I agree with the suit on the simple grounds that the consumer is not getting what they initially paid for. That very detail is what gives the case merit. Wireless carriers have, in the past, and most certainly in the present, been trying (and very successfully I might add) to bilk out every last penny that they can from the consumer. I will agree that if a user wants to download something from the net to their phone directly, then maybe there could be a charge added since it requires (that being a keyword) that you use their bandwidth and resources to do so. But bluetooth is independent of any services and should not carry with it extra charges. That would be like a company (Microsoft for example) that sells wireless desktop accessories (keyboards and mice) partially disabling the devices they sold you, and then charging you additional monthly charges AFTER you've already paid for the device, for using the features of the wireless keyboard and/or mouse to work on your computer. AFTER YOU'VE ALREADY PAID for the functions you did get and the functions they disabled!

They SHOULD be sued, and they SHOULD pay back every last penny they've made over bilking the consumer.

i can't imagine what are the grounds of the suit. do the plaintiffs expect to win on merits, or just on bad press?

Verizon has always sucked..they are a evil company. You should see how they treat their customers here in Western NC. For those of you who brag about how great they are..your name is on the list to eventually get screwed...it's just a matter of time.

Wow, SOMEBODY has a chip on their shoulder from NC.....

Capitalism at its finest. Profit at all costs.

Did Verizon advertise that you would be able to do this feature? I think that is the key. If they never said it would do it. I mean, everyone knows you can use a screwdriver to pry an engine block out of an engine, but you probably shouldn't get mad when the screwdriver breaks. It wasn't advertised to do it. So it doesn't do it.

Some people are just trying to get some free money from another company, which customer are trying to find loophole to get that free money. Example: Verizon Wireless. I see why corpate companies are so mad these kinds of things. I would be too if some AVERAGE JOE tried to sue me for a little thing like that.

If they said that you get a phone of that model, you should get a phone of that model: intact, and with all of its features (unless if they state specifically what is disabled or broken).

At least with a Screwdriver you can try to pry the engine out and if you break it, it's your fault. With this phone they don't even allow you to use the features it has at your own risk.

I have had Nokia cell phones in the past and they all had games on them. When I got my Nokia phone through Verizon, I found that I have to pay to download games that normally come on the cell phone with other providers.

There's no doubt in my mind that it is deliberate.

HHmmm, how much is the going shilling rate Verizon's doling out these days?? I hope it's high enough to offset the public embarassment from such ridiculous brown-nosing statements. But then again, with anonymous handles prevalent, hey... like cross-dressing & hooking on one's own corner: can make a little extra dough & likely not get recognized.

How nice to be forced to use Verizon's slower & overtaxed web network for simple file sharing to an appliance right next to one!! I'm sure glad their dsl routers / modems have not disabled that & similar features--obliging normal PC copying & backing up to be done over the web instead.

What's next-- disabling cell calls to non-Verizon numbers or charging extra for the privilege to do so?

Unfortunately, most former Baby Bells still harbor monopolistic / bureaucratic practices, & bean-counting vs value-creation tendencies-- they have no clue about succeeding in open & free markets:

Economics 101 is NOT: disabling equipment features leads to higher sales and a bigger bottom line.

Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time re-written every line?
What’s too painful to remember
We simply choose to forget?

Verizon advertised the phone. Motorola advertised the features of the phone. Verizon gave no hint that they would disable advertised features before the release of the phone. Verizon customers bought the phone without the knowledge that the features were disabled, thus the grounds for the suit. Motorola was so ticked off about it, they threatened to release a firmware upgrade re-enabling the features. Verizon seems to have shut Motorola up about this since. It's like buying a car and finding out that you have to rent the transmission from the dealer.

What you are missing is that when you buy a car from a dealer, the dealer is the *medium* of selling, not the origination point. They didn't make the car, nor do they have any right to not disclose the fact that they've deactivated the air bags. In this case, Verizon is simply the medium that is selling the Motorola phones. Verizon isn't the only one who is doing this. Motorla says that their phones are Bluetooth and can provide for phone to computer links. The carriers (Verizon, ATT/Cingular, etc.) are disabling these features so that they can provide the *same* service for a $1/$3 per picture/ringtone/etc access, which is a rip since any bloke who has 1/2 a wit could do it from his own bluetooth PC for free. So in fact, they are selling you a phone that they've disabled the *airbags* on... Personally, when I buy a phone, I buy it for the features to match what I want to accomplish. This would put me on the class-action list if I had a V710.

For those industrious souls who want real support and enabled features that companies don't want them to have, there are places like Howard Forums (www.howardforums.com) that give you the tools and instructions needed to get what you paid for.

My phone contract comes open in December, whether or not I stick with Verizon might depend on whether or not they continue to cripple their phones. I expect to get what I pay for, especially at the prices that are commonly charged for the higher-end phones.

Wakeup stupid! They didn't make any of these phones. This is an Anti-Trade violation by dis abling another manufactures product only to "enable the feature" for their profit: Pure frauld! Too bad that it took a damn attorney to stand against this. Most people on this sites' forum know lots about softwares but nothing about law or legal matters!