Charter Communications is facing a second lawsuit related to false advertising about its ability to provide fast internet service and allegations the company knowingly supplied customers with deficient equipment.

Hart et al. v. Charter Communications Inc., is seeking certification as a nationwide class action from a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit claims that Charter’s subsidiary Time Warner Cable purposely leased out modems and wireless routers it knew were incapable of achieving Time Warner Cable Maxx broadband speeds, consistently oversold its broadband network — resulting in slower internet speeds and performance than the company advertised, and raised customers’ bills without adequate notice.

The California lawsuit closely mirrors one filed in February by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and focuses on similar claims that Charter is engaged in “false representations and other wrongful business practices.”

The complaint claims:

• The company willfully and intentionally advertised internet service it could not provide, claiming customers would receive internet service that was “fast” with “no buffering,” “no slowdowns,” “no lag,” “without interruptions,” “without downtime,” and “without the wait.”
• Charter leased older generation modems and wireless routers to many of their customers that were incapable of supporting the promised internet speeds. Older technology modems could not provide the full benefit of Time Warner Cable Maxx speeds of 100-300Mbps, and company-provided network gateways delivered Wi-Fi service at speeds considerably lower than advertised.
• Charter regularly failed to manage their network in a manner that would give customers consistent broadband speeds. Instead, “Defendants included too many subscribers in the same service group and provided too few channels for such subscriber, thus causing an internet ‘traffic jam’ (particularly during peak hours) that slowed every subscriber’s connection to speeds substantially below what was promised and paid-for. Indeed, even when consumers resorted to using wired connections, their Internet speeds still fell short of the promised speeds.”
• Defendants also have adopted an unlawful and unfair practice of adding new fees or other charges to consumers’ bills without adequate notice and outside of the terms promised upon sign-up. In 2016, one customer signed up for a promotional “Spectrum Internet with Wi-Fi” plan with a fixed rate of $64.99 and a $10.00 “Promotional Discount,” making her plan cost a total of $54.99 per month. This amount was reflected in her February 2017 bill. However, on her March 2017 bill, the customer was automatically charged $59.99, a $5.00 increase of which she was not given adequate notice and which was improperly charged to her credit card automatically.

The lawyers bringing the case propose to include as class members anyone who purchased internet service from Time Warner Cable/Charter Communications nationwide, those who believed the company’s advertising that claimed speeds were fast and reliable, and customers enrolled in auto-pay who were not properly informed of changes in price or the terms of service. If certified, the potential size of the class action case could involve millions of customers.

Charter Communications/Spectrum customers (including former Bright House and Time Warner Cable customers) need to take a moment to protect their right to collect damages from future class action cases likely to be filed over the company’s alleged failure to deliver advertised broadband speeds and in the case of Time Warner Cable, the alleged provision of obsolete cable modems for which the cable operator charged customers $10/month.

Charter customers are finding this fine print notice on their cable bills designed to strip away their right to collect potentially substantial settlements that could eventually exceed $100 because of inadequate service:

The terms and conditions applicable to your services contain a binding arbitration provision, which includes a waiver of class actions and provisions for opting out of arbitration and affects your rights with respect to all services.

Customers can protect their rights by sending this short letter to Charter’s general counsel within the next 30 days, which will opt you out of company-friendly mandated arbitration and allow you to participate in future class action cases and settlements. The letter will have no impact on your service or any promotional offers you receive.

March 17, 2017

VP and Associate General Counsel, Litigation
Charter Communications
12405 Powerscourt Dr.
St. Louis, MO 63131

Re: Arbitration Opt-Out

To Whom It May Concern,

As per your subscriber notice, this letter serves as my notice to you that I wish to opt out of Charter Communication’s arbitration provisions and do not want to be bound by that condition. I do not wish to resolve disputes with Charter through arbitration.

I would appreciate receiving confirmation you have received this letter and have accepted this notification.

Subscriber Name (as shown on bill): 
Subscriber Address:
City/St/Zip Code:
My Account Number (as shown on bill): 

Yours very truly,

//Signature
Printed Name

Dorothy Ayer said she was quoted a price of $69 a month for a package including landline phone and broadband service from Frontier Communications, but when she received her first bill, she claims she was charged $426.55.

Ayer filed a class action complaint against Frontier Communications Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court for the Central Division of California, claiming the phone company regularly engages in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices including false advertising.

Ayer claims Frontier promised her all installation charges, activation fees and other miscellaneous costs found on her first bill would be waived, but now that the bill is in her mailbox, the company wants to be paid in full.

The lawsuit asks the court to recognize the economic harm and injury done not only to Ms. Ayer, but to other similarly situated Frontier customers. The lawsuit claims Frontier Communications benefits from falsely advertising the prices of its services without properly informing customers of the many other charges the company levies on the first bill.

If Ayer is successful, Frontier will be forced to notify all affected customers and presumably refund or credit their accounts.

The case is being handled by attorneys Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Woodland Hills, Calif.

Frontier is the dominant phone company in West Virginia.

Ann Sheridan and Michael Sheridan are probably not related, but they share one thing in common: lousy DSL broadband.

Michael Sheridan, who lives in Lewisburg, W.V., is the lead plaintiff in a dragged-out class action lawsuit against Frontier Communications in the state, alleging the phone company has engaged in marketing flim-flam promising lightning fast DSL Internet speeds many customers complain they just do not receive. Ann Sheridan is a university lecturer in Ireland who doesn’t enjoy her DSL service as much as she endures it, when it works.

They live thousands of miles apart, but the problems are largely the same: for-profit phone companies trying to get as much revenue out of copper-based networks suitable for 20th century landlines while spending as little possible on broadband-friendly upgrades.

The phone company that dominates West Virginia has done all it can to have the lawsuit thrown out of court, claiming its terms and conditions mandate dissatisfied customers seek arbitration instead of a class action case. Frontier claims it inserted that condition into its terms and conditions a few years ago. Sheridan and his attorneys are now before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals defending the case.

Crete is an island and part of the territory of Greece.

Despite Frontier’s insistence it sells contract-free Internet with no tricks or traps, Sheridan argues Frontier traps customers with unilateral fine print.

“Cases from all over the country establish that a simple notation on a website cannot form an agreement to arbitrate, a line item at the tail end of a bill that does not even state the specifics of the agreement cannot form an agreement to arbitrate, and a bill stuffer purporting to unilaterally amend an existing contractual relationship does not form an agreement to arbitrate,” the respondent’s brief states.

Many West Virginians with Frontier DSL complain they never exceed 5Mbps in speed, even though they are buying plans that advertise double that.

“Frontier’s practice of overcharging and simultaneously failing to provide the high-speed, broadband level of service it advertises has created high profits for Frontier but left West Virginia Internet users in the digital dark age,” according to the brief.

County Kildare, Ireland

Life isn’t much better for those driving 30 minutes outside of Dublin, where broadband can be charitably described as “rustic.” In fact, Sheridan claims there is better broadband in the back-end of Crete than what the average resident in suburban and rural Ireland can manage to get out of questionable copper wiring.

In one notorious incident Sheridan described as “stereotypically Irish,” broadband service was brought to its knees for a good part of County Kildare for over a week earlier this year after a group of retaliatory cows upset over the Irish winter worked their way through a broken fence and collectively took out their frustration on a transformer they knocked over, taking out Internet access in the process.

Just having broadband service available doesn’t solve the digital divide if that service becomes oversold and unreliable. Both Sheridans argue broadband connections often deteriorate as more customers sign up. Without corresponding capacity upgrades to keep up with sales, speeds slow and service can become troublesome.

Broadband nemesis

Patrick Donnelly, a farmer and builder from Calverstown reports Internet speeds 20 years ago were faster than what he gets today from his DSL service.

“Currently, I think I’m on my fourth provider. There’s all these little start-ups and generally they’re not too bad when you sign up originally,” Donnelly reports from his farm in Ireland. ‘But as soon as an ISP signs up more customers, speeds seem to get slower and slower. During peak usage times, it can become unusable.’

In West Virginia, some customers believe if their Internet speeds are poor, they need to buy an upgraded, faster speed tier from Frontier to compensate. That is usually a waste of money if the existing network is either inadequate or overburdened with customer traffic. But many customers don’t realize this. Often, fine print in a company’s terms and conditions disclaims the very bold and prominent speed claims that most customers actually see. Sheridan argues Frontier’s fine print goes even further by limiting their customers’ recourse when advertising claims do not meet reality.

“Frontier’s position is that consumers are obliged to be on alert at all times – diligently reviewing the fine print on each and every page of promotional material received – for the possibility that they may be waiving their rights by doing nothing at all,” the brief states.

Sheridan admits her point she’d move to Crete to get better broadband would be funny if the implications were not so serious.

“Not having broadband is a bit like not having electricity or only having it intermittently,” Sheridan said.

“It’s not a luxury any more, this is a necessity,” Donnelly said in agreement. “We’re 20 years behind now it’s time we caught up.”

These old CRT monitors probably sitting in your garage or basement are still worth something after all.

If you purchased a boat-anchor-weight CRT monitor for your personal computer or a television set between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007, you may be owed a significant settlement from the $576 million dollar fund various manufacturers have set aside to pay class action damage claims.

The settlements, to be divided by consumers and businesses who overpaid for a TV or computer monitor as a result of alleged price-fixing, is likely to result in many households qualified to receive a check for $100 or more, even after the lawyers get their share. For now, only residents in certain states are qualified for settlement payments, but additional lawsuits are moving forward, so if your state isn’t qualified now, it might be later.

You have until December 7, 2015 to file your claim online or by mail for this settlement round. It takes only a few minutes to complete the form.

Individuals and businesses qualify for money from this settlement if they purchased a CRT or product containing a CRT, such as a TV or computer monitor, in the following states for their own use and not resale. You do not have to live in these states to qualify, if you purchased your television or monitor from a retailer (online/brick and mortar) with a presence in these states:

• Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin or the District of Columbia between March 1, 1995 and November 25, 2007
• Hawaii between June 25, 2002 and November 25, 2007
• Nebraska between July 20, 2002 and November 25, 2007
• Nevada between February 4, 1999 and November 25, 2007

The huge class action case has been in the works for years and alleges that defendants and co-conspirators conspired to raise and fix prices for CRT monitors (the ones you probably used before you bought your first flat panel LCD monitor). The alleged scam ran for more than a decade and several manufacturers have agreed to settle to make the case go away without admitting guilt.

The collective law firms involved in the case have asked for no more than one-third of the settlement, a reasonable amount in light of many other class action cases that leave consumers with nothing more than a low value coupon or “spare change” reimbursement checks. Because the alleged price-fixing lasted over a decade, many households will be able to claim settlement reimbursement for multiple televisions and computer monitors.

CPT, Philips, Panasonic, LG, Toshiba, Hitachi, Samsung SDI, and Thomson/TDA have agreed to settlements, and these manufacturers made the cathode ray tubes for several third-party brands. The largest manufacturer not a part of this lawsuit is Sony, and those monitors and televisions are excluded from this settlement.

Because these purchases occurred so long ago, you are not expected to have the receipt, the computer monitor, or television still in your possession. Any reasonable claim will be accepted without documentation. If your home or business is claiming what we estimate to be more than a combined five televisions and computer monitors, it will probably be audited and some form of reasonable documentation (picture, receipt, owner’s manual, credit card statement, etc.) will be required to prove your claim.

Here are the television and computer monitor brands involved in this round of settlements:

Chunghwa, LG, Philips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung, Thomson and TDA.

Updated 7:00pm EDT — This article was considerably rewritten shortly after publication because it initially addressed a different settlement affecting “direct purchasers” who bought monitors direct from manufacturers. The updated details seen above reflect a settlement involving “indirect purchasers,” defined as those who bought monitors from a third-party retailer, such as Best Buy, Amazon.com, your local computer store, etc. The “indirect purchasers” settlement will reach a larger number of consumers and businesses who read Stop the Cap!, so we updated the article. If you already filed a claim using the original link seen in the earlier article, you will need to re-file using the corrected links seen above. The worst that can happen is the settlement administrator will request a clarification. It will not affect your eligibility. We apologize for any confusion this caused.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Cathode Ray Tube CRT Indirect Purchaser Class Action.mp4[/flv]

Learn more about the CRT Settlement Fund and how you can collect a substantial settlement for your old computer monitor or television set. (37 seconds)