Ugh... if a HN title ever needed a change (the current one is "Woman Facing $3,500 Fine For Posting Online Review"), it's this one.
Jen Palmer is not facing a $3,500 fine any more than I'm "facing" the threat of being struck by a meteor on my birthday. She'll pay this horrible company a dime the day Eskimos need to worry about tigers, and I actually can think of a good analogy.
This title seems intended to gin up outrage where there should be none. To be sure, I'm outraged at this company's terrible ethics. But in this case our legal system actually works. News at nine.
They reported it to credit bureaus, destroying their credit. They should be sued and penalized for that (in normal dealing that would be fraud if not extortion), however the threat and consequence is very real.
For anyone who hasn't experienced it: Credit score literally determines your quality of life in America. I couldn't get internet for a new apartment at age 21 because I was "unknown risk" since I'd never bothered to use credit very much.
To be clear, I hadn't missed any bills. I just hadn't used much credit, so they had no data by which to calculate a score for me. Therefore AT&T completely refused to do business with me.
It's crazy how much power these institutions have over your life. That this company was able to ruin her credit for posting a negative review is a huge deal. If they're not penalized for this, then this will set a terrible precedent.
Credit score (and stable credit history, utilization, limits) determines your quality of life when your quality of life involves post-paid credit-based services. And whether and on what terms you can get a car loan or home mortgage or margin on an investment account.
If that's surprising I don't know what you're thinking.
I'm surprised though that AT&T didn't let you post a security deposit in lieu of good credit.
> They reported it to credit bureaus, destroying their credit. They should be sued and penalized for that (in normal dealing that would be fraud if not extortion),
That does sounds like fraud (and/or extortion). It seems to me that, as stated in TFA, the credit bureaus won't perpetuate any fraud they are aware of. I doubt that Jen's credit will be "destroyed" at the end of this affair.
> however the threat and consequence is very real.
I'll grant the "threat" is real. Someone is certainly threatening this poor woman. As far as "consequences" go? No, there won't be any.
Except there have already been consequences. There has already been a financial penalty applied and creditors sent to collect it. You are trying far too hard to make your original, wrong comment accurate, when it was a wrong conclusion based on an incomplete understanding of this story.
The subjects complained to the credit agencies and were essentially told to get lost (credit companies have no interest in playing conflict resolution agents, especially given that their bread is buttered by creditors). They have a chance now simply by getting as much publicity as possible (and the outrage and attention which you specifically claim isn't necessary in your post), television networks and others acting on their behalf, however that doesn't make the reality of this bizarre and abusive situation from being real.
> Except there have already been consequences. There has already been a financial penalty applied and creditors sent to collect it. You are trying far too hard to make your original, wrong comment accurate, when it was a wrong conclusion based on an incomplete understanding of this story.
That is mentioned nowhere in TFA. In fact, TFA explicitly states that it would be fraud to report such debts to the credit bureaus. To wit:
> Once again — if KlearGear asserts falsely that someone accepted a contractual term, and asserts a debt based on that false statement, and reports that debt to credit agencies, that's fraud. It's not just a civil wrong, it's a crime.
(from TFA). Now you say:
> The subjects complained to the credit agencies and were essentially told to get lost (credit companies have no interest in playing conflict resolution agents, especially given that their bread is buttered by creditors).
Again, this tidbit appears nowhere in TFA. Reading through to the linked stories, it does appear there. That doesn't change the fact that the title is an incorrect summary of the linked article. The article is a legal analysis of the expected long-term consequences. Which again, states that there are unlikely to be any.
At least for the customer - it sounds like this company is well and truly screwed.
> They have a chance now simply by getting as much publicity as possible (and the outrage and attention which you specifically claim isn't necessary in your post), television networks and others acting on their behalf, however that doesn't make the reality of this bizarre and abusive situation from being real.
They would've been much better served by getting a lawyer to begin with, and letting the system work. The linked article is a pretty good indication that consumer attorneys dream of cases like these. Outrage and attention, while certainly good fodder for the portion of the public that loves to be outraged and pay a minute of attention to the cause-of-the-week, is ultimately an ineffective method of resolving messes like these.
The only resolution will come through boring legal work. Everything else is window dressing.
EDIT: this whole story is a pretty good affirmation of the fact that people who "can't afford a lawyer" usually can't afford not to have a lawyer.
Jen Palmer is not facing a $3,500 fine any more than I'm "facing" the threat of being struck by a meteor on my birthday. She'll pay this horrible company a dime the day Eskimos need to worry about tigers, and I actually can think of a good analogy.
This title seems intended to gin up outrage where there should be none. To be sure, I'm outraged at this company's terrible ethics. But in this case our legal system actually works. News at nine.