Another complaint about Capital One bafflegab

[unhappycamper]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20140221,0,3111229,full.column



Capital One doesn't seem able to communicate clearly with customers. Spooky contract language is just the start.

Another complaint about Capital One bafflegab
By David Lazarus
February 21, 2014, 4:00 a.m.

~snip~

The company recently informed its millions of cardholders that "we may contact you in any manner we choose," including a "personal visit" to your home or workplace.

As if that wasn't spooky enough, Cap One's contract also said the company has the right to "modify or suppress caller ID and similar services and identify ourselves on these services in any manner we choose."

~snip~

Pam Girardo, a Cap One spokeswoman, told others what she first told me: The company has no intention of actually dropping by people's homes or offices, and it won't really mess with your caller ID.

But she has yet to provide an adequate answer about why Cap One asserted such over-the-top rights in the first place, or why customers should believe the non-binding word of a spokeswoman rather than the legally enforceable language now written into contracts.

[htuttle]

1. "Thou shalt pledge thy first born male to us"

But don't worry, that's just a bunch of legalese. Just sign here...

[Renew Deal]

2. Aren't they already doing these things?

I doubt caller ID says "Capital One collections."

Maybe they just wrote down what they and others were already doing. I'm happy to say that I don't know.

[unblock]

3. i wonder if some of this really is enforceable --

big companies often assert rights and powers for themselves in contracts or license agreements or employment handbooks/agreements that aren't actually enforceable in court, but they serve to intimidate customers, employees, etc.

software licenses, for instance, are notorious for asserting that the software is not represented to do anything whatsoever, thereby asserting a defense against a lawsuit based on software defects and so on. however, they can't advertise software that does one thing and then doesn't do it entirely. promise an operating system and deliver a blank disk, or promise a database environment and deliver a little game, etc.

in short, there's no law against *claiming* a right or power. enforcing it in court is another matter, but there may be a business use in making the assertion -- even if you *know* it's unenforceable.


all the same, i'd rather this sort of language wasn't in any agreement to which *i* am party.