first of all, it is a lawyers job to twist and turn :smile:
second, it is not misleading, maybe it confused you, but it is not misleading in the legal sense of the word
I understand you are upset that you can't get the device working on the carrier of your choice
(I would be too as it is an amazing device and I'm very happy to have it)
no contract clearly means that you have no further commitment to pay for ATT services
it does not mean that the device is unlocked.
To be honest, if anyone is twisting and turning here it is you. You want to twist no contract into meaning unlocked when it just doesn't
there is a BIG distinction between not incurring a commitment to purchase future services and receiving a device with a specific ability, in this case the ability to function on multiple carriers. That's why there are two different terms to describe the two very different issues. i.e. no-contract and unlocked
Second, your contention that the phone remaining locked amounts to bondage is both false and irrelevant
it's false because you can take the phone to any ATT MVNO and it will work
it's irrelevant because even if true it, in no way conflicts with the "no contract" language, at the end of the day you are in no way committed to purchasing ATT services
lastly, your claim that they failed to disclose a material fact which amounts to misrepresentation also fails (but I admit that I'm very impressed you made this argument)
it fails because even assuming it's a relevant issue, which there is room to argue that it isn't, they did disclose
by your own admission you said that it was advertised as "Nokia Lumia 1520 for ATT" , the key part being "FOR ATT"
So not only did they not mislead you as to the devices compatibility with other carriers, but they flat out told you that its for ATT
now, I personally believe that selling locked phones is an ugly practice and I wish that a new law would come along and get rid of it all together
but that doesn't change the here and now, and as it stands ATT did nothing "legally" wrong
Morally wrong? well, that's up to each person's own individual opinion
While I applaud your efforts in trying to pull up statutes to support your argument there was no material misrepresentation based on your description of the terms presented to you at the time of purchase
**disclaimer** although backed up by a traditional legal education, this is my personal opinion not a definitive legal conclusion :wink: