Forum Post: How Corporations twist any consumer law and make it look like a bad thing.

Over the years I've noticed that whenever a consumer law gets passed, the corporations make it a point to lecture their own customers about how the new law just ties their hands so badly that they can't spare a square and help the customer out.

Just yesterday, I was explaining to my phone company representative that some medical emergencies last month required that the very modest phone company bill had to be put on hold and I would need a couple of months to catch up.

I explained it would take a couple of months to catch up and that the late fees (although thankfully not that high) that accrue if the total owed is over a certain amount could result in an additional late fee being generated.

The customer service rep took this opportunity to explain that because of consumer fairness laws, their hands are tied and they have to treat the 30 year customer with an excellent payment history in the exact same as the 3 month customer.

(a tip for all, The best way to get late fees refunded is to first catch up on the bill so nothing is still owed, then ask for a late fee refund.)

My question is, when a consumer law is written, why do they always leave some stupid technicality in the consumer law that allows the corporations to still under help their customers?

In this instance, I believe the consumer law should have read, A basic minimum level of customer service and assistance must be provided to ALL customers, irrespective of the length of time the customer has been with the company. However, the company can CHOOSE to give ADDITIONAL consideration to long time customers or customers who have exemplary payment histories if they so desire.

Would not that additional wording prevent the phone companies to simply recite that your payment history is irrelevant because of consumer fairness laws?