BLOW FOR WHO?
I have read various titles that speak of historical and stave sentences, but the historical sentence is simply as desirable, only that we are no longer used to correctness, to the point that when it is put into practice it makes news; and the sting, on balance, remains on the shoulders of consumers.
I refer to the resolution of Agcom against three large telephone companies that have applied additional costs to users with rechargeable option tariffs, unilaterally modifying existing contracts.
Without getting lost in my slightly labyrinthine speeches, it is certainly better if I mention my husband’s example:
With this extra charge, with the aggravation of the ironic adduction of the “customer distraction”, the telephone companies will have gained by hypothesis 10.
This fine, boasted as exorbitant, for them will represent more or less 2.
However, there is still a gain of 8.
The penalty goes to the state.
Has anyone ever thought of a customer refund?
To truly balance the accounts, companies should return 10, which is what stolen, to users.
And the fine of 2 should be an extra once and for all.
Yeah, but that’s another story …