Came down in late June. Not a surprise for many buyers of Dells.
Abstract:
Justice Joseph C. Teresi said in his decision, “Dell has engaged in repeated misleading, deceptive and unlawful business conduct, including false and deceptive advertising of financing promotions and the terms of warranties, fraudulent, misleading and deceptive practices in credit financing and failure to provide warranty service and rebates.”
According to the decision, Dell deprived consumers of the technical support to which they were entitled under their warranty or service contract by:
• Repeatedly failing to provide timely onsite repair to consumers who purchased service contracts promising “onsite” and expedited service;
• Pressuring consumers, including those who purchased service contracts promising “onsite” repair, to remove the external cover of their computer and remove, reinstall, and manipulate hardware components;
• Discouraging consumers from seeking technical support; those who called Dell’s toll free number were subjected to long wait times, repeated transfers, and frequent disconnections; and
• Failing to provide rebates that were promised to consumers.
Justice Teresi concluded that Dell lured consumers to purchase its products with advertisements that offered attractive “no interest” and/or “no payment” financing promotions. In practice, however, the vast majority of consumers, even those with very good credit scores, were denied these deals. In a classic “bait and switch” scheme, DFS instead offered consumers financing at high interest rates, which often exceeded 20%. Dell and DFS frequently failed to clearly inform these consumers that they had not qualified for the promotional terms, leaving many to unwittingly finance their purchase at high interest rates.
The decision also held that DFS incorrectly billed consumers on cancelled orders, returned merchandise, or accounts they did not authorize Dell to open, and then continually harassed these consumers with illegal billing and collection activity. Although many consumers repeatedly contacted Dell and/or DFS to advise them of the errors, DFS did not suspend its collection activity and Dell failed to expeditiously credit consumers’ accounts, even after assuring consumers it would do so. As a result, many consumers have been subjected to harassing collection calls for months on end and have had their credit ratings harmed.
Justice Teresi ordered discovery in aid of restitution by Dell to be completed in four months and an injunction to prevent any recurrence of the misleading, deceptive and unlawful conduct by Dell.
Abstract:
Justice Joseph C. Teresi said in his decision, “Dell has engaged in repeated misleading, deceptive and unlawful business conduct, including false and deceptive advertising of financing promotions and the terms of warranties, fraudulent, misleading and deceptive practices in credit financing and failure to provide warranty service and rebates.”
According to the decision, Dell deprived consumers of the technical support to which they were entitled under their warranty or service contract by:
• Repeatedly failing to provide timely onsite repair to consumers who purchased service contracts promising “onsite” and expedited service;
• Pressuring consumers, including those who purchased service contracts promising “onsite” repair, to remove the external cover of their computer and remove, reinstall, and manipulate hardware components;
• Discouraging consumers from seeking technical support; those who called Dell’s toll free number were subjected to long wait times, repeated transfers, and frequent disconnections; and
• Failing to provide rebates that were promised to consumers.
Justice Teresi concluded that Dell lured consumers to purchase its products with advertisements that offered attractive “no interest” and/or “no payment” financing promotions. In practice, however, the vast majority of consumers, even those with very good credit scores, were denied these deals. In a classic “bait and switch” scheme, DFS instead offered consumers financing at high interest rates, which often exceeded 20%. Dell and DFS frequently failed to clearly inform these consumers that they had not qualified for the promotional terms, leaving many to unwittingly finance their purchase at high interest rates.
The decision also held that DFS incorrectly billed consumers on cancelled orders, returned merchandise, or accounts they did not authorize Dell to open, and then continually harassed these consumers with illegal billing and collection activity. Although many consumers repeatedly contacted Dell and/or DFS to advise them of the errors, DFS did not suspend its collection activity and Dell failed to expeditiously credit consumers’ accounts, even after assuring consumers it would do so. As a result, many consumers have been subjected to harassing collection calls for months on end and have had their credit ratings harmed.
Justice Teresi ordered discovery in aid of restitution by Dell to be completed in four months and an injunction to prevent any recurrence of the misleading, deceptive and unlawful conduct by Dell.
