|WikiProject Telecommunications||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Crime||(Rated Start-class)|
Reference to Verizon
Sounds like an ad for Verizon.
I disagree, the article does read like an ad for Verizon. It's un-encyclopedic language; it would sound better if it were written something like this: "Some phone companies can put a cram block on the customer's account." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The statement "Phone companies like Verizon respond by removing cramming charges from a consumer's bill upon request" is false in my experience of two cramming incidents on a Verizon bill. Verizon refused to remove any charges, only referring me to the third party crammer (ILD Teleservices). Nor did Verizon volunteer the information that a block could be placed on cramming charges. This article is fishy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
My experience has been similar. Verizon doesn't actually do the things mentioned in this article. The smell is pretty bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Overtime Claim Padding
Does the practice of adding or extending work overtime claims come under the banner of Cramming? The practice involves submitted time sheets or claim sheets for overtime worked where the work never occurred or where the work was less than the overtime being claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Claim of cramming by AT&T Mobility
According to this page's own definition, AT&T is committing fraud. This would be a major legal problem.
The act of adding a smartphone data plan when one is not on the account when a SIM is inserted into a smartphone is described in AT&T's wireless terms and conditions found here, specifically, this point. I feel this should be removed. DennisM83 (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the contract laws of the several states and federal laws regulating interstate commerce required certain terms to be made conspicuous. Are those terms made conspicuous enough when the user signs up for service through an AT&T representative? And if it's not cramming, what's the legal term for practices of the sort described under "this point"? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)