Earthlink

  •  (1) |
  • 1 (11) |
  • 2 (402) |
  • 4 (1) |
  • 5 (2) |
  • 9 (15) |
  • A (1521) |
  • B (1085) |
  • C (1819) |
  • D (969) |
  • E (1203) |
  • F (765) |
  • G (698) |
  • H (976) |
  • I (996) |
  • J (461) |
  • K (107) |
  • L (611) |
  • M (1138) |
  • N (589) |
  • O (242) |
  • P (1946) |
  • Q (51) |
  • R (1212) |
  • S (1136) |
  • T (740) |
  • U (239) |
  • V (363) |
  • W (565) |
  • x (3) |
  • Y (39) |
  • Z (14) |

Earthlink Solicits Minors to Sign Up...Repeatedly

About a year ago, a little more, my step-daughter was signed up by Earthlink for an internet account. She was, and is, a minor. Her version is that they cold-called her, she told them she was a minor, and they STILL signed her up. We suspect something slightly different. She tried signing up for an advertised freebie and they didn't bother checking.

We found out because they called us for a credit card number. We discovered this thanks to a message on an answering machine. Naturally, we were pretty angry that they were trying to sign up our underage daughter.

My wife spend hours over several days trying to convey to them that they were breaking the law and needed to take our address and, particularly, our daughter's name, off their list. We specifically told them to delete the account they had created for our underage daughter. Thet promised that they would. We never were sure whether they cold called or if our daughter initiated the situation, but the fact of the matter was they wanted to sign someone up who was not legally able to do so. And they were reluctant to understand that we might be upset at this. By contrast, Time Warner Cable, who was also a part of the offer that was in question, was HORRIFIED that Earthlink was trying to sign up a minor. They said it was completely against all Time Warner policy to do this or to cold call. Earthlink seemed less understanding of the situation, but in the end we conveyed that we wanted to be removed from their list and that our daughter was a minor who should NEVER have been on their list. We thought that was the end of it.


mole333's picture

| | | |

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 1237 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

I am a First Amendment absolutist and I would like to read, amid the discussion of how the Delete key should be wielded, some more nuanced discusssion than I have seen on just where anyone believes the line should be drawn in censoring the Web, blogs or any other speech.

Certainly the words and images directed at Kathy are hateful and abhorrent. If a law has been broken, the accused should be prosecuted. Let's do keep in mind, however, that that person is the one who created and posted the words and images.

Beyond that, I don't see what can or should be done publicly. In case anyone hasn't noticed, anonymous abusers are not the sort of people who "own their words." There are bad people in the world. They do bad things. Bad things happen to good people.

And it multiplies the violation when good people respond in kind.


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify