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 $8.75 a month from those two fees combined. In addition to subtracting the fees from the advertised price, Charter falsely tells customers that it collects the fees to comply with government mandates, the lawsuit says. A Charter/TWC bill from last month is included in the complaint, and it says, "TWC imposes surcharges to recover costs of complying with its governmental obligations." Song's complaint also has a transcript of a chat with a Charter customer service agent, who claimed that Charter pays the broadcast fee back to the government. The customer service agent apparently has only a limited grasp of English, but the chat transcript helps illustrate one of the ways in which customers are being misinformed about their bills. Song's lawsuit repeatedly refers to the Broadcast TV and Sports Programming surcharges as "bogus" and "hidden," since they subtract a portion of the standard monthly charges from the "services" section of the bill.
I was quoted 120$ for internet, and cable. Then I was billed $145, and every so often they try raising the rate. Its a scam, but there is no cable internet oversight! So while our internet is 50x as slow as other countries and 8x as expensive, we have no legal recourse to defend ourselves.
It is the ESPN tax. ESPN takes your money, and pays hundreds of millions in rights fees for sporting events. That is why the average NBA salary is $5.1 million a year. Oh, plus the taxpayers are on the hook for building the stadiums.
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 live in Lincoln, NE, a market that was served by TWC. One of the most frustrating fees is the surcharge for local TV stations. We used to get the Lincoln and Omaha TV stations, but slowly the Omaha stations have been dropped from the channel lineup or relegated to SD only. We have fewer local stations than a few years ago, but the fees for those have increased. The Omaha stations generally are of a higher quality than those from the Lincoln, which isn't surprising due to the Omaha market being larger. I'd rather watch the news from the Omaha stations than from the Lincoln stations. I'd understand if the local TV stations wanted higher rates and they necessitated price increases. However, it's not reasonable that the fees have gone up while stations have been dropped. Charter also promised to do away with surcharges when they acquired TWC, but I still see those on my bill.
Now go after my cell phone company. I've had a bullshit "Regulatory Compliance Fee" that wasn't disclosed in their adverts for years. By the time I knew it was there I was knee deep in the contract. What pisses me off the most is the number of people I know who think this crap is taxes and go to the polls demanding a tax break for these poor over taxed companies. Laughing all the way to the bank, they are...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I subscribe to SlingTV so I can watch college football. Orange package ($20 mo.), Blue package ($20 mo.), and Sports package ($5 mo.) totaling $45. I could probably get by with the Orange and Sports. Sports gets you ESPN{,2,3,U} and SEC Network. You can watch from a desktop or any tablet or phone. You can watch stations in the Blue package on three devices at the same time.
You can also watch games at ESPN Watch. When you sign in, SlingTV is in the dropdown box.
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.
I had Verizon trying to tell me that their quoted rate of $49.99 (after heavy haggling) was being increased to $60 because of fees and whatnot. All fine and good, but $5 of that was equipment fees. I had purchased my own FIOS router, and returned all set top boxes, so what were the fees? Well, Verizon informed me they were mandatory, and regardless of what the FCC said Verizon had their own policies.
2 months and 1 FCC complaint later, I got an apologetic letter from Verizon informing me that I was correct and they would lower their price.
As a child you assume that the laws we have in place means that the problem is solved. As an adult you find out that you have to be vigilant and not afraid to stand up for your rights, because people will take advantage either through greed, malice, or simple ignorance. I dont assume the Verizon reps knew the law, just what they were told by their supervisors, but if I had not taken the initiative on my own I would be paying an extra $60 a year for my ignorance.
All this to say-- glad this is being pressed, because the only way you get the phone reps to accord with the law is to put the fear of civil suits into the heart of their management.