All workers get paid, since when is being an unpaid volunteer (read: independently wealthy) a requirement for assisting the US? Or anybody?

As far as him getting paid by America goes, Germany has an data-sharing pact with us and he was collecting data for them just by sharing it with us. I'm not sure how they can accuse somebody else of them spying on themselves, or how they can claim it is spying.

Are you claiming to have also received the refunds that they're accused of not giving to other people, or does your example simply not touch on the accused behavior at all?

"Your honor, I was in the same city at the same, and nobody was robbing me. So nobody could have been getting robbed by the accused!"

Do you really not understand the difference between being the person they're accused of ripping off, and being one of the other customers that wasn't ripped off? There is nothing in the accusations claiming they did it to every single customer.

But their own internal documents have them naming and shaming the companies with ______ 40%+ ______ refund rates. And then instead of cutting off those scammers, they kept them in their program, and just increased their own percent of the take! They're not accused of initiating the cramming, they're accused of being complicit in trying to hide it, and in billing users for things their own internal documents had identified as cramming scams. For years. And right in the PDF linked is screenshots showing that they hide it multiple screens in, and mislabel it. And their contract buries the terms. So there is not even informed consent that a 3rd party is involved. It isn't listed as a 3rd party on any bill. The glossary of terms on the bills leave out the term they use to describe 3rd parties, so even if you're looking up their terms you don't find it.

And according to the accusations, prepaid customers WERE NOT NOTIFIED. If you're claiming to have been a PREPAID customer and got the refund, then you already know you weren't informed and had to notice the amount of money missing and call and ask about it just to be told. From your other posts I think you're simply NOT a prepaid customer, but month-to-month. So you're just not understanding the accusations as they apply to the different categories of victims.

It is actually truly funny that accuse me of not comprehending you. It is almost as if you didn't comprehend me! I understood you, now keep parsing until you understand me. ROFLCOPTER

If you read the PDF you'll find screenshots of the bills right in the complaint, and they refute your astroturf.

If you read the complaint, in addition to returning money they're also seeking force the alteration of the contracts to prevent the behavior in the future, and a broad injunction from further violations.

Knowing that the fine won't mean much doesn't tell you anything about the effort to stop the behavior.

According to the allegations, pre-paid customers aren't notified at all, the money just disappears from the account and no refunds are possible.

According to the screenshots including in the court filing (the linked PDF in the summary) people with online bills had to click "Use charges" twice before getting any itemized list, and that list was still bundled with other t-mobile charges, so even then you would never see a list of the 3rd party charges with a total. And on that 3rd screen they are just "Premium services."

Also in the accusations is that prepaid customers were charged these $9.99/month amounts without ever being billed or notified.

And:

Defendant’s own internal documents demonstrate that consumers were complaining in increasing numbers about unauthorized charges from at least early 2012. These documents state that there had been an increase in complaints, explain that consumers “do not know what the charges are or why they are being billed for them,” and note several third-party merchants that Defendant’s employees had identified as being the subject of many complaints. Despite knowing about these complaints of unauthorized charges, Defendant did not take sufficient steps to determine whether other consumers actually authorized the charges for Third-Party Subscriptions purportedly offered by the problematic third-party merchants.

So they have them red-handed with their own documents having discovered this problem, and then continued to assist in ripping off customers. They didn't turn a blind eye, they saw and then looked away. But they were caught looking. And increasing their own percent take on those accounts!

There is more and more. The allegations get very specific.

Duh, you didn't read the story, so of course you don't believe they hid anything. You probably don't even know what they're accused of hiding, and maybe not even that they are accused of hiding anything.

The filing linked not only accuses them of hiding the charges, they actually lie about the nature of the charges and instead of listing them as 3rd party charges, they hide them under "Use charges" with no breakout for 3rd party services on the first screen... or even on the click-through screen! You have to find the second hidden click-through, with still nothing listing 3rd party charges.

They're also accused of actually collecting a higher percentage cut... of the subscription services with the highest refund rates! So they clearly detected that those were scams, and instead of dropping the services, they demanded a larger cut. That is a substantial allegation, and it is very hard to come up with an innocent explanation for that difference in their own rates.

They're also accused of burying even their basic permission to charge for 3rd party services in the fine print. That is fine for the details of an agreement, but when a substantial part of the basic relationship is buried there, those provisions are probably not valid. Being bound to whatever the details said is very different than having not been clearly informed of the basic nature of the contract. And the contract is not a CC contract, it is a contract for specific telecommunications services.

So your experience is that of the 1 time t-mobile helped a company rip you off, they refunded the charges, therefore the percent of customers who didn't get a refund must be different than accused by the government.

I really can't see how that would follow. Your experience validates half the accusation, and they're not accused of never refunding anybody, only of not refunding a bunch of specific people... who really didn't get refunds.

I'm not sure how it is you feel that other carriers handled better for you the cases of other customers being ripped off that is accused by the government.

It is almost as if you're too old to know what an individual is, or that you are one. Or that you not being robbed tells you nothing about who robbed somebody else.

"Your honor, that man is innocent, why I was alive at the same moment as the victim, and that man didn't rob me."

They don't have the wind speed. If you look at the graphic, you can imagine that it needs a certain amount of energy for the cyclone to stand up; otherwise it is just circling from the ground up a little ways and back down, like a Ferris wheel. And dumping rain. And it only has to be slowed down for a short time period, and it will be too mixed to stand up later.

Plant terraced farms on the south side, and tree farms on the north side. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

If you can go with a slope and build it as a triangular prism then it is easy to build, like a long pyramid. Jobs, jobs, jobs!

You derped all over yourself there. Right in your comment you point out that physics is a different field than cosmology, in your description of learning physics to apply it to cosmology! D'oh!

You seem a little... weak in your support of cosmology. Is it because you know it isn't held (by itself) to the same standards that physics holds itself to?

The good news, "Big Bang" is a cosmology thing not a physics thing. And unlike physicists, who are usually right, cosmologists are usually wrong.