Charter Cable TV Class Action Alleges “Bait and Switch” Tactics

Charter customers have filed a class action lawsuit saying that the communications company misled its customers about the costs of its Spectrum cable television services.

The Charter class action lawsuit was filed by Randall Byrne, David Kleuskens, Jerry Henry, Jason Weber, and Susan Foster-Harper. These customers say that they are from Ohio and Kentucky, and all have Spectrum TV subscription with Charter. 

Allegedly, the company deceptively increases the monthly rate, charges undisclosed fees, reduces the number of channels included in its packages, and makes it hard for customers to cancel their service subscriptions. The plaintiffs say that they were all offered a lower monthly rate that was then raised, contrary to what the company advertised.

The customers all present similar stories of how the company implanted a “bait and switch” scheme that led to them paying more than was advertised when they decided to purchase subscription.

In Henry’s case, he states that in May 2019, Charter promised him a flat promotional price of $150 per month for a cable package that included Spectrum TV Select. He says that the company promised him that the would be charged this rate for at leas ta year, but only five months later, increased fees. Henry says that by October 2019, the company had raised his monthly rate by increasing the Broadcast TV Surcharge by $1.51.

Then, in December 2019, the company alleged advertised a Spectrum TV “Seasonal Plan” that would allow him to pay less money per month to maintain service at his Ohio home while spending winter in Florida. The Charter bait and switch class action lawsuit asserts that, though the company advertised that he would be charged $9.99 per month for the plan, he was charged $23.40 per month after the company added an undisclosed $13.50 month “Seasonal Broadcast TV Surcharge” to his bill.

The Charter cable TV hidden fees class action lawsuit argues that Henry’s case is far from unique. Allegedly, the company makes a regular practice of advertising low rates but effectively charging customers much more by piling on undisclosed service fees.

The customers in the Charter cable class action lawsuit state that when customers have complained about this surcharge, they have been told a number of different, conflicting stories about the surcharge. They site one customer who says that the first time he called to ask about the Broadcast TV surcharge, Charter told him that it is a “tax” that Charter has no control over.

The second time he called, he says the was given a different explanation. Allegedly, he was told that Charter imposes the surcharge because the local government charged a fee to Charter to show some channels. The Charter representative allegedly told the customer that the surcharge was Charter’s way of passing off this government fee to consumers.

However, the customers in the Charter cable class action lawsuit assert that this is not the case. They say that the surcharge is really just part of what Charter charges, but is concealed so that the company can make the monthly rate appear lower.

According to the customers, the company misrepresents this fee in various ways throughout its advertisements and actively instructs its staff members to lie about the nature of the surcharge to customers.

The customers then go on to take issue with the discounts offered by Charter, saying that they are not real discounts. Allegedly, Charter advertises discounts by offering a certain percentage off of the monthly rate, but effectively makes this discount meaningless, because they strategically raise the base monthly rate, which also raises the discounted rate. This is done because then the discounted rate is still the advertised percentage of the full rate, but is higher than the dollar amount initially advertised.

The customers say that, when they complain about this fake discount, the company claims that the discounts have remained the same though the rates have risen.

Finally, the customers say that they purchased the Charter cable TV services specifically because they believed that the services would include certain channels. However, the company allegedly makes a practice of removing channels from the package, and then telling customers that they must pay extra for channels that were once included in their cable packages.

Have you ever encountered hidden fees in your cable or internet services? Share your experiences in the comments below.

The customers are represented by Hugh W. Cuthbertson and Steve Rickman of Zangari Cohn Cuthbertson Duhl & Grello PC, Michael W. Sobol and Daniel E. Seltz of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, and by Daniel M. Hattis of Hattis & Lukacs.

The Charter Cable TV Bait-And-Switch Class Action Lawsuit is Randall Byrne, et al. v. Charter Communications Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00712, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Class Action Survives Dismissal

What Are the Harmful Ingredients in Juul Pods?

Mon Cuisine Class Action Says Calories Are Mislabeled

Can You Return a New Car Under Missouri Lemon Law?