Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

ATT Corporation Signage Logo on Top of Glass Building.
(Photo Credit: askarim/Shutterstock)

Update:

  • An AT&T customer objected to a proposed $14 million class action settlement agreed to by the company to resolve claims it charged its customers an improper fee. 
  • The objector argues the class action settlement allows AT&T to continue charging what it calls administrative fees and does not address a “core issue” of the complaint. 
  • Objector Eric Hughes argues the class action settlement does not fix AT&T’s alleged lack of transparency about the fee, its location on the billing statement and the alleged deceptive nature of its description on the company’s website. 
  • Customers accused AT&T of misleading them, and making hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, by telling them the administrative fees were legitimate surcharges. 

(June 17, 2020)

A judge has rejected AT&T’s attempt to dismiss a class action lawsuit challenging the company’s so-called bait-and-switch pricing scheme.

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler stated that despite the company’s protestations, Ian Vianu and Irrina Bukchin could sue the company while still being current AT&T customers.

The customers claim AT&T had wrongly tacked an administrative fee onto the advertised rate, yet AT&T responded that the customers could not complain because as customers, they are aware of the fee and are locked into a contract.

However, the judge determined this should not prevent them from taking legal action.

AT&T made its move to have the claims dismissed in March of this year. The judge did decide to dismiss some of the customers’ claims, but not the entire bait-and-switch pricing class action lawsuit.

“It seems a funny position to require plaintiffs to break their contract to challenge unfair practices about fees for their services,” Judge Beeler said. “The contracts are long-tern contracts, and breaking them comes with a penalty.”

According to the judge, they could still renew their plans with AT&T and make claims for injunctive relief. 

Additionally, Judge Beeler said the company’s choice to charge the fee in question as a pass-through fee instead of a monthly cost then rendered its contract moot. That contract was allegedly the one preventing customers from suing over bills charged more than 100 days previously.

The company argued the customers were additionally barred from suing because they had not honored the 100-day period in which they were not allowed to bring forward legal claims.

However, Judge Beeler felt differently, saying customers had sufficiently argued that the company misrepresented an administrative fee as a pass-through cost. 

Man holding smartphone near laptopAllegedly, the 100-day limit could have been honored if the company had just charged a monthly fee that was disclosed.

AT&T attempted to say some claims should be barred based on the statute of limitations, an argument Judge Beeler largely rejected.

In the judge’s view, each new bill a customer incurred had its own limitations period, whereas AT&T had attempted to lump the bills together to claim they were beyond the statute of limitations. 

Judge Beeler did trim some claims from the AT&T bait-and-switch class action lawsuit. The judge did not allow customers to claim that the fee itself violated California law, and did not allow customers to make claims against the company before the 2018 identification of the fee in question. 

The customers filed their AT&T bait-and-switch class action lawsuit in June 2019. They had claimed the carrier advertised a monthly price, based on which the customers decided to sign up for service. However, this allegedly turned out to not be the only fee they were charged. 

According to the customers, AT&T then began charging an additional fee in 2013. The company allegedly called this a pass-through fee, but according to the customers, it was really an administrative fee from which the company profited. Allegedly, the fee rose from 61 cents to $1.99 per month over the course of five years. 

The customers say the company advertised one lower price to entice customers to sign up for service with the company, but then required customers to pay more than what was advertised by tacking on fees on top of the base rate. Customers asserted that this scheme yielded “hundreds of millions of dollars” of profit for the company.

The AT&T customers then went on to say it was no accident the fee was hard to spot — the company supposedly intentionally hid the fee from view in online billing, to avoid customers from identifying the full cost of their service. Allegedly, many customers would not have chosen AT&T’s service had they been aware of the full cost.

Have you ever been affected by what you believed to be a bait-and-switch pricing scheme? Share your experiences in the comments below.

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 Bait and Switch Pricing 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.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.


 

 

803 thoughts onAT&T settlement over hidden fees faces objection by consumer

  1. Deniece Chin says:

    Please add/include my name. AT&T customer for decades.

  2. Linda f Newcom says:

    I’m an AT&T retiree and I have a set rate of a home phone. And landline for $21 a month every month. It has been a $142 $50 $93. So forth and so on, they hit me with $9.95 lte fees every month. And when I pay my bill in full. The next month is still not right and is from a fee of a processing. Or they said i’d checked it and go through. And I paid the check plus the insufficient fun check which is $30. My next bill should have been $21. They’re telling me that I owe the $30 again. I could go on and on if this has been going on for over a year.

    1. Monica says:

      Please add ne

  3. Elizabeth says:

    I believe they have many hidden fees and people can’t get to them to argue. Suppose to get first responders but can’t find discount

  4. Elizabeth says:

    I believe they have many hidden fees and people can’t get to them to argue. Suppose to get first responders but only see a $10 credit from AARP

  5. Elizabeth says:

    I believe they have many hidden fees and people can’t get to them to argue. Suppose to get first responders but only see a $10 credit from AARP. They never mentioned senior discount unless AARP is your discount. Why don’t they just put it as a “Senior Discount “

  6. Diane Gonzalez says:

    I too am a victim of these unfair deceptive charges. As a senior with a fixed income, never received a break from AT&T, as a 20 year customer. Please add me

  7. TERRY says:

    TOTAL ROBBERY of our monies for all the extra added fees! Ugh!!!

  8. Karina says:

    Necesito ayuda por favor ya que At&t me esta cobrando cosas que no son y mala señal

1 73 74 75

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

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.