AT&T Class Action Alleges Bait-and-Switch Pricing Scheme

A class action lawsuit says that AT&T charges customers an “administrative fee” on post-payment wireless plans, and does not notify customers of the fee in an attempt to boost their profits.

Plaintiffs Ian Vianu and Irina Bukchin claim that when they signed up for an AT&T wireless plan, they were not notified that they would be charged an administrative fee.

However, they say that they were charged the fee and the price raised gradually over the course of their contract.

Vianu notes that he did not notice that the fee was being charged at first, because it increased so slowly. Allegedly, after a number of months, he noticed that his rate had risen by around $15.

Allegedly, both Vianu and Bukchin say that after their initial contract with AT&T, they then signed new contracts with the company when they purchased new phones, and in Bukchin’s case, allegedly added a new line to her phone plan.

The plaintiffs claim they were not told that they would be charged an administrative fee when they resigned their contract, as they were not told when they signed their initial contract.

The AT&T administrative fee class action lawsuit asserts that the fee was charged unjustly, because administrative fees should have been included in the price of the wireless plan as advertised by AT&T.

Furthermore, the AT&T class action lawsuit says at the wireless company does not advertise the fees to its customers. Allegedly, this fee is not disclosed in the contract, and is hidden in the company website.

AT&T reportedly raised this fee without notifying customers that it exists or notifying customers that it is being raised. The customers assert that this rate hike happens gradually so customers do not notice it is being raised, and is effectively a way for AT&T to increase their monthly charge to customers without having to advertise a higher rate.

Vianu and Bukchin say that AT&T intentionally misleads customers about the fee in an effort to make their services seem like a better deal than they are.

To emphasize their assertion that the company charges this fee without customers’ knowledge or consent, the customers note that this fee is only charged to customers who are on post-payment plans, not prepayment plans.

The customers argue that AT&T charges this fee to post-payment and not prepayment customers because post payment customers are less able to cancel their plans if they do not want to incur the fee. Allegedly, post-payment customers would be charged a large fee for the service they already used and would face penalties for breaking a contract.

Vianu and Bukchin are represented by Michael W. Sobol, Roger N. Heller, Sarah R. London, and Avery S. Halfon of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; and by Daniel M. Hattis and Paul Karl Lukacs of Hattis & Lukacs.

The AT&T Wireless Plan Administrative Fees Class Action Lawsuit is Ian Vianu, et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-03602, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Hot Rod Class Action Says Magazine Sells Subscriber Info

Bone Cement Flaws May Lead to Knee Replacement Failure

Fairlife Milk Class Action Alleges ‘Horrendous’ Cow Abuse

Neocate Infant Formula Side Effects May Include Broken Bones