When is fraud not fraud?

[Dari]

When it's done by a major company, of course. Last week I bought a phone off-contract from an AT&T store. I asked if, by buying the phone at full price, I could use it anywhere. I got a yes on multiple occasions. After playing with the phone a couple of days I decided to contact AT&T to have it unlocked. The lady said she could not do it. I asked to speak to a manager. He said that all phones purchased at an AT&T store must be used on their system for at least 90 days and he could not get an unlocked code. If I did not like his response I could return the phone. I told him that the phone was purchased off-contract, which means I did not have to commit to any contract. He agreed. I then said forcing me to use their service for 90 days would be a commitment, something that was counterintuitive to their own policy. I then said this constituted fraud and I would contact my attorney general. After a couple of minutes of backtracking, he magically found the unlock code.

Why do consumers have to go through this, especially with such a large company? I really feel inclined to report this to New York's AG just so they can look into this behavior. It's stressful and completely unnecessary.

 

[Duddy]

Did AT&T advertise anywhere that the phone could be unlocked?

I already know the answer, it's no.

Even though they have the power to do it, they have no obligation whatsoever to unlock the phone for you. They carry the iPhone for only one purpose, and that is to gain/retain subscribers. Meanwhile, Apple will sell you an unlocked iPhone directly.

I would tell you to not bother fighting it, but I'm not sure you are the type to give up.

Source: I work for another major wireless carrier.

 

[Rakehellion]

How much of this story can you actually prove happened? None? Probably isn't a matter for the courts.

 

[Dari]

Did AT&T advertise anywhere that the phone could be unlocked?

I already know the answer, it's no.

Even though they have the power to do it, they have no obligation whatsoever to unlock the phone for you. They carry the iPhone for only one purpose, and that is to gain/retain subscribers. Meanwhile, Apple will sell you an unlocked iPhone directly.

I would tell you to not bother fighting it, but I'm not sure you are the type to give up.

Source: I work for another major wireless carrier.

They have the power to unlock and have an unlock website and have an unlock policy. They also sell the phone at a non-committment price and nowhere on their website or in any of the stores is there a reading that all phones come must be used on the network for at least 90 days. I seriously doubt they setup that policy or website out of the goodness of their heart. It was probably through a court order or political pressure or something else. Either way, blatantly lying to a customer is wrong. Such a 90 days policy does not exist.

 

[Dari]

How much of this story can you actually prove happened? None? Probably isn't a matter for the courts.

That is why I would inform the office of the Attorney General. They would then take it from there. Perhaps do a sting to see if my case was not anomaly.

 

[nace186]

I would report it for just wasting my time.

 

[Duddy]

From their site:

In addition to the general eligibility requirements, you must meet the following requirements to unlock an iPhone or tablet if you're a postpaid customer:

- Your account must be in good standing (i.e., it has no past due amount or unpaid balance owed AT&T).

- You've satisfied all contract obligations, including any Service Commitment associated with the device to be unlocked, in one of the following ways:
1. Fulfillment of the Service Commitment by expiration of any contractual term
2. Payment of any applicable Early Termination Fee
3. Upgrading to a new device under AT&T standard or early upgrade policies






If you did not have service with AT&T, then this policy does not apply to you. Which means they have no obligation to unlock the device for you.

If you DID have AT&T service, option one does not apply to you since you did not have a contract. Option two does not apply since you did not request to cancel service and had no ETF. Which means you would not have fulfilled the third option; upgrading to a new device before requesting the unlock code for the prior device.

 

[Dari]

From their site:

In addition to the general eligibility requirements, you must meet the following requirements to unlock an iPhone or tablet if you're a postpaid customer:

- Your account must be in good standing (i.e., it has no past due amount or unpaid balance owed AT&T).

- You've satisfied all contract obligations, including any Service Commitment associated with the device to be unlocked, in one of the following ways:
1. Fulfillment of the Service Commitment by expiration of any contractual term
2. Payment of any applicable Early Termination Fee
3. Upgrading to a new device under AT&T standard or early upgrade policies






If you did not have service with AT&T, then this policy does not apply to you. Which means they have no obligation to unlock the device for you.

If you DID have AT&T service, option one does not apply to you since you did not have a contract. Option two does not apply since you did not request to cancel service and had no ETF. Which means you would not have fulfilled the third option; upgrading to a new device before requesting the unlock code for the prior device.

https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/client/en_US/termsAndCondition

Non-customers have options too, my friend. Again, there may be no "obligation", but there is certainly an option as per their website. Also, again, there is no 90 days requirement.

Your responses are defensive, could you entertain me and go on the offensive with the 90 days requirement? If it does exist, then you will be right and I will be wrong.

 

[OverVolt]

Did AT&T advertise anywhere that the phone could be unlocked?

I already know the answer, it's no.

Even though they have the power to do it, they have no obligation whatsoever to unlock the phone for you. They carry the iPhone for only one purpose, and that is to gain/retain subscribers. Meanwhile, Apple will sell you an unlocked iPhone directly.

I would tell you to not bother fighting it, but I'm not sure you are the type to give up.

Source: I work for another major wireless carrier.

AT&T allows you to buy a phone off-contract. AT&T store says phone can be unlocked. Turns out phone must have AT&T service for at least 90 days to unlock, probably requiring you to sign a contract.

I'm not getting how you oversee the whole "Why do they sell off-contract phones if they can't be unlocked?" situation.

 

[OverVolt]

If you did not have service with AT&T, then this policy does not apply to you. Which means they have no obligation to unlock the device for you.

Yea, exactly they have no obligation to unlock the device. Unless you open a contract and get it in good standing, which is apparently 90 days.

 

[dud]

https://www.att.com/deviceunlock/client/en_US/termsAndCondition

Non-customers have options too, my friend. Again, there may be no "obligation", but there is certainly an option as per their website. Also, again, there is no 90 days requirement.

Your responses are defensive, could you entertain me and go on the offensive with the 90 days requirement? If it does exist, then you will be right and I will be wrong.

We are not AT&T customer service. You know that. What did you think that you were going to accomplish by posting this thread here? Me thinks just an opportunity to bitch and moan.

Again, we are not AT&T customer service. The exit is that way ------>

 

[PokerGuy]

You should contact your state AG's office about this issue. AG's act based on the number of complaints about an issue. If a lot of people complain, they'll look into it and take action if they can.

It's another shady practice by AT&T, and the other carriers are no better....

 

[OverVolt]

Its a useful warning, don't buy a carrier phone expecting to unlock it.

 

[Dari]

You should contact your state AG's office about this issue. AG's act based on the number of complaints about an issue. If a lot of people complain, they'll look into it and take action if they can.

It's another shady practice by AT&T, and the other carriers are no better....

I should. These companies are monopolies and they don't allow these products to work on their networks without some quid pro quo from the OEMs. That usually means the product is only sold to Americans via a carrier. Then the carriers setup their own ridiculous policies. I could risk it and buy it off some shady site but then I'd have no warranty. The government needs to step up since smartphones are becoming more and more important to the way we communicate.

 

[Dari]

Its a useful warning, don't buy a carrier phone expecting to unlock it.

Wrong. Unless, you're Samsung or Apple, the carriers can try to manhandle an OEM, which is wrong. The wireless space should not be a multi-speed environment. Everyone should play by the same rules.

 

[TwiceOver]

This wouldn't be a problem if everyone wasn't so fucking focused on getting the latest and greatest at a subsidized price. Completely backwards from the rest of the world.