What legal basis exists for challenging absurd (but technically-correct) invoices?

Question

Every once in a while you hear stories about people getting hit with ridiculously high charges, such as for cell phone or cloud computing, e.g.:

• In the cell phone case, this can happen when (for example) a customer roams internationally and doesn't realize that they had agreed to a contract with absurd prices (like $15/MB).

• In the cloud computing case, this can happen when (for example) a customer doesn't properly shut down a machine.

Sometimes, this is a result of the vendor making it difficult to keep the bill in check, such as by designing their website in such a way that you need to check a non-obvious page for billing.

Other times, this is just a result of the customer simply being caught off-guard.

Companies often forgive these bills for (what I assume are usually) PR- or cost-related reasons, but I've been wondering:

What legal basis (if any) might the billed party have for challenging such cases?

For the sake of this question, please assume:

• The bill is correct per the contract.

• The charges were not caused by malicious entities (e.g., DDoS attacks, hackers, etc.) or force-majeure events.

• A reasonable person would agree that such a customer would have taken steps to avoid such charges if they had realized the consequences beforehand.

• The vendor can reasonably forgive most of bill if they wish to. (e.g., perhaps their actual incurred costs were much lower.)

• The question is not related to healthcare.

Answer 1

What legal basis (if any) might the billed party have for challenging such cases?

None. Under the conditions stated, the customer owes the full amount of the bill.

Companies often forgive these bills for (what I assume are usually) PR- or cost-related reasons,

Lurking in the background is bankruptcy. You can't collect $1,000,000 from someone with only $100 of assets that are exempt from creditors and a minimum wage job.

Answer 2

A reasonable person would agree that such a customer would have taken steps to avoid such charges if they had realized the consequences beforehand.

If a practice that leads to this bill comes under various states' Consumer Protection Laws (like against false, misleading advertising, hidden fees...), you may have a case and eventually recover damages.

Note that some states limit or don't allow Private Action (possibility of a private citizen to file a civil claim) on those types of violations (most notably on false advertising).

Answer 3

The contract might be unconscionable because "no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it". The concept of unconscionability is more established in Canadian law, but Wikipedia does cite some American case law.

The subclass of "Substantive unconscionability" is concerned less with ensuring clear negotiation and sober consent led to the contract, but rather with preventing grossly unfair outcomes:

Procedural unconscionability is seen as the disadvantage suffered by a weaker party in negotiations, whereas substantive unconscionability refers to the unfairness of terms or outcomes... Where a seller vastly inflates the price of goods, particularly when this inflation is conducted in a way that conceals from the buyer the total cost for which the buyer will ultimately be liable.

One could argue that a mobile phone contract that has obscure and seldom-used clauses written for a time, decades past, when data roaming was far more expensive, could be deemed unconscionable to enforce today.

Answer 4

A contract has to be a meeting of the minds.

In 2024, having to pay for example $2000 for a single short voice call, especially because of a service provider which did not make it clear that it will cost anything more than pocket change (especially if the service provider made a misleading or sneaky user interface), is not something a reasonable person would have agreed to.