Two CenturyLink customers who’ve had enough of the company’s billing and customer service practices have responded with a consumer class action lawsuit.
Plaintiffs Craig McLeod of Alabama and Steven McCauley of Kansas claim that CenturyLink has been committing a slew of business violations against millions of its customers.
According to these two plaintiffs, CenturyLink’s offenses include billing for services never purchased, imposing improper fees, billing at higher rates than those agreed to, continuing to bill after cancellation of service, charging customers for keeping rental modems after the customers had returned them, and referring those customers to collections when they refused to pay for the returned modems.
By the plaintiffs’ estimate, the allegations in this CenturyLink class action lawsuit could entitle Class Members to as much as $12 billion in damages.
McCauley says that when he heard about a $24.99 CenturyLink plan from a friend in another state, he called CenturyLink to inquire about switching to that plan. He says he was told that plan was not available in his area, but another plan was available that would offer him 10 mbps service for $27.99.
McCauley agreed to switch to the $27.99 plan. But when his next bill came, he discovered he was being billed the full $80 non-contract price of his original plan.
On calling to complain to CenturyLink, McCauley was told the $27.99 plan did not exist and never had. The CenturyLink rep told him the only available alternative was a contract plan for $43 per month. When McCauley told the rep he wanted to switch internet providers, he was told he’d have to pay a $200 contract termination fee.
McLeod says that in April 2017, he accepted an upgrade offer from CenturyLink that should have increased the speed of his internet service from 10 to 25 mbps for only $2 more per month.
He was told he’d only need to restart his modem to get the new service, but after he did so, his service shut off completely. Two visits from CenturyLink technicians resulted in two replacement modems he was allegedly told he wouldn’t need.
When his next bill came, McLeod found he was being charged far more than the $2 he was told he would pay for faster service. The bill also showed a $35 “wiring” charge, ostensibly to cover the cost of the technicians installing modems he was previously told he would not need.
McLeod reports that when he found incorrect charges on his bill and pointed them out to the company, a CenturyLink representative told him it was his own fault that he had not discovered the charges earlier.
Other CenturyLink customers apparently got the same line of victim-blaming. This CenturyLink class action lawsuit shows a screenshot of an instant message conversation between a CenturyLink rep named Chay and a customer named Nichole, in which Chay tells Nichole:
“Nichole, I understand your frustration, but at the same time it’s also the customer’s responsibility to look at their bill. That’s why you are sent one.”
McLeod and McCauley report that thousands of other consumer complaints about CenturyLink billing have been lodged on the consumer interest website Consumer Affairs.
The plaintiffs say that to submit copies of all these complaints with their CenturyLink class action lawsuit would exceed the capacity of the court’s electronic filing system, so they include a few excerpts of these reviews in their complaint.
One reviewer reports being billed over $300 for mostly phone services after specifically purchasing only internet service for $60 per month. Another reports her monthly bill, which she was led to expect would be around $94, has consistently clocked in at over $160.
McLeod and McCauley launched this action only days after Oregon plaintiff Heather Gonisor filed her own claims on behalf of thousands of Oregon CenturyLink customers who she says were grossly overbilled with fees that the company failed to properly disclose.
The company is also in the crosshairs of a whistleblower lawsuit filed in Arizona by a former employee who says she was fired after bringing evidence of unlawful billing practices to the attention of her supervisors.
The plaintiffs are proposing to represent a plaintiff Class of persons who had experiences with CenturyLink similar to their own.
They seek an award of actual, statutory, punitive, consequential and incidental damages for themselves and for potential Class Members. They are also asking the court to award reimbursement of court costs and attorney’s fees, plus pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts awarded.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Mark J. Geragos, Ben J. Meiselas, Zack V. Muljat and Eric Hahn of Geragos & Geragos APC.
The CenturyLink Unlawful Overbilling Class Action Lawsuit is Craig McLeod and Steven McCauley v. CenturyLink Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-04504, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE ©2008 – 2020 Top Class Actions® LLC Various Trademarks held by their respective owners This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
©2008 – 2020 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.