Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Sues Comcast For $100M Over 'Pattern of Deceptive Practices' (komonews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Washington State has filed a lawsuit against Comcast to the sum of $100 million, accusing Comcast of "engaging in a pattern of deceptive practices." It claims that Comcast's documents reveal a pattern of illegally deceiving its own customers for profit. KOMO News reports: "The lawsuit (PDF) alleges more than 1.8 million individual violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The Attorney General's Office says 500,000 Washington consumers were affected. The lawsuit also accuses Comcast of violating the Consumer Protection Act to all of its nearly 1.2 million Washington subscribers due to its deceptive 'Comcast Guarantee,' Ferguson said. The lawsuit accuses Comcast of misleading 500,000 Washington consumers and deceiving them into paying at least $73 million in subscription fees over the last five years for what the attorney general says is a a near-worthless protection plan. Customers who sign up for Comcast's Service Protection Plan pay a $4.99 monthly fee to avoid being charged if a Comcast technician visits their home. But the plan did not cover wiring inside a wall, the lawsuit says. The Attorney General Office says 75 percent of the time, customers who contacted Comcast were told the plan covered inside wiring. Customer service scripts, which the Attorney General's Office said it obtained during its investigation, told Comcast representatives to say that the plan covers calls 'related to inside wiring' and 'wiring inside your home.'" According to KOMO News, the lawsuit is seeking more than $73 million in restitution to pay back Service Protection Plan subscriber payments; full restitution for all service calls that applied an improper resolution code, estimated to be at least $1 million; removal of improper credit checks from the credit reports of more than 6,000 customers; up to $2,000 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act; and that Comcast clearly disclose the limitations of its Service Protection Plan in advertising and through its representatives, correct improper service codes that should not be chargeable and implement a compliance procedure for improper customer credit checks.
Who buys protection plans for a service? If the service doesn't work, Comcast needs to fix it on THEIR dime, or the service gets cancelled. After all, their dime is YOUR dime, because you are paying a monthly fee for the service.
bingo. Even if the state got everything it wanted in full Comcast would cheerfully pay it as nothing more than the cost of doing business. Most companies today are simply too big and too rich to care about the law. Until we start slamming them with fines in the tens of billions and jailing executives nothing is going to change.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
The Comcasts of the world are the backbone of the U.S. economy, the job creators, shining examples of the free market at work. And yet again, we have government coming in to ride rough-shod over a company with a long history of innovation and customer service. If only there were a candidate who was a real leader when it came to business. Then we'd see things change for the better...
...OK. I give up. I can't type with a straight face anymore.
I'm betting that the state DA is doing everything they're allowed to under the applicable laws. I greatly doubt that the Washington legislature gave the DA the ability to yank right-of-ways or anything of the like. That power either lies with a utility commission or with a legislative committee. Rightly so. I wouldn't want a DA to be playing politics with utility companies. I'd rather have them be as independent as possible.
If I lived in that state, I'd be calling and writing my rep and those on said committee and push there.
Where I live in Seattle, they provide service to the other side of the street, but not to mine. The city has blocked them from digging and adding new pedestals, so they can't. Since there's no fine for not offering service, it's cheaper for them to just lose the profit from the ~20 houses than it is to fight the city. Comcast needs to start being fined so they have an incentive to fight to provide service. CenturyLink has the same problem so they haven't been able to upgrade to higher than 1.5 Mbps DSL on my street.
You want the city to force Comcast to fight the city to provide service that the city won't allow them to provide?
Is this some sort of job creation program for lawyers?
The correct amount is that which will depress the stock value. Only then will the investors take action to purge management of the vermin that infests it now.
$100 million or a $1 Billion, whatever it takes.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.