or to 0 for no contact. The original advertisement stated that TMobile would never change the price a customer pays, but it directly forcing this change by not offering the same contact.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s not false, but it is deceptive. Does the USA have an advertising regulator, or does it fall under the FTC? This kind of marketing should definitely be banned.

            • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there already precident set in the 90s that EULAs do not have any holding in a court of law as a contract if the terms are labeled to be unrealistic? I swear someone sued microsoft because they did something in their EULA for Windows 95, and when it went to court, the judge said “yeah, fuck this…”

              And the thing about precidents is, once they’re established, courts generally tend to follow that precident, else it would mean that two similiar cases with similiar backgrounds were judged differently.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Contracts aren’t invalidated because conflicting info is available somewhere else.

      What they signed in the contract is the deal they took, nothing more.