Failsafe service design or corporate meddling?
Monday, December 14th, 2009
Should companies protect consumers from themselves? That’s the question raised in the recent case of the teenager in California who, once added to his Dad’s Verizon Wireless account, ran up a bill of $22,000 by downloading over 1.4 gigabytes of data on his cell phone. Dad did not have a data plan, so…. as the meter ran (and ran and ran) Verizon was charging Dad by the byte.
In this particular case, Verizon agreed to waive the fee after the story got a ton of press. But typically, on an “oops I made a mistake” case like this, Verizon will split the charge with the customer. (So, Dad would still be on the hook for $11,000!)
The website The Consumerist raises the question: why not create a fail-safe system that would alert a customer if there was an unusual spike in their usage? Credit card companies have done this for years, mostly related to preventing fraud. But is it the job of a corporation to prevent customers from spending too much money on their goods or services? How about sellers of luxury goods or automobiles or casinos? Should companies become their “brother’s keeper?”
Actually, we would suggest a middle ground. When signing up new customers, Verizon should provide the account owner with the option of being notified in case of a spike in usage or fees. They could even offer levels of 100, 200 or 500 percent over normal. These are (or should be) simple variables that can be plugged into their management systems that in turn, would add a great deal of value to customers, if they chose to participate.
(And no, Verizon - you shouldn’t charge for the alert service. Use it as a point of differentiation!)

The 