Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Comcast Fined $2.3 Million by FCC For 'Negative Option Billing' Practices (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the payback dept.

An anonymous reader shares an ArsTechnica report:The FCC announced a $2.3 million fine against Comcast on Tuesday after confirming that the company had been billing customers for products and services they had never ordered. After calling the fine "the largest civil penalty assessed from a cable operator by the FCC," the federal agency's announcement detailed exactly how Comcast bilked customers -- and new company practices that must be put into place as a result. According to the FCC's Office of Media Relations, the agency had received "numerous complaints from consumers" about the issue of "negative option billing" -- meaning, receiving charges for items that the customers had never affirmatively requested. (The FCC reminds readers that in the telecom world, this practice is known as "cramming.") The listed complaints revolve specifically around items related to cable TV service, including "premium channels, set-top boxes, and DVRs."

116 comments

  1. 2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's pocket change to that company.... They won't change a thing.

    1. Re:2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More importantly, it is likely a miniscule amount compared to what they actually stole. So no real consequences for them. Crime does pay.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True - wish that "M" was a "B", which would damned sure get their attention...

      Seriously, when a corporation gets over a certain size (in terms of market cap/cash on hand/etc), they really should jack the fines up by at least an order of magnitude, if only to prevent the 'fines are the cost of doing business' tactic.

      Crippling a company that way has a bonus... the CxO suite is no longer praised for jacking value by any means necessary, but instead tarred and feathered (and likely sued into oblivion) by pissed-off shareholders who just saw their investment go to shit overnight.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Screw the fine. They should have to refund 2.5x everyone who files a claim with the FCC. Only requirement for people to get a refund is sign under penalty of perjury that they did not request the services.

      And in order to stop further abuses, CEO/other executives must sign under penalty of perjury that their company has stopped this practice and will not do this in the future. If it happens again, executives all get prosecuted for lying under oath. Problem solved.

    4. Re:2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. They'll just litigate the hell out of it, tying it up in courts (again).

    5. Re: 2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No honestly the complaint is dumb here. Comcast is actually in the right. People should read their bill and ask questions, I singed up for a service advertised at 39.95 my bill is 52.95 why?

      It cramming isn't a big deal unless you're a lazy illiterate slob. Frankly I am glad they do it because if they can't they will just raise prices for everyone, read me, to keep the margins where they want them. It's not as if there is competition in the space

    6. Re:2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      The government just wants their cut, nothing is going to change. This is basically a go ahead for Comcast to keep cheating their customers. At best it tells them to find more creative ways to cheat the customers.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    7. Re:2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      That's pocket change to that company.... They won't change a thing.

      This fine is pocket change to the federosaurus also. The FDA fined Google half a billion dollars for the crime of letting Canadian pharmacies use its advertising system to give Americans the idea that everybody else in the world pays a fraction of what we do to get their prescriptions filled.. Meanwhile Comcast gets to screw its customers blind for years and pay...$2.3 million?

      That isn't even a slip on the wrist. It's massaging Comcast's wrists at a day spa.

    8. Re:2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      See, I disagree. I think the $2.3million dollar fine is appropriate for the crime, especially since it's basically also a warning that if the company keeps doing that sort of thing they're liable to receive even stiffer penalties. But I'd not really be comfortable with the government grabbing billions of dollars to stuff into their own coffers

      What /isn't/ okay is that Comcast gets to keep its ill-gotten gains. I mean, if I stole something, I wouldn't just get a penalty (fine, jail-time, community service, whatever); I'd have to give up my illegally gained loot as well. So ideally, the fine should also include an order to return the fraudulently billed fees to the customers it bilked, at Comcast's cost and within a specified time period.

      However, I'm not sure that such an order is within the FCC's mandate or power; it probably would require a court order.

    9. Re: 2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by One+With+Whisp · · Score: 1

      I singed up for a service advertised at 39.95 my bill is 52.95 why?

      Simple: fraud.

    10. Re:2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They probably spend that much each year on their executive retreats in Cancun.

    11. Re:2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Or they'll spend 2.3 Billion on lobbyists to get the FCC dismantled and replaced with a unregulated market.

    12. Re: 2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if you misread signed as singed? Is it still your fault?

    13. Re: 2.3M? -- That'll teach them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew we'd see shills here, happened quickly!

  2. $2.3m dollars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or about 10 minutes revenue. That fine is a joke.

    1. Re:$2.3m dollars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything bigger and the Retardicans in the Senate will try to pass a law in Comcast's favor and whine about the FCC being communistic.

    2. Re:$2.3m dollars... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Except Comcast is quite squarely in bed with Democrats, in this case. Lobbyists are lobbyists, and both parties love them. Many Democrats talk publicly like they want less corporate influence, but mostly it's an act.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    3. Re:$2.3m dollars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Comcast is quite squarely in bed with Democrats

      Total load of bullshit. Comcast gives tons of money to Republicans.

      From 2014 a breakdown of money given to Senators and House members from each of the telecom companies:

      Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet

      House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

    4. Re:$2.3m dollars... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 0

      Not a total load of bullshit. I never said they didn't contribute to Rs, but the CEO is democrat, the organization is generally "progressive" and they have liberal leanings.
      The Koch brothers also donated heavily to democrats, yet they are firmly labeled here as conservatives.

      https://www.opensecrets.org/or...
      http://usuncut.com/politics/de...
      http://www.nationalcenter.org/...

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    5. Re:$2.3m dollars... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Citation, please.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    6. Re: $2.3m dollars... by Atomic+Fro · · Score: 1

      The key concept here is that the money wasn't donated in the hopes that that party would win an election, or that the doners agree with that party's beliefs. It's bribe money, pure and simple.

      --

      ==================
      Hippie Logger Jock
      ==================
    7. Re:$2.3m dollars... by RenderSeven · · Score: 1, Funny

      Total load of bullshit

      Somewhere, in a dark smokey room, Democrats are laughing their asses off that you keep buying their spin. Both parties are corrupt as hell, but Comcast in particular is in bed with Democrats. Your own link says this. But let's add this:

      How Comcast Bought the Democratic Party
      Lots of good reading

      Forget the paltry $50k or $100k donated directly, let's examine the *millions* raised by Comcast for Obama and the DNC, and the "Comcast Foundataion" (sound familiar?) that channels donations to the needy as long as they support Comcast's initiatives.They are a dirty dirty dirty company (and not in a good way). A lone notable exception: Al Franken, who despite taking $15k from Comcast lobbyists still spoke out against them.

    8. Re:$2.3m dollars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact comcast is the single most spending lobbyist group, outspending lobbyist from the industrial military complex.

    9. Re:$2.3m dollars... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      CEO is democrat means nothing whatsoever as far as the relevant politics goes. A binary left vs right, democrat vs republican, or liberal vs conservative is simplistic kindergarten style of thinking. Companies give campaign donations to help out their own bottom line regardless of how they feel about other political issues. This is why they shotgun the money to whoever is on the relevant committees regardless of the party.

      At least as far as using the corporation's money. The CEOs may donate their own personal money to various political causes of course, like with the Koch brothers (though their company is privately held they can't just dip into its coffers for these purposes).

  3. Good business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.3 million fined after 100 million additional revenue made. Sounds like a sweet deal to me.

    1. Re:Good business by Desler · · Score: 1

      Validating the old saying "Better to ask forgiveness than approval."

    2. Re: Good business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The taxes on the $100m alone are greater than the fine!

      But this is the biggest fine? No wonder cable has been walking over customers, there is no check on them apparently.

  4. They earn that in 16 minutes by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comcast had $19.269 billion in revenues last quarter. (Source) This equates to about $211 million per day or $8.8 million per hour. They'll earn back the $2.3 million fine in about 15 minutes and 42 seconds.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you realize, they fine the foreign companies the mega amounts because it gets easy support from the general public. While at home the real money is being funnelled to politicians and judges through "lobbying". That way you get to see the odd billion dollar fine headlines, but still get that weird feeling that the government is implicit in gangsterism.

    2. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by CaptainLard · · Score: 2

      This is always my first thought whenever I hear "biggest fine ever". A common reaction is jail time for those involved but I think a better deterrent would just be to make the fine something like 50x the profits generated. That way we don't have to pay for an expensive trial (and it will be much more expensive than the fine if an executive is involved) or whatever jail time. Instead, regulatory agencies will finally have sufficient funding to enforce existing rules, victims get a nice payout and those responsible will immediately be fired and toxic in their line of work so they'll never be able to do it again.

    3. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Posting as AC because I'm at work.

      When looking at this in greater detail its even worse than you pointed out. I make about 50k a year, so lets proportion this out to an equivalent number:

      2.3 Million / 19.269 Billion * 50,000 = $5.97

      2 Million sounds big, because to the majority of us it *is* big - but to these large companies that's the same as buying a coffee and doughnut at the Tim Horton's! If this were me I wouldn't care one bit, I'd just pay my six bucks and call it a day. Now if they were hit with an equivalent to a $2,500 fine, which is a common amount for us commoners to pay, I'm betting they'd think twice about pulling these kinds of things because they'd be out 963,450,000.00!

      Of course in today's world where lobbyists have bribed those in power, a fine like that would never fly.

    4. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Revenues are used only by deceptive politicians to describe a business's position. A business with $20 billion of revenues and an 8% profit margin has $1.6 billion of profitability, and that's its real income. Granted, that's still large; but keep your head out of your ass, at least.

      Think about it. If businesses actually paid wages, their bank accounts would run out and they'd fold. A person works in part of a production process to provide a product or service; that person's effort goes into some number of shipped units--say, you work on an assembly line that makes 2,000 TVs per 8 hours, 14.4 seconds of your time goes in. Put all that effort together and you have cost--say, 118 staff in the factory, average $18/hr, that's 0.472 hours or $8.50 per TV.

      So you buy a TV. $8.50 of that TV goes to the factory wages--the income of the line workers, managers, and maintenance staff. The factory buys components from another factory, who gets their source components from a refinery, who buys from a mine; there's energy involved, as well. At each level, the wages are paid out and become income (of workers); therefor, those wages aren't business income--meaning what the factory buys is not part of its income.

      At each level, there's also profit. The factory keeps 10% profit. Each of its suppliers keeps 10% profit, down the line. Total up all the wages involved everywhere, and you've got 90% of the money--that's income. This other 10% is profit. That's ALSO income.

      This is an important concept because taxing wages (and, thus, outsourced expenses) as income means you're raising the cost of a worker. If a $36,000/year worker is paid from revenue *and* you call revenue "income", taxing the business for it, then that $36,000/year worker actually costs $60,000/year (40% business income tax). Why? Because to pay his $36,000 wage *plus* the tax on that wage, you have to collect $60,000, pay 40% in taxes ($24,000), and then give the rest to the worker--who then also pays taxes on it.

      What would that do to the price of goods and services?

      When you assess how much money a business has coming in, you're going to want to look at their profits. Profits tell you what the business is making. Profits are the business's "wage"; the rest is reimbursement for expenses involved in the business doing the job we pay them for.

      Problem: fining the business too much into its profits means raising the costs, thus prices required for operation. That leads to lower consumer spending power, consumer purchase of fewer goods and services, less need for (and market capacity to support) production, and fewer jobs. Fining a business is a useful strategy because they're the first one to feel pain, and they feel it most directly; it has economic consequences. The more robust your market is, the more a fine impacts the business by opening them up to competition--the next firm may outcompete them and cut into their profits, which may cause the fined firm to lose jobs while the competitor grows and produces new jobs. Some people get hurt in the process, about the same number of (partially) other people get lifted out of unemployment, and we get a net zero loss (or at least, we approach a net-zero loss the stronger competition is).

      In short: Fining businesses hurts consumers and creates unemployment as we approach low competition; it has a net-zero effect on consumers and unemployment as we approach robust competition. Robust competition makes fines a more powerful tool for punishing misbehaving businesses, as it reduces the amount of harm done to consumers and workers by the levying of such a fine. The magnitude of impact of a fine is proportional to the business profit, not the business revenue.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    5. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The more important question that should be being asked is "How much did they make from the practice of cramming?" If the answer is "less than what they were fined"--which it almost certainly is--then they have no motivation to alter their practices. This fine is nothing but whitewash to mollify some grumpy petitioners.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    6. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by ausekilis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love to see part of the fine be reimbursing all those effected by this practice. If I can receive a bill (or credit) months after I discontinue service from them, they can certainly send me a check for whatever money they took from me due to this shitty business practice.

      If only the world worked that way... and corporations were actually penalized due to this sort of thing.

    7. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good theory. If you ever get a fine for something make sure to bring this up when the judge hands down the amount.

      Most people live paycheck to paycheck so that 2500 on 50,000 stands IS comparable.

    8. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      sorry, but that 8% profit margin is after the fat cats are paid. guess again

    9. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's after taxes are paid. So what's your point?

    10. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by omnichad · · Score: 2

      If a $36,000/year worker is paid from revenue *and* you call revenue "income", taxing the business for it, then that $36,000/year worker actually costs $60,000/year (40% business income tax). Why? Because to pay his $36,000 wage *plus* the tax on that wage, you have to collect $60,000, pay 40% in taxes ($24,000), and then give the rest to the worker--who then also pays taxes on it.

      The business does not pay taxes on revenue - they pay it on profits. The $36,000/year is an expense and it's not part of the profit and not taxed. The employee, however, will pay tax on their income and lose a certain amount of that money depending on their tax bracket.

      Maybe you said that, maybe you didn't - it's not easy to tell. But in the case of cable companies, they're granted a virtual monopoly in most markets. Cutting deeply into profits means they're still ahead - even the CEO's wage is an expense before profits. Raising prices in response is only to "punish" the economy that fined them and keep their profits the same and reward shareholders (if applicable) for allowing the mismanagement.

    11. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      No, was not referring to taxes nor money to anyone external to the company

    12. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It should absolutely be punitive. It's downright stupid to give pathetic fines when the profits from the scam were likely to exceed the amount. There is absolutely no disincentive for other companies to stop doing similar practices, possibly even after they're caught.

      My wife had to call Comcast twice for them trying this on her while she was in college. Fortunately she was the one paying the bill and she watched it like a hawk. This was two years ago.

      Given that this practice has been going on for years. Do we honestly believe that they didn't make more than $2.3 million from it? That amount is inherently all profit since the users were inherently not using whatever they were being charged for.

      I am in total agreement that this should be on the order of a $500 million to $1 billion fine. These companies have customers by the balls and overcharge us because they have quite effectively blocked competition in most areas (certainly no cable-versus-cable competition), so this is just the cherry on the top.

    13. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Comcast had $19.269 billion in revenues last quarter... They'll earn back the $2.3 million fine in about 15 minutes and 42 seconds.

      Revenue != Earnings.

    14. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      sorry, but that 8% profit margin is after the fat cats are paid.

      It is after the employees, managers, and bondholders are paid, but before shareholders are paid.

    15. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Solandri · · Score: 1

      While I agree that this fine seems absurdly small, revenue does not take into account costs incurred while doing business. If your revenue from selling lemonade is $1 a cup, and the materials and labor to make the lemonade cost $0.25/cup, you are only making $0.75 per cup, not $1/cup. A lot of that revenue Comcast took in was probably sent as payment to the premium channel companies.

      Subtracting operating expenses, Comcast had a EBIT of $16 billion in 2015. That works out to $43.8 million/day. And they will make back the fine in 1 hour, 16 minutes.

    16. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The more important question that should be being asked is "How much did they make from the practice of cramming?"

      And since TFA doesn't answer that question, another question that should be asked is why this journalist shouldn't be fired for incompetence.

    17. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOOSH!

      Good god man, are you really that obtuse? LOLzzz!!!! You act like the wise elder of Slashdot but it's easy to see you can hardly stand on your own two feet.

      Go get a clue.

    18. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Mahldcat · · Score: 1

      How they could really make this impactful: The FCC could place down a fine that was (a) Based off a percentage of a companies gross (not revenue) income, (b) Used the last 8 quarters to determine the fine (so they couldn't game things), and (c) Have the actual number for the fine based off the entire year, not just for a quarter (even 3% of the yearly gross) If this were to happen, and at a level in the billions (only in our dreams :( ), I bet they'd change their tune VERY quickly...

    19. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it's revenue or profit if it's stolen.

      Alternatively, "income" is the same for everyone regardless of whether you call it "profit" or disposable income in the end.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    20. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thinking of it as profit, he is only off by a factor of ten because Comcast's profits was just over $2 billion last quarter.

      So Comcast makes about $880K in 16 minutes, which means that it only takes about 42 minutes to roll past $2.3 million in profits. Given my own personal experience with Comcast attempting this on my wife's own bills over two years ago, I am certain that they have been cashing in on this process for years -- much longer than the 42 minutes necessary to cover the fine, as well as to simply make that much from the illegal charges.

      As a monopolistic cable company, Comcast has practically no competition unless a consumer is lucky enough to be offered fiber in their area, so Comcast already has unfair business practices in play and minimal benefits to communities and consumers, with tons of negatives to add though. This fine should have been extremely punitive specifically due to their monopoly nature because that won't kill Comcast, but it will scare the hell out of their competitors that probably want to do the same thing.

      They are quite literally stealing and committing fraud. The only difference is that a weak regulator negotiated the fine, rather than a court trying to reimburse those wronged. According to Yahoo Finance, Comcast has over $4 billion in cash on hand, so I think it would be completely fair to charge them $250 - 500 million in punitive damages for theft that has likely been going on for a lot more than two years while they were literally the only option for most consumers (and will continue to be).

    21. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That was the whole point. Someone wanted to talk about the business's revenue as a measure of how much money it has coming in; revenue isn't income except in an accounting sense. From a tax sense and from the sense of how much money a business is making, profits are income. Using different domains or different concepts to try to make a statement about something is an equivocation fallacy.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    22. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      The business does not pay taxes on revenue - they pay it on profits.

      Measure 97 currently on the fall ballot in Oregon will tax some businesses 2.5% on sales, not profit.

      The $36,000/year is an expense and it's not part of the profit and not taxed.

      From here:

      In addition to salaries and wages, the employer will incur some or all of the following payroll-related expenses:

      Employer portion of Social Security tax
      Employer portion of Medicare tax
      State unemployment tax
      Federal unemployment tax
      Worker compensation insurance
      Employer portion of insurance (health, dental, vision, life, disability)
      Employer paid holidays, vacations, and sick days
      Employer contributions toward 401(k), savings plans, & profit-sharing plans
      Employer contributions to pension plans
      Post-retirement health insurance

      Four of those are "taxes" by name and are not calculated based on profits but on the expense of paying an employee. They are, indeed, employer-paid taxes on the money paid to employees.

      But in the case of cable companies, they're granted a virtual monopoly in most markets.

      They may have a defacto monopoly, but it was not granted to them, is is based on economic factors.

      Raising prices in response is only to "punish" the economy that fined them and keep their profits the same and reward shareholders (if applicable) for allowing the mismanagement.

      This is something that the proponents of Measure 97 in Oregon vehemently deny will happen when a tax on sales is enacted. Companies will NOT raise prices to cover this new cost, they'll absorb it.

    23. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Most business executives are making very little per employee. For example, Michael Cavanagh takes home $262 per employee per year. If all employees were minimum wage, he'd be taking home 1.62% of Comcast's direct wage costs (i.e. $40 million out of $2,219 million); salaries range from $14/hr ($28k) to $140,000/year (software engineers). That means Comcast's CFO takes home far less than 1% of all wages, which itself makes up for only a fraction of Comcast's operating expenses (rent (land, tower, antenna, offices), power, rebroadcast deals, advertising, maintenance, equipment...).

      So the really fat cats represent around 0.2% of the expenses, each. The CEO makes less than the CFO, somehow.

      Also, the cash involved is about $8 million, or $52 per employee; the rest is stock or stock options, which are issued without cost to Comcast, dilute the value of stocks on the market when exercised, and only get paid out based on the securities market performance of the company. That means the impact of Cavanagh's actual salary and bonuses is under 0.045% of Comcast's total expenses, and less than 0.2% of wages.

      By far, the biggest payroll cost to Comcast is non-executive wages.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    24. Re: They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a business with a large fixed cost element it's absolutely fair to think in terms of marginal revenue for such matters: you can think of it this way - if the cost of earning the incremental revenue is close to 0 (and I would argue it is for a business like Comcast), then revenue = earnings at the margin.

    25. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you want the real profit potential of comcast?

      their internet customers.. take 90% of their billable invoices for internet. that's their profit for internet..

      their phone customers... take 75% of their billable invoices for phone service. that's their profit for phone.

      their television customers.. take 75-85% of their billable invoices for television. that's their profit for tv.

      if your consumer premise equipment (boxes, dvrs modems etc) is over 9 months old and you pay monthly for it.. it's pure profit, 100%.

      if their earning statements don't reflect that (they rarely do) they're just paying some subsid crazy fees for something to hide actual profits.. just like hollywood does.

      cable tv has some of the highest crazy ridiculous markups of any industry.

    26. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Just a bit of googling shows in 2015 Comcast had revenue of $74.5B and a net income of $16B with $8.9B cash on hand...

      The purpose of a fine that would yield criminal charges were the actions performed by an individual should be to inflict severe pain such that most of the CxO level executives are fired and sued into oblivion by stock holders and make these dirt bags so toxic they never work at the executive level again. Fines should also be doubled or trebled on government sanctioned monopolies. A fine of half of their annual profit, or $8B would eliminate this criminal behavior and have the desired effect. Comcast has no right to exist. If they engage in fraud, they should be fined into oblivion and the pieces bought up by other companies/startups.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    27. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Actually, in much of the US the judge will take financial hardship into account for most fines, assuming that you are otherwise an upstanding individual. On some occasion, fines of thousands of dollars have been reduced to $50 or even $1. The exception is the IRS, because they are out for blood.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    28. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Measure 97 currently on the fall ballot in Oregon will tax some businesses 2.5% on sales, not profit.

      And until that passes, it's still not the case anywhere. And Oregon has no sales tax. This is a way of sneaking in a sales tax through the back door.

      Four of those are "taxes" by name and are not calculated based on profits but on the expense of paying an employee. They are, indeed, employer-paid taxes on the money paid to employees.

      But these are not income taxes, so don't equate them as such - it has nothing at all to do with the profit of the business, only the amount chosen to pay. That's already accounted for when you pick a hiring wage of $36,000.

      They may have a defacto monopoly, but it was not granted to them, is is based on economic factors.

      Cable? They tend to have exclusivity clauses in their franchise agreements with municipalities. They are more than a defacto monopoly.

    29. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1

      Comcast had $19.269 billion in revenues last quarter. (Source [cmcsa.com]) This equates to about $211 million per day or $8.8 million per hour. They'll earn back the $2.3 million fine in about 15 minutes and 42 seconds.

      Likely the maximum that the FCC can fine the company. The NHTSA is another agency that was hampered with petty maximum fines, until the DoJ stepped in with a wire fraud criminal lawsuit that resulted in far stiffer penalties. "Cramming" could very well constitute wire fraud.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    30. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      But these are not income taxes, so don't equate them as such -

      I didn't. I simply pointed out that that $36,000 paid to an employee is an expense that IS TAXED. Nothing in what I quoted said it was an income tax.

      it has nothing at all to do with the profit of the business, only the amount chosen to pay.

      Uhhh, what? Any tax paid to the government is a reduction in the amount available for profit, whether it is an income tax or tax on the expenses.

      Cable? They tend to have exclusivity clauses in their franchise agreements with municipalities.

      No, they do not. Exclusive franchise agreements are against federal law. If you actually take time to read a franchise agreement, and the ordinances behind them, they will be explicit in saying they are non-exclusive.

      If you find an exclusive franchise agreement, please do two things. First, report it to the FCC and FTC for federal action. Second, post a link here so I can see it.

    31. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Posting AC so not to loose mod points)...

      I get that there are revenues and profits, and these different amounts are used for different purposes when discussing businesses... There are reasons for this, and many are completely understandable...

      However, if fines like this are based on "Profit", then why aren't fines for normal persons also based on "Profit". ie: the average person who makes $50K a year and lives close to paycheck-to-paycheck probably has a "Profit" of about $500-$1000k /year if you calculate it like a business (some would have negative profit if they are in debt). If criminal fines are based on "Profit" amount, then DUI charges and speeding tickets wouldn't be $10K and $250 respectively, they'd be under 10 bucks for most of them. But if the average person were forced to explain WHY people aren't fined like this, the most common answer would be because the amounts would be so low that it wouldn't be much of a deterrent. Which is pretty much what the problem with these kinds of fines for large corporations aren't... most are too low to be a deterrent.

      Think about it, if speeding tickets were $5-10, would that in any way deter you from speeding? Even if the chance of getting caught was much higher than it currently is?

    32. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh, what? Any tax paid to the government is a reduction in the amount available for profit, whether it is an income tax or tax on the expenses.

      Uhhhh, double what? Any money paid out by a business at any time for any reason is a reduction in the amount available for profit. That's business for you. So what's your point?

    33. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I misread "last quarter" as "last year" from the OP; but the point still stands: net income is the number we're looking for, not revenue. Hollywood aside, revenue is meaningless in this context.

      You seem to have missed my point that a market without robust competition will necessarily lose jobs if one of the few major players in an oligarchy (especially a regional one) gets a big financial hit like a fine. That is to say: robust competition lets you sue a business out of existence and shift the load around before anything bad happens; duopolies and regional monopolies let you sue a business not nearly enough for them to stop laughing at you, but enough that the backswing is a lot of low-income workers getting thrown off into the streets as the business's prices are affected (increased).

      Low-competition markets are essentially poison pills: you attack the businesses, you destroy the lives of the workers.

      We tend to fail to actually make-right. We should probably start there. Comcast should be required to cooperate with an investigation determining its impact on those wronged, and then made to pay them back with interest and penalty. Maybe that turns out to be a laughably-small cost, or maybe it's large and we have to diffuse it over years to prevent the poison-pill from breaking; either way, it's the closest thing to fair we have, and it addresses an actual problem instead of slapping someone hard enough to make us feel good or not hard enough to worry about breaking something.

      The investigation alone would make them shit their pants. Who wants the government looking that closely?

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    34. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confusing Comcast with some other business. Comcast is a state sponsored MONOPOLY. Furthermore, it is a utility, meaning most people need the service as a basic function of daily life. The reality is that Comcast could go chapter 7 (bankrupt and its assets sold off) and yes, there would be some churn and turbulence, but those assets would be bought up by investors and we would probably get 6 or more smaller cable TV companies. The net number of employees might go down a little, but not massively, because cable TV/internet is hugely lucrative and stable source of profit and you need those employees to make the business work.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    35. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      People don't need cable TV; a lot of people are ditching cable TV; Satellite TV and Verizon's new TV services are competing; and they don't overlap in all markets.

      Internet is the utility; however, it's still an oligopoly, since you can get FiOS or Cable in many places.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    36. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on where you live, but I suspect if you live outside of a large city, FiOS is not a realistic option (check the map). Again, if you live too far away, the same is true for DSL, so you are left with the cable monopoly.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    37. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Comcast Cable isn't available everywhere; in some locations, Verizon DSL is your only option.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    38. Re:They earn that in 16 minutes by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      You don't know how p/l statements are made? salaries are expenses. Income minus expenses equals profit. you're welcome

  5. I have a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm so happy I have choices in Chicago. I walked away from Comcast years ago after receiving terrible service from them. I have been a happy http://www.wowway.com/ customer ever since.

    1. Re:I have a choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW is not all over Chicago, but it is nice in the neighborhoods where you have it or one of the other smaller competitive cable carriers.

      I just moved to a Chicago suburb from the city where we had WOW; our WOW rates had climbed in recent years, but I'd still rather have them than the AT&T/Comcast false-choce duopoly.

    2. Re:I have a choice by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I'm so happy I have choices in Chicago. I walked away from Comcast years ago

      I live in a well-populated area and we have only two choices, and they both suck. One pulls billing tricks similar to TFA, the other has unreliable technology (flaky connections).

      I was so happy when a 3rd player announced they were available in our area, but then they got bought out by one of the first two.

      Historically, oligopolies usually suck. Competition makes a big difference, and insufficient competition almost always leads to crappy products and services. You need at least about 5 players to start getting decent choice.

      It's why Japan kicked Detroit's ass in the early 1980's: Detroit's auto oligopolies grew fat and lazy due to lack of competition, and produced fragile expensive gas-guzzlers. Detroit cars still have not quite caught up, but are MUCH better now compared to the world market because they have to compete on the world market.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  6. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. by Pezbian · · Score: 1

    This just in: Cable company becomes desperate in the face of wide abandonment. Film at 11.

    I have a contract with the same company only because of my Internet service. It seemed worth the extra few bucks to get TV tacked on just because. No. The fees and rate increases since have vastly amplified the monthly bill.

    In my neck of the woods, we don't have Google Fiber (yet), but we do have UTOPIAnet (Wasatch Front in Utah, for the record). Even with the cost of the FTTP gear, a 100/100mbit connection is still far less than what Comcast charges. For the same price Comcast charges, you get a symmetrical gigabit.

    Uploading at 12mbps grows old fast even if your download speed is in the 180 range.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
  7. Had this same thing happen with Century Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I signed up for ADSL service about 3-4 years ago and the Century Link rep I talked to (in person) gave me a ADSL modem. I didn't request that modem and the only thing I was ever made aware of (and I asked about the pricing of different services) was the price of the ADSL service. The following month I get my bill and discover that there is a rental charge for the modem. I immediately take this modem back to Centruy Link and tell them I didn't authorize the rental charge and didn't even want the modem nor was I using it. They would take the rental charge off future bills, but would not refund the rental charge for the modem that I never asked for in the first place. I had assumed the modem was included in the service because that is what I was signing up for and because it was included years prior when ADSL service first became available from them in my community. I had however moved and needed to sign up for new service as the service I had prior was really my parents and they needed to retain that service.

    Anyway- these companies are unbelievably unscrupulous.

  8. Fraud by Moof123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Outside of the telecom industry this is called fraud, and should result in jail time for those who are responsible.

    Comcast and its ilk own too many congressmen, so they have to pay back a small percentage of the profits if they get caught. Usually no admission of guilt is even needed.

    Carry on, business as usual.

    1. Re:Fraud by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's still fraud, but if you want the fraud prosecuted, you need each case handled individually. You can't even do a class action, because each is a separate instance, and the actions aren't identical. So each defrauded customer would need to get their local police interested.

      Good luck with that.

      I agree that the fine is massively too small, but it should make it easier for any prosecution that is actually attempted.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if it's fraud exactly. What I'm thinking they're talking about is when I signed up I got "12 months of free HBO" (I want no TV service, but alas, roommates), where I said I didn't want HBO, but they gave it to me anyway, and then when the free trial is over, charge me 10 bucks for something I didn't want in the first place.

    3. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Billing customers for products they never ordered seems to part of the banking industry also. That's exactly what Wells Fargo was doing.

      It's almost like all corporations are incapable of committing fraud.

    4. Re:Fraud by Holi · · Score: 1

      Why would you need to police, the police don't bring charges, you only need the DA in each state affected to bring charges. And a single charge can encompass many counts of fraud.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    5. Re:Fraud by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It's still fraud

      Not likely. Not all deceptive practices are fraud. There was probably something in the fine print of the contract that allowed them to cram. It is deceptive, and unethical, but not fraudulent.

    6. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a better way to treat criminal corporations. Rather than fines an issue of a percentage of stock to the government at no cost would be better. 10%,20%,30% instant stock dilution would directly affect the investors who directly have a say in corporate practice and behavior. Stock dilution would not affect the operational nature of the business and would not threaten jobs.
      The government could then sell the stock at market value to collect its fee. The effect of this would be to not collect the money from the operating business but rather from the investors who direct the business.

    7. Re:Fraud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Willful deception in writing a contract, especially in a contract of adherence where only one party gets to suggest terms--and where the parties do not have equal sophistication or bargaining power--, would generally be considered some sort of fraud.

  9. Yay! Vindicated! by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    I posted my experience in a comment back in February on the article where Comcast was being grilled by Congress.
    I agree it's not much money for a big company but at least they're getting a good public flogging.

  10. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The number 2 reason I don't have TV with Comcast is I would have to deal with billing. Internet only bill is $69.95 for $69.95 service. Could be same WITH TV but then I have to deal with CS :(

    I took 12 years before I got internet after they (2 companies ago) tried to sell me 'lightning fast' internet (1M) that was slower than dial-up (28K speedtest) until after midnight :/ ..and automaticly credit everyone, right? If you have to ask, they no doubt made money on it just like a rebate offer. Can't find the link to check....

  11. The real question by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    How much did Comcast earn from this evil behavior? Was it more than $2.3 million? Then why shouldn't they do it again?

    When you reward a behavior you get more of it.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:The real question by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Repetition of the same behavior would, most likely, personally offend some powerful people who will no longer want to play with you. The fines get bigger and ridiculous shit like investigations and audits start happening until it's clearly established who has the power position in this relationship.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  12. I can confirm by subnomine · · Score: 1

    My elderly mother complains to Comcast (and me) that they charge her for on-demand shows that she has not ordered. Like the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

    1. Re:I can confirm by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're still living in your elderly mom's basement. :D

    2. Re:I can confirm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My elderly mother complains to Comcast (and me) that they charge her for on-demand shows that she has not ordered. Like the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

      Actually, she did watch that. I was with her at the time.

    3. Re:I can confirm by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Well, she didn't actually WATCH it, it was just on while we were getting it on... apparently watching guys hit each other turns her on!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  13. Worst Company in America - Comcast Keeps Winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many times has Comcast "won" this "distinction" now?

  14. Common by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Another big telecom did this to us also multiple times. I suspect it's rampant in the industry(s) because nobody with authority is monitoring.

    If a customer detects it on their bill, the company just says, "Oh, we're sorry, we must have misunderstood your prior call. We thought you asked for our deluxe roach-chewing-cable-wires insurance policy."

    Coincidentally, their "misunderstanding" always benefits them, NOT us.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  15. Public flogging worthless by swb · · Score: 1

    Does public flogging even accomplish anything anymore?

    Really, about the only "public flogging" I've seen accomplish anything in recent memory might have been Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic rants and Trump's pussy grabbing comments (but ONLY the pussy grabbing).

    It sure seems like everyone else just gets away with whatever they did. Puny fines, some half-hearted yelling by a congressional committee, and no prosecutions of any kind. Whether it's Hillary or big corporations like Wells Fargo, they do what they do and nothing seems to happen. Nobody faces any personal accountability, what punishments happen seem to be largely trivial and never seem to detract from general misbehavior.

    1. Re:Public flogging worthless by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Does public flogging even accomplish anything anymore?

      A figurative flogging may not, but a literal flogging likely would. Singapore flogs criminals, with a rattan cane dipped in alcohol, and they have very low crime rates, and an incarceration rate less than a third of America's.

    2. Re:Public flogging worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USA's incarceration rate is second highest in the world. Every country in Europe has less than 1/3 of the incarceration rate of the USA.

    3. Re:Public flogging worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ssh. He's using statistics, you can't bring facts into it.

  16. Criminal by Holi · · Score: 1

    Can we get some actual law enforcement? This was a criminal act, an intentional criminal act. The fact we do not enforce the law on corporatios and the wealthy makes a mockery of our judicial system. It actually makes me laugh to hear the comment "We are a country of laws", while at least until the tears come.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  17. how Comcast bilked customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Misspelled 'milked'

  18. Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How else did Comcast afford to buy NBC?

    I like capitalism, but my god, the profits are huge, plus they outsourced a bunch of Americans out of work. True Blue American Company.

    -----------

    It is not so much that I am an anonymous coward as I don't remember my password, or care enough to recover it (for Slashmoot that is)

  19. $2.3m fine vs profit from cramming by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    The bottom line is that Comcast has very little incentive to do the right thing until it is coerced. They are always publicly stating how they are working to improve customer experience and customer service. The former is true. They are indeed working diligently to make it easier to make incremental purchases on things like Video on Demand. That interface is smooth and polished and it is in their financial best interest to make it so. The latter is debatable. Comcast is no longer the MOST hated consumer brand in the country. I believe they are now in 4th or 5th place. Still pretty dreadful, but a small improvement. It is my assertion that they feel the financial gain from making the investment in customer service is a poor investment given that they've got a captive audience due to their monopoly position in many markets.

    1. Re:$2.3m fine vs profit from cramming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The VOD interface is smooth and polished?! It takes the stupid cable box 5 minutes to boot up, and there is something on the order of a full second latency between user actions and any response from the GUI. I can't understand why anyone puts up with it.

    2. Re:$2.3m fine vs profit from cramming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See the previous comment about being a monopoly. People put up with it because there is no other alternative.

  20. Happened to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comcast rep. talked me into upgrading my broadband speed to a new tier. Gave me a teaser rate which I figure why not. Use it for a year then revert back to my old plan. When the rep was finalizing the agreement he said we will send you out a wireless access point modem. I said already have approved modem and new router. I purchased both myself, and have been for years because I won't pay rentals for crap hardware from Comcast. Well few months into plan I notice a $10 charge on my statement, referring to a wireless access point rental. Sure enough Comcast was charging for what I already have and I never received any hardware from Comcast. Well turns out I guess Comcast has been doing this to a lot of customers. To me Comcast could easily remedy this because modems have to be registered in the system to work. They have to be attached to your account. So in my opinion Comcast is purely ripping customers off. Not much of a surprise there.

    1. Re:Happened to me by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I refuse everything when Comcast calls me, I'll even refuse to speak English if it can get me off the call faster. Even vague responses can be kind of dangerous with these guys. Anything except "die in a fire" is considered consent with them.

      I used to have a ton of problems with the local newspaper signing me up for subscriptions if I didn't respond to their phone call with a written request to terminate any subscription, delivery, or offer that they think they might have with me. Luckily the newspaper business is dying and it has been less of a problem.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  21. Not One Fucking Word about Refunds by sycodon · · Score: 1

    No mention of forcing Comcast to provide full refunds to everyone they defrauded.

    That's pretty much how it works these days. A company is caught with it's hands in the cookie jar, get's time out, but gets to keep the cookies.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Not One Fucking Word about Refunds by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Feds and the company split the cookies.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  22. Upwards A Level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do we file complains that the FCC isn't fining companies above the profits of their 'crimes'?

  23. Prosecute instead of making deals every time by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Like most of the petty "fines" the FTC have been crowing about about the last few years, this is a consent decree - Comcast AGREED to pay $2.3 million.

    A consent decree / plea bargain can make sense if the prosecuting agency and the defendant agree to a reasonable penalty, but since the current FTC never prosecutes these cases, Comcast knows they can offer peanuts and the FTC will take it. If the adminsitration would say "no" to a deal once in a while and get verdicts for $20 billion, they'd be able to get negotiate consent decrees for $2 billion.

  24. One solution by fulldecent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    https://sillyutility.net/ -- Compare your Comcast bill with others in your ZIP code to see if they are charging too much. Just launched today. It is mostly for the Philadelphia market but actually it works anywhere in the US.

    Funny though, this actually just launched today.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  25. isn't that a bit too low? by lord3nd3r · · Score: 1

    Isn't that a really low-ball number? they have ripped off so many people (myself included). I think a fair number would be 10x that.

    --
    g0t b33r?
  26. But it's restitution not a fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the judges that actual persons can get wont do is take hardship into account when ordering restitution. If that turns out to be more than you can ever repay then you have to go through actual-person bankruptcy where some debts are not dischargable.

    The FCC et.al. ignore that when they negotiate for restitution because they're too scared (aka feel threatened by) the community damages that would result from forcing a large corporation into bankruptcy. It's the same principle so wisely summed up in: "when you owe the bank $100k and can't pay then you have a problem, but when you owe the bank $100b and can't pay then the bank has a problem."

  27. Corp versus Individual penalities by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    If an individual commits fraud, the civil and criminal penalties are typically many times more than the profit they made from the fraud.

    If a corporation commits what is essentially a type of fraud, the penalties are some fraction of a percent of the profit they made.

    Seems fair, right?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  28. Agreed, All the profits + by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    I think they should estimate all the profits they made on the violation, and THEN levy a fine on top of that. There is no way a company should profit from criminal actions. If that happened and the company actually LOST money, the stockholders would take care of the CxO's/boardmembers in a fashion that would really be a punishment to them, via the pocketbook. It would lead to a tying of bonuses and golden parachutes to actual company performance.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  29. .0000370967 of comcast annual sales by alw53 · · Score: 1

    .0000370967 of comcast annual sales.

  30. make them pay more than they made! by Vorl · · Score: 1

    I think that when a company does something like this, the fine should be 2-5 times the amount of money they made... That would make them much less interested in doing something that is clearly wrong.

    I doubt very much that the tiny fine they have to pay even comes close to how much money they made.

  31. negative billing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I bill people for services not rendered it's called fraud.

  32. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $2.3 million is not even a wrist slap for a company like Comcast. It's more like a finger wag from across the room.

    $2.3 billion -- assessed against the personal fortunes of the corporate officers involved -- is more like it.

    Same goes for Wells Fargo.

    Money is the only thing these people care about, so make them poor. They might finally sit up and take notice once you start doing that.

  33. Why does the government keep the money? by rcastles · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't the customers get it back? Why aren't these cases processed like a class action suit?