Magical. Show me where Apple broke the law. The devices were advertised with said capability and received it. When it was taken away, they stopped being advertised as such.
Under what law? Who decides “reasonable”?
A law didn't need to be broken. What's 'reasonable' is subjective, but most if not all will agree that 1 month was 'unreasonable'.
Magical. Show me where Apple broke the law. The devices were advertised with said capability and received it. When it was taken away, they stopped being advertised as such.
Under what law? Who decides “reasonable”?
The term "reasonable" is usually left to the courts to decide.
In this case, it should trickle up. The customer bought a device that Apple advertised as being capable of having month-to-month unlimited data (it was a big selling point). People paid money for it. AT&T then stabbed Apple in the back. The customers have no recourse from AT&T, as they bought the device from Apple.
Apple, if they wanted, could likely sue AT&T for breach of contract (assuming they had some sort of agreement). Or they may have already worked it out.
Magical. Show me where Apple broke the law. The devices were advertised with said capability and received it. When it was taken away, they stopped being advertised as such.
Under what law? Who decides “reasonable”?
It has nothing to do with breaking the law. It's a civil case.
Seriously, if you don't understand the difference between civil and criminal cases, why the heck are you so eager to parade your ignorance?
The term "reasonable" is usually left to the courts to decide.
In this case, it should trickle up. The customer bought a device that Apple advertised as being capable of having month-to-month unlimited data (it was a big selling point). People paid money for it. AT&T then stabbed Apple in the back. The customers have no recourse from AT&T, as they bought the device from Apple.
Apple, if they wanted, could likely sue AT&T for breach of contract (assuming they had some sort of agreement). Or they may have already worked it out.
Comments
A law didn't need to be broken. What's 'reasonable' is subjective, but most if not all will agree that 1 month was 'unreasonable'.
That’s nice. You owe me $40 per post now. I apparently don’t have to have a reason, backed by law or otherwise, for it.
The rubber check is in the mail.
The term "reasonable" is usually left to the courts to decide.
In this case, it should trickle up. The customer bought a device that Apple advertised as being capable of having month-to-month unlimited data (it was a big selling point). People paid money for it. AT&T then stabbed Apple in the back. The customers have no recourse from AT&T, as they bought the device from Apple.
Apple, if they wanted, could likely sue AT&T for breach of contract (assuming they had some sort of agreement). Or they may have already worked it out.
It has nothing to do with breaking the law. It's a civil case.
Seriously, if you don't understand the difference between civil and criminal cases, why the heck are you so eager to parade your ignorance?
Exactly.
I hope Apple is just paying to look good and then reaming AT&T for dropping the ball.
Read the comments and watch the keynote speech I posted.
Don’t do that, Darryn Lowe; you’ll just have the same questions.