Downloading a $18,000 VerizonWireless Bill

The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reported today on the shock bestowed on Bob St. Germain, who recently discovered that renewing his wireless phone service contract with Verizon set him up for a $18,000 bill.

Unbeknownst to St. Germain, the two-year promotional period allowing free downloads had expired, and Verizon was now charging for downloaded kilobytes.
But St. Germain’s son, Bryan, a student at Framingham State College, didn’t realize this, and started downloading a lot of stuff to his phone. The August 2006 bill was for $12,233. When St. Germain called to complain, Verizon told him that since that last bill, he’d run up an additional $5,000 in downloading fees.

St. Germain complained to Verizon, which eventually offered to cut the bill in half, but St. Germain turned them down and Verizon sent the matter to a collection agency.

The WSJ Law Blog poses an interesting and unanswered question:

 It also seems fair to wonder how much it cost Verizon to provide the 816,000 kilobytes of stuff to Bryan Germain’s phone, though telecom companies often argue that demand on their networks, and the costs to expand networks to allow for it, can add up.

So the next time you re-up your service contract to get that "free" or subsidized low price new cellphone, think about Mr. Germain, how kind and friendly the folks at your telecom company really are, and read the fine print and ask how much everything will cost after you agree.  At a minimum, it seems that there should be some kind of requirement to give consumers a plainly worded summary of what their service plan will cost, with real examples, i.e. --- how much would it cost to upload ten photographs from your cellphone or download a five page document or how much it costs when your friends send you text messages or photographs that are not covered in your service plan.

 

Where Do You Practice Law?

Stuart Levine reports in his Maryland Business Law Developments blog on a noteworthy new decision by the U.S. District Court for Maryland Court  In the Matter of the Application of Cedar P. Carlton for Renewal of Membership in the Bar that involves telecommuting in the practice of law.  The case involved the application of Local Rule 701.1(a):

in order for an attorney to be qualified for admission to the bar of this district, the attorney must be, and continuously remain, a member in good standing of the highest court of any state (or the District of Columbia) in which the attorney maintains his or her principal law office, or the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Carlton lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but was employed by a firm in the District of Columbia.  Carlton's practice was conducted exclusively by remote connection to the firm's computer system in the District of Columbia.  She did not engage in the practice of law in Massachusetts and met with clients exclusively in her firm's office in DC.  Similarly, telephone communication with Carlton was handled through the DC office.

In reaching its decision, the Court analyzed six (6) non-exclusive factors and held that Carlton satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 701.1(a).  Here is an excerpt from the opinion that appears in Stuart's blog:

In recent years, the concept of a “principal law office” has evolved somewhat as a result of significant advances in technology which provide an attorney with the flexibility to carry out a variety of activities at different locations and under varying circumstances. The term does not necessarily mean continuous physical presence but, at a minimum, it requires some physical presence sufficient to assure accountability of the attorney to clients and the court. Under the circumstances described by Ms. Carlton, there can be no question that for purposes of malpractice insurance coverage, tax obligations and client security trust fund obligations, her office is the office of her employer. In addition, the address utilized in pleadings, correspondence with clients, letterhead and other matters is also the address of her employer, which maintains a substantial physical presence in Washington, D.C. When meetings with clients are required, Ms. Carlton does meet with them in Washington, D.C. Her client files, accounting records and other business records, library and communication facilities such as telephone and fax service are all located in Washington, D.C. although, by virtue of advances in technology, she is able to access them remotely from Cambridge, Massachusetts.

For further discussion of the case, see Stuart's blog.

Supreme Court to Hear Constitutional Arguments Over Violent Video Game Law

As reported in the Wall Street Journal's Law Blog and elsewhere, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on April 26, 2010 that it will review the constitutional free speech challenge to a California law that blocks the sale of violent video games to minors.

The WSJ Law Blog reported:

California’s law, originally slated to go into effect in 2006, would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games — those that include “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” — to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers. Retailers who violated the act could have been fined up to $1,000 for each violation.

Makers of video games, including Electronic Arts Inc.,Microsoft Corp., Sony Corp. and Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., the maker of “Grand Theft Auto” games, challenged the law as an infringement of free-speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier that the state had not produced sufficient evidence to establish the harm caused to minors.  In appealing this ruling, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown argue that violent video games are like sexually explicit material, which the state may prohibit.  Governor Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying, in part:

“We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies”

Governor Schwarzenegger is well known for his acting career in films like "Conan the Barbarian" and the "Terminator" series, so one would think that he knows something about violent videos.  It will be interesting to see what questions the Supreme Court Justices ask during oral argument.

Supremely Clueless?

April 20, 2010
The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog ran a story yesterday on the seemingly clueless questions asked by some of our Supreme Court Justices during the oral arguments in City of Ontario v. Quon.  Broadly stated, in Quon the Court is being asked to determine whether there is a constitutional right of privacy that protects text communications when the text messaging is done on devices and service plans provided by an employer.

Quon is Sgt. Jeff Quon of the Ontario County, California Police Department.  Quon "exchanged hundreds of sexually explicit messages with his estranged wife, his girlfriend and a fellow SWAT officer" using department devices.  The police department authorities issued somewhat conflicting pronouncements and procedures on the personal use of department devices.  For more on the case, see Nina Totenberg's "Should Personal Texts From Work Devices Be Private" on the NPR website.

During oral argument, the WSJ Law Blog states:

According to this post, at DC Dicta, the Court asked some questions of the lawyers which, well, the justices’ kids and grandkids could have answered while sleepwalking.

Further along, Justice Scalia's questioning is reported as follows:

Justice Antonin Scalia stumbled getting his arms around with the idea of a service provider.
“You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” he asked.
Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy.
“Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?” Scalia asked.

Given the current and future importance of electronic business and personal communication, we should all hope that the Court decides the legal issues correctly.  Regrettably, the Justices may need a crash course in understanding the technology first.  Perhaps their law clerks will be able to help.