Slashdot Mirror
Charter Customer Sues Over Hidden Fees, Claims 'Massive Billing Fraud' (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A Charter customer has sued the cable company, alleging that it falsely advertises a lower price than it actually charges and falsely tells customers that extra fees tacked onto their bills are mandated by the government. The complaint, filed in California State Superior court in San Diego, takes aim at the "Broadcast TV" and "Sports Programming" surcharges that are added to customers' bills despite not being included in the advertised rate. "Charter is committing massive billing fraud by disguising price increases above the advertised and promised service package price in the form of the bogus 'Broadcast TV and Sports Programming Surcharges' line item on customer bills," said the lawsuit filed last week by Michael Song. The plaintiff is a subscriber in California, where Charter, the second largest cable company in the US after Comcast, operates via its newly acquired Time Warner Cable (TWC) subsidiary. Song is paying an extra $8.75 a month from those two fees combined. In addition to subtracting the fees from the advertised price, Charter falsely tells customers that it collects the fees to comply with government mandates, the lawsuit says. A Charter/TWC bill from last month is included in the complaint, and it says, "TWC imposes surcharges to recover costs of complying with its governmental obligations." Song's complaint also has a transcript of a chat with a Charter customer service agent, who claimed that Charter pays the broadcast fee back to the government. The customer service agent apparently has only a limited grasp of English, but the chat transcript helps illustrate one of the ways in which customers are being misinformed about their bills. Song's lawsuit repeatedly refers to the Broadcast TV and Sports Programming surcharges as "bogus" and "hidden," since they subtract a portion of the standard monthly charges from the "services" section of the bill.
Cancel service. That's what I did years ago. I don't watch TV. I only watch what I am interested in. No more "shove that crap down their thoughts and they'll pay LOTS for it" programming.
Professional sports has gone from some reasonable charge to "holy cow you want HOW MUCH to watch?" Turn them off too.
Internet gets too expensive? Investigate alternatives such as Zip, ViVent, and other terrestrial microwave ISPs.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I'm sure in 5 years time they'll come to an out-of-court settlement with no admission of liability with the FCC to pay back 10% of the money made with this scheme, pocketing the rest as profit. And if you're lucky, you'll get a $10 voucher off your next cable bill as settlement for the class action. Fucking love the way business works in America, right?
I hope the Charter customer sues the pants off them and wins. I have complained to TWC about the broadcast and sports fees and deceptive pricing for several months.
Cell phone companies do the same thing but they call them "administrative fees". They are not required by the govt, and not an optional fee from the provider, so they should be included in the advertised base price or not charged at all.
Song is not asking for his money back. Why? Because cable companies (and others) normally insert an aribitration clause into their agreements to cover such situations, which would require Song to submit his dispute to arbitration (which would cost much more than the amount that could be recovered). Instead, Song is asking for injunctive relief - basically asking that Charter not charge him in the future. Why would he do so? Let's read a bit more of the agreement:
"Only claims for money damages may be submitted to arbitration; claims for INJUNCTIVE ORDERS or similar relief MUST be brought in a COURT ..."
Charter basically demands that Song hale it into court. Nice job, Charter lawyers.