A letter from Dave on the infamous $40 for 4GB price change

[Dave_M]

Hey Community,

I am writing to you today to let you know that we will not be moving forward with a price increase on the infamous “$40 for 4GB” plan ($120 90-day Province-Wide Talk + Text + 12GB Data), contrary to the SMS that customers on that plan received yesterday.

After sending out an offer to select customers, we heard your feedback loud and clear: we said no surprises, and we surprised you. While all good things must come to an end at some point – that point is not today. As a brand, we have always been proud of our transparency, and of our commitment to our customers. We are sincerely sorry for any frustration caused and we want you to know that this has been a learning experience for us all.

We have been reminded that you, our customers, are vocal and passionate. We’ve seen how much some of you love Public Mobile and we’ve also seen how many of you like the added value that our sister brand, Koodo, has to offer. To that end, we are happy to say that the Koodo offer that our Public customers on the “$40 for 4GB” plan received still remains available for anyone who wishes to take advantage of it.

Thank you for your continued support,

Dave

[koimr1]

---

@lukevaderwrote:

---

---

That's the problem. A company can say or promise what ever it wants but as long as its not in the terms of service its just that...... an empty promise.

---

Actually, that could be open to interpretation:

Paragraph 74.01(1)(c) of the Competition Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, to the public, of any materially misleading product warranty or guarantee, or promise to replace, maintain or repair an article. This includes circumstances in which there is no reasonable prospect that the warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 74.03(5) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.

Source: Misleading warranties and guarantees (Competition Bureau - Canada)

(italicized bold parts are my emphasis)

Arguable for sure but that "general impression" part is quite important. Sellers should not be saying contradictory things in their "fine print" vs their advertising.

---

Like I said earlier, it would be up to a court to decide this ruling, It comes down to intepretation of their advertising. Did they honor the promo plan for users on it after it expired? YES. Did they continue to offer it after their inital 90 day plan expired? YES. Even for an entire year. So the question is...... is that a bait and switch after providing said service a year after it expired? I say no, cause services were rendered for a reasonable period of time.

---

I was actually responding to your "A company can say or promise whatever it wants" phrase, what you wrote above is different.

[rita_fuchs]

Thanks Public Mobile for listening to us, this is really nice! I hope that people with this plan will be able to keep it in the future too, and that the Public Mobile structure (rewards, referrals, low prices, community, ...) will remain like this. 

[crazycolby]

yestoday was bad day for me.

[makkahn28]

IF ONLY WE had STRONG Bolder and more Courageous CRTC/CCTS/Competition Bureau

AND, MORE carriers per Region

Like, 8 Per Region

[Korth]

Now it's just getting silly.

It seems to me like everything that really needed to be said here has already been said before about page 5.  All that followed was/is just a gathering of signatures.

Good luck arguing about your "We The People vs Public Mobile" class-action lawsuit.

I'm gonna watch some Trek before bed, lol.

[kav2001c]

@ToniCipriani back in the day Telus wanted to cancel Public

Competition Bureau forced them to keep Public open for 1 year

Surprisingly Public did well enough (even with the call centre) that Telus changed mind and started growing the brand

---

@ToniCiprianiwrote:

---

There's zero doubt none of this won't last. Telus just wanted PM for their spectrum.

---

[ToniCipriani]

---

@kav2001cwrote:

To everyone:

Think of it this way

CCTS usually gets about 9000 complaints per year

They got 2500 complaints just now

I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts most were Public clients and I am further willing to bet the CCTS called up Telus head office and asked what the f is going on

So now changes are delayed but they are still coming

Watch for our rewards to change / dissapear first

As that would cause alot of people to take next Koodo migration offer

---

There's zero doubt none of this won't last. Telus just wanted PM for their spectrum.

[makkahn28]

---

@kav2001cwrote:

To everyone:

Think of it this way

CCTS usually gets about 9000 complaints per year

They got 2500 complaints just now

I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts most were Public clients and I am further willing to bet the CCTS called up Telus head office and asked what the f is going on

So now changes are delayed but they are still coming

Watch for our rewards to change / dissapear first

As that would cause alot of people to take next Koodo migration offer

---

THEY BETTER NOT Touch Public

[will13am]

---

@kav2001cwrote:

@will13am I agree

Legally there was nothing wrong with what they did

They even gave us MORE than 30 days notice

They backed off to rethink since I am assuming they did not expect the backlash

But it will come again

---

@will13amwrote:

---

No doubt about it, Dave telegraphed it in his response with the not today phrase.  Migrating to Koodo would eliminate all rewards and so yes we should anticipate all the perks of this service to be taken away in bits and bites.  If the desire is to bunch all of us who are effectively using the service like a post paid service into the Koodo camp, simply nudging us over with a bit of a small perk instead of a squeeze play where a 25% price increase is forced down our throat would have worked.  I would bite if they give me a slightly better offer than what I have now with the 2016 fall promo. 

I totally believe they had the legal right to do what they attempted to do.  They just didn't have the social license to do so.  This is what bit them in the azz. 

---

---

We are in violent agreement.  No doubt they will try again for sure.  If at first you don't succeed....

[kav2001c]

To everyone:

Think of it this way

CCTS usually gets about 9000 complaints per year

They got 2500 complaints just now

I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts most were Public clients and I am further willing to bet the CCTS called up Telus head office and asked what the f is going on

So now changes are delayed but they are still coming

Watch for our rewards to change / dissapear first

As that would cause alot of people to take next Koodo migration offer

[makkahn28]

---

@sheytoonwrote:

---

@makkahn28wrote:

Personally, I think WHAT Telus has committed

High Treason, Misleading, LACK of Transparency, Callousness, and disgraceful tactics

My Opinion, a CAPITAL OFFENSE

---

Capital crime means death penalty. Let's tone it down and keep things in perspective here please.

---

OK, BUT, I'm just saying that these practices should be outlawed, we Can't afford these changes

Wonder, If this was on the People's Court, or Judge Judy

We do need something done to correct the injustice

[ethos32]

Good  idea to listen to customers who pay you.  Still wondering when this will happen again though. 

[kav2001c]

@Mlxg its through wireless code

[sheytoon]

---

@makkahn28wrote:

Personally, I think WHAT Telus has committed

High Treason, Misleading, LACK of Transparency, Callousness, and disgraceful tactics

My Opinion, a CAPITAL OFFENSE

---

Capital crime means death penalty. Let's tone it down and keep things in perspective here please.

[pakmode]

---

@computergeek541wrote:

---

@pakmodewrote:

The damage is done.

There have been an unprecedented 2500 complaints filed against PM to the CCTS in the past 30 hours.

I don't doubt that number because of the pages and pages of anger, discussion, and complaining on these forums. But out of curiosity, is that 2500 complaint number an estimate just to show the scope of the customer unhappyness, or is there a website that provides that information?   I'm aware that stuff like this is public information;  i'm just surprised that such statistics would already be that quickly be available.

---

Based on the first ticket count from yesterday to the tickets submitted today.
The CCTS ticketing site is in numeric order.

[DavidNS]

but the thing is as long as you pay your bill the promo doesn't "expire".  the time in which you can sign up for it expires, but as long as you pay your bill the promot itself doesn't expire.

[DavidNS]

heading out, but can someone tell me if this change was ever posted at publicmobile.ca/plans? I never bothered to look there

"Public Mobile has the right to change any of the terms of service, including rates, without notice. Changes become effective thirty days after being posted at publicmobile.ca/plans"

[Mlxg]

---

@makkahn28wrote:

BUT, what would be fitting, a "PUBLIC" Trial of sorts

BUT, The problem is

WE WANT THE TRUTH

BUT, we keep hearing, You can't handle the Truth

---

stop lol

[Mlxg]

---

@lukevaderwrote:

---

@Mlxgwrote:

@lukevader

False. 

For relevant contract law even in advertising, see Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 

In case contract law fails, see advertising regulations R v. 279707 ALBERTA LTD.

Yes, I just pulled these out of an undergraduate commercial law course. 

---

You know what? For fun I will pull those out and look at them. Lets compare it to a 90 day prepaid cellular contract.

---

I don't know where you'd find a copy of R v. 279707 ALBERTA LTD. that's worth reading actually. If you Google it, you'd just get some summaries that focus on the "bait and switch" part, but not on the misleading advertising decision. 

[lukevader]

---

@koimr1wrote:

---

@lukevaderwrote:

---

@DavidNSwrote:

what you are quoting contradicts what they said when they offered the plan.  So what is someone supposed to believe?

---

That's the problem. A company can say or promise what ever it wants but as long as its not in the terms of service its just that...... an empty promise.

---

Actually, that could be open to interpretation:

Paragraph 74.01(1)(c) of the Competition Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, to the public, of any materially misleading product warranty or guarantee, or promise to replace, maintain or repair an article. This includes circumstances in which there is no reasonable prospect that the warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 74.03(5) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.

Source: Misleading warranties and guarantees (Competition Bureau - Canada)

(italicized bold parts are my emphasis)

Arguable for sure but that "general impression" part is quite important. Sellers should not be saying contradictory things in their "fine print" vs their advertising.

---

Like I said earlier, it would be up to a court to decide this ruling, It comes down to intepretation of their advertising. Did they honor the promo plan for users on it after it expired? YES. Did they continue to offer it after their inital 90 day plan expired? YES. Even for an entire year. So the question is...... is that a bait and switch after providing said service a year after it expired? I say no, cause services were rendered for a reasonable period of time.

[makkahn28]

BUT, what would be fitting, a "PUBLIC" Trial of sorts

BUT, The problem is

WE WANT THE TRUTH

BUT, we keep hearing, You can't handle the Truth

[makkahn28]

Personally, I think WHAT Telus has committed

High Treason, Misleading, LACK of Transparency, Callousness, and disgraceful tactics

My Opinion, a CAPITAL OFFENSE

THE PUBLIC deserves Better Treatment

In Movie Eraser, The CEO William Donahue said in quote

"IF the Gov is NOT willing to pay the price for them, It's my JOB to find somebody who WILL"

Perhaps we are in Troubled times, and we need John Kruger to correct the situation

[aurocks14]

I am glad the plan has been retained for now.

I will however keep a close eye on competitor plans that are non-Telus brands. I had such a fantastic perception of this brand I have recommended so many people to join PM.

My trust is gone and I will be ready to jump. I was tempted to jump on the boxing day plans but figured I could survive another year on 4gb and that I want to support PM and made that clear to those encouraging me to move. That's all gone now.

Let this be a warning that we will all complain to CCTS the next time you do this. We have been successfull and next time, there will be twice as many complaints given the success here.

[Mlxg]

@DavidNS

We use essentially the same common law system. An English case Donoghue v. Stevenson is cited in Canadian courts, despite being an English law as precedent for manufacturer negligence/tort law. I believe Carlill is cited as well. These are all foundational pieces of common law, and they're all taught in Canadian law classes as relevant precedent. 

---

@DavidNSwrote:

From wikipedia:

"Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1 is an English contract law..."

and english contract law is law governing england and wales.  Telus / koodo / public mobile is in canada.

I'll check out the other one though

---

[koimr1]

---

@lukevaderwrote:

---

@DavidNSwrote:

what you are quoting contradicts what they said when they offered the plan.  So what is someone supposed to believe?

---

That's the problem. A company can say or promise what ever it wants but as long as its not in the terms of service its just that...... an empty promise.

---

Actually, that could be open to interpretation:

Paragraph 74.01(1)(c) of the Competition Act is a civil provision. It prohibits the making, or the permitting of the making, to the public, of any materially misleading product warranty or guarantee, or promise to replace, maintain or repair an article. This includes circumstances in which there is no reasonable prospect that the warranty, guarantee or promise will be carried out. Under this provision, it is not necessary to demonstrate that any person was deceived or misled; that any member of the public to whom the representation was made was within Canada; or that the representation was made in a place to which the public had access. Subsection 74.03(5) directs that the general impression conveyed by a representation, as well as its literal meaning, be taken into account when determining whether or not the representation is false or misleading in a material respect.

Source: Misleading warranties and guarantees (Competition Bureau - Canada)

(italicized bold parts are my emphasis)

Arguable for sure but that "general impression" part is quite important. Sellers should not be saying contradictory things in their "fine print" vs their advertising.

[DavidNS]

lol.. ok enough Captian Morgan for me.

'night all...

[makkahn28]

Perhaps a 75% Fine and Lifetime Jail term might be sufficient for Carriers to be Transparent and Open

[DavidNS]

but as long as you pay your bill it doesnt expire.

I gotta say though... successful troll is successful.

[Mlxg]

@DavidNS 

lol, I was agreeing with you. There are things that "trump" the ToS. And if something isn't specifically included in a ToS (promises made in marketing for example), it is usually still enforceable under Canadian law—whether it's contract law, or the regulations of the billions of agencies we have. 

[lukevader]

---

@Mlxgwrote:

@lukevader

False. 

For relevant contract law even in advertising, see Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 

In case contract law fails, see advertising regulations R v. 279707 ALBERTA LTD.

Yes, I just pulled these out of an undergraduate commercial law course. 

---

You know what? For fun I will pull those out and look at them. Lets compare it to a 90 day prepaid cellular contract.