AT&T Sued For Systematic iPhone Overbilling

Hugh Pickens writes writes "UPI reports that AT&T is facing a lawsuit that says AT&T routinely bills for 7 percent to 14 percent more data transactions than normally take place, which could blossom into a costly class-action case. Court papers claim that attorneys set up a test account for an iPhone, then closed all of its apps and left the device unused for 10 days. AT&T still billed the account for 2,292 KB of usage. 'A significant portion of the data revenues were inflated by AT&T's rigged billing system for data transactions,' say court papers filed on behalf of AT&T customer Patrick Hendricks. 'This is like the rigged gas pump charging you when you never even pulled your car into the station.' Attorneys say they would file to have the case moved to class-action status, which makes the outcome relevant to all of AT&T's iPhone accounts."

Comments

AT&T's Fault?

[Kneo24]

Nothing in the article shows how it couldn't have been the phone itself doing it, not AT&T doing it. If the device is ON, but not being used, well, there's a lot of shit that goes on in the back-end of things, like update checking, etc...

Re:AT&T's Fault?

[nhstar]

Agreed. It would be interesting to know if they ran the same test with the data service actually turned off on the phone. Then I'd start to see fault with the carrier.

Re:AT&T's Fault?

[dkleinsc]

So your argument is that if AT&T builds in an app that checks with AT&T for updates, and can't be disabled, AT&T should be able to bill customers for the privilege of having that update checker? Because the phone in question was running no applications whatsoever.

The obligatory car analogy: Do you think it would be ok for automakers to charge customers for the privilege of replacing recalled parts? (especially considering the Fight Club math of cost of recall >= probability of failure * units sold * average court settlement)

Re:AT&T's Fault?

[daniorerio]

Maybe they did, but the phones turned off didn't get billed so they're not mentioned?

From the provider's point of view it is pretty easy to determine if a phone was actually on or not, so if you're going to overbill it's probably wise to overbill phones that were actually turned on...

Re:AT&T's Fault?

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you are the problem with western society today.

You purport strong conclusions based on nothing but your incidental personal anecdotes and "feelings".

How do you not see the irony there?

Re:AT&T's Fault?

[AmberBlackCat]

I can't find my previous post to link to it so I'll have to repeat myself. My last sprint phone would charge us for data if I used the mp3 player. And it would do this even if I had the internet capability turned off. If you use the web browser, it asks if you want to turn the internet back on in order to continue. If you play an mp3, it turns the internet on and starts charging by the minute with no warning, even though you're just playing a file on a memory card. To make things worse, external contact with the phone could launch the music player. I guess one of the external buttons was a music button.

More info and PDF

[EuclideanSilence]

Slightly more informative article with a link to a PDF of the complaint: http://www.pcworld.com/article/218381/atandt_accused_of_overbilling_iphone_ipad_users.html

Lawyers upset by over-billing?

[scrib]

Wait a minute, lawyers are upset about systematic over-billing?

I'd say this is a "the pot calling the kettle black" moment, but it's more like "tar calling granite black."

I have no doubt that the lawyers will bill AT&T for every minute of those 10 days they "monitored" that iPhone...