Wanted to ask about a potential disaster that came very close to unfolding in real life.
Since I was going to go to Taiwan for 3-4 months, I had gone to my phone service provider (trying to keep things anonymous) and asked to be put on “Data Plan XYZ,” which allows unlimited free international data roaming. They spent half an hour tinkering with my smartphone at the store, then assured me, “Yup, you’re on the plan now, good to go!” Satisfied, I then walked out of the store and boarded the plane to Taiwan a few days later.
A month and a half later, though, I was told that I had not in fact been put on Data Plan XYZ - there had been some sort of mistake at the store. Fortunately, their clerical error had luckily resulted in my being put on some other data plan that coincidentally did also offer free global data roaming as well, so I wasn’t on the hook for anything. Had I accidentally been using a plan that didn’t offer such a benefit, though, I would have been charged somewhere around $7,000.
So, from a legal standpoint, if I had indeed been running up $7,000 in charges under the belief that I was using free roaming (since I had been verbally assured at the store, prior to my trip abroad, that I was on a free-global-roaming plan) - is there some legal principle, like estoppel or something, that I could have used as a customer defense to avoid paying such charges?
Yes, I should have. But with lots of stuff on my mind I just took it for granted. I should have gone online and logged in and verified it prior to the trip.
I understand the lots of stuff on your mind - but one thing I can almost guarantee you is that whoever gave you that verbal assurance will deny having done so. The only hope you would have had is if the paperwork that you signed ( or clicked “I agree” on ) was for the unlimited free international data roaming plan and they somehow put you on a plan other than the one you agreed to on writing.
This is pretty much it. Whatever they say in store is word-vs-word, what you signed or clicked agreed to is going to be what you’re stuck with. As a prior Tech support (and occasional customer service if it came across my line) for a cellular provider, I had some authority to make calls on a few hundred dollars, or escalate if higher, but at $7000 or more, it probably wouldn’t have gone really well if the paperwork wasn’t right.
TBH though, most international plans are designed for sub-30 days usage, at 3-4 months it would have been a very unusual plan or addon, which absolutely requires additional scrutiny IMHO. In most cases for international travel (especially of duration) I advised unlocking the phone and buying a local SIM. But your needs may well have been different.
I think if it came to a dispute, you could argue that knowing you were traveling overseas, why else were you there but to arrange for an international data plan?
To a first approximation, nothing a salesperson says to you is binding. Until a promise, feature or claim is reduced to writing, it means next to nothing.
Another issue is that if they had put you on a costly plan, and your first bill showed up with that big charge and you didn’t do anything to complain and instead just kept using your phone for e.g. 3 more months, you’d probably have screwed any hope of redress.
OTOH, if after the first month if you’d reviewed your bill promptly, noticed the problem, and complained, they might have been willing to reverse some or all of that first month’s charges and put you on the correct plan.
One of the key ideas of sendingout bills (or nowadays, making them avaiable online), is that ythe customer has a responsbility to review them and address discrepancies reasonably promptly.
As an example, the US law on credit card disputes explicitly gives you 60 days to dispute a charge from the date the bill is tendered to you. Wait 61 days and you’re legally stuck eating any fraudulent charges you overlooked for 2+ months. As a practical matter, some banks will for some customers under some circumstances deal nicely with disputes that you raise past the 60-day mark. But that’s them making a nice-guy customer service decision, not a legal obligation.