AT&T Class Action Says False Debt Collection Targets Thousands

A California woman claims AT&T’s false debt collection practices have damaged her credit and left her feeling “deceived, anxious, and harassed.”

Plaintiff Susan Whiting claims defendant AT&T Corporation has been unlawfully trying to collect a debt from her that doesn’t actually exist.

On behalf of herself and a proposed plaintiff Class, Whiting’s AT&T false debt class action lawsuit is seeking statutory damages under California and federal consumer protection laws.

Whiting says that starting in September 2016, AT&T began erroneously billing her for equipment and services she never ordered and never received.

The company apparently charged her for renting its modem and other internet equipment, when in fact Whiting had been using her own equipment. The plaintiff says she never even requested the equipment for which she was being billed.

Whiting says AT&T sent her letters in an attempt to collect the debt, letters that she says were full of misrepresentations. She claims these letters misstated the nature and legal status of the debt, the services rendered in the attempt to collect it, and the amount owed, among other things.

In her AT&T class action lawsuit, Whiting claims AT&T acted in violation of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The RFDCPA provides consumers with several broad protections against abusive debt collection practices, in part by incorporating references to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Generally, these consumer protection laws forbid debt collectors from using false or deceptive representations or deceptive means in the course of attempting to collect a debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

Collectors are also prohibited from collecting an amount that is prohibited by law or that is not expressly authorized by the agreement that created the debt.

The act makes it unlawful for a collector to falsely represent the nature or legal status of the debt, or to falsely represent any compensation the collector may lawfully demand for their services provided in the course of collecting the debt.

The RFDCPA’s protections extend to alleged debtors as well as actual debtors – so a person who is the subject of false debt collection attempts can also use the act to protect themselves.

According to Whiting, both state and federal laws provide for $1,000 in statutory damages for each person affected by the alleged AT&T false debt collection practices.

Whiting proposes to represent a plaintiff Class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who were subject to AT&T false debt collection efforts via mail for equipment charges that the purported Class Member had no knowledge of. She expects Class Members will number in the thousands.

She seeks an award of damages that would include $1,000 in statutory damages for herself and for each Class Member. She also seeks reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation, plus any other relief the court deems appropriate.

Whiting is represented by attorneys Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC.

The AT&T False Debt Collection Class Action Lawsuit is Susan Whiting v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 2:17-at-00076, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.