Think You Can Use Smartphones In-Store? Read The Contract First
Written by Mark RaschAttorney Mark D. Rasch is the former head of the U.S. Justice Department’s computer crime unit and today serves as Director of Cybersecurity and Privacy Consulting at CSC in Virginia.
With many retailers contemplating the use of iPhones or other smartphones for mobile payments or as in-store selling aids, overly restrictive contract terms aren’t going to fly. But that is exactly what a typical smartphone wireless contract is full of. For example, apps that use data or stream video so an iPhone can work as an in-store sales aid may be a contract violation. And on the customer side, mobile-payment apps violate contract terms, too.
It’s bad enough for retailers that smartphones can’t be locked down against software changes. But terms like these (which are becoming the norm) mean payment-card transactions and many types of data that retailers may want to use would violate a mobile operator’s contract—and could make smartphones practically unusable for in-store purposes. This assumes, of course, that the telcos opt to enforce these clauses, which were probably crafted with little thought about the likely mobile-payment world of 2012.
How bad are these terms? Have you read your wireless contract lately? Not your hundred page bill, but your contract. You might be surprised. For example, if you are an AT&T iPhone customer, you will find that it is a violation of your contract to download and use Web applications (apps) that use data. Or to use Skype or streaming video services. Or to “tether” your phone to another computer to, for example, enable you to view Flash content.
In this case, that’s because if AT&T determines—at its own discretion and without providing any notice—it thinks a customer has done anything that violates his or her contract, AT&T may terminate service unilaterally or change the customer to a different plan. What’s worse, AT&T can also read customers’ E-mails, monitor their network traffic, analyze their usage and, yes, listen in on their voice calls (even those to their lawyer) if it believes these actions will help AT&T protect its rights.
Oh, and that part in the contract that requires all disputes between the customer and AT&T to be submitted to arbitration? That doesn’t apply to AT&T’s disputes with the customer. The mobile operator asserts that it can unilaterally change the terms of the contract, or terminate service without notice, without providing any evidence of breach and without arbitration or judgment. It also can make the consumer keep paying for the terminated service and, if the customer doesn’t, AT&T can go to a collection agency and sue the customer without arbitration.
-Marc
May 12th, 2011 at 6:59 am
Are the contract terms actually enforceable, or would a court hold them unconscionable? (Would a court actually adjudicate that question, given that AT&T claims that all contract disputes are subject to binding arbitration?)
May 13th, 2011 at 9:56 am
A court (if it ever got to a court) would ask the question, “can a consumer of wireless services agree not to use those services for certain things?” Why would a contract limiting HOW you can use the service be unconscionable? It is spelled out in the agreement. I think the contract is unfair and outrageous (and unread) and that it is NOT AT&T’s intention to prevent all other services, but that is what the agreement says, non?
May 26th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Mr. Rasch brings to light some draconian aspects of the AT&T Wireless agreement that are disturbing. Still, this is not going to stop the trend. Most retailers exploring this space will undoubtedly offer wifi access, bypassing the AT&T network entirely.