A California federal judge has rejected a class action case against Comcast for allegedly hiding modem fees as high as $15 a month when signing up new customers.

In 2010, Athanassios Diacakis made several calls to Comcast inquiring about cable service as a new customer. Diacakis claims several Comcast representatives offered a bundle of broadband, television and phone service for $99 a month. When he asked Comcast about any other charges, company representatives eventually admitted there was a $25 installation fee, but never mentioned any modem rental fees.

After Comcast installed service, Diacakis began receiving Comcast bills that included a previously undisclosed monthly modem fee of $10 and an extra “lease charge” of $5 a month associated with his broadband service.

Diacakis alleged in his complaint charging $15 a month for cable modem equipment was “outside and in excess of the specifically quoted bundled service” package he ordered.

As Below Your Means points out, renting a cable modem may be harmful to your wallet.

The plaintiff sought class certification to force Comcast to refund some or all the modem fees charged customers from 2007 to the present. His first effort failed in January 2012 on grounds of insufficient evidence. His amended complaint was rejected May 3 on similar grounds.

United States District Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Diacakis failed on two separate occasions to produce convincing proof Comcast was actively deceiving customers with undisclosed modem fees.

Judge Armstrong wrote that Diacakis should have come to court with evidence beyond the spoken promises of a handful of Comcast salespeople the plaintiff identified only by their first names. She was swayed by Comcast’s arguments:

As Comcast correctly points out, the only evidence offered by Plaintiff regarding Comcast’s alleged practices consists of his limited personal experience in speaking with “Heather,” “Steve” and another unidentified Comcast representative in August 2010. There is no evidence that Comcast has employed any policy, custom or practice of intentionally failing to inform potential Triple Play subscribers that they will be subject to separate modem fees. To the contrary, the record presented thus far shows that Comcast trains and instructs its employees to inform customers and potential customers about all applicable charges, including those for leased equipment.

[…] As noted, he has made no showing that the representations or omissions during those calls were made pursuant to a standardized script or marketing practice. Indeed, there is no evidence that anyone other than Plaintiff was allegedly misinformed about the modem fees.

Armstrong also faulted Diacakis for not independently locating, scrutinizing, and verifying Comcast’s print or television advertising before he filed a lawsuit seeking to represent every customer paying them:

Comcast argues that Plaintiff is not an adequate representative because there is no evidence that he or anyone else was misled by its marketing and advertisements for the Triple Play package. Plaintiff does not dispute that he lacks such evidence. In addition, Plaintiff admitted during his deposition that he did not review any advertisements before contacting Comcast in August 2010 about bundling his services. Since Plaintiff could not have been harmed by any allegedly misleading advertising, he cannot adequately represent a class member who claims to have been harmed by Comcast’s alleged marketing program.

The case involves late fees charged to Frontier FiOS video customers in the state of Oregon.

Frontier Communications FiOS video customers that paid late fees for service in the state of Oregon may be entitled to a partial refund after the telecom company settled a class action case.

The settlement, announced today will cover both current and former customers.

Some key points:

• Customers that are potentially included in this class action settlement will receive a separate notice in the next 60 to 90 days;
• The separate notice will include additional information and instructions regarding steps they can take if they are eligible for a refund;
• A claims administrator will be identified and responsible for providing notices to former and existing customers;
• Customers must wait until they receive a notice regarding the settlement from the claims administrator which outlines additional steps that must be taken.

The company was accused of unjustly charging and collecting late fees for video customers whose payments were processed late as the company assumed control of the FiOS service from Verizon Communications.

An internal memo sent to Frontier employees and obtained by Stop the Cap! suggests the company is expecting calls from customers inquiring about the settlement. Other than telling employees to express empathy, company officials have asked customer service representatives to avoid speculating about the case and referring customers to forthcoming communications from the settlement administrator within the next two to three months.

The lawsuit only covers Oregon residents.

Time Warner’s maze of explanations and excuses still don’t add up.

Instead of waiting for the outcome of a class action case against Time Warner Cable’s new $3.95 monthly modem fee, readers might do better taking their case direct to the company. Longtime Stop the Cap! reader “PreventCAPS” rattled the cages of Time Warner’s social media customer service representatives, which resulted in credits worth six months of modem rental fees.

Our reader tells us he brought pointed questions about the modem fee, complaints about the inconsistent reasons for imposing them, and irritation about the lack of notification.

Some Q&A:

Q. Why is Time Warner Cable now charging a modem fee? Earlier reports that the fee would cover the cost of equipment do not make sense because the company is not automatically supplying customers with new cable modems and already assesses $24-150 penalty fees to “cover costs” of damaged or unreturned cable modems. 

A. Time Warner Cable now says the fee is to cover the costs of increasing broadband speeds. A representative explained that the company wants to make sure everyone can be assured of getting the speeds advertised, and there are still customers with DOCSIS 1x equipment that can only support broadband speeds up to 9Mbps, which already conflicts with the company’s advertised 10Mbps Standard Service speed (soon to be 15Mbps).

Our Take: DOCSIS 1x equipment was recalled from western New York customers years ago. It was first introduced locally in 1998 and is long past its expiry date. It is a safe bet only a very tiny percentage of Time Warner customers still have first generation equipment. The overwhelming majority of current broadband customers have DOCSIS 2 modems, many installed years earlier. Those customers will keep that equipment for years to come unless they choose to upgrade to 30/5Mbps speeds or higher because a DOCSIS 3 modem is required for faster speeds. Our reader pointedly asked if the new modem fee guarantees every customer will receive the newest equipment and increased service. The answer in response was “no.”

These phony explanations and justifications tapdance around the reality this modem fee is being introduced as a revenue enhancer — nothing more, nothing less.

Customers are not buying this!

Q. Why is the list of supported DOCSIS 3.0 modems so thin and limited?

A. The representative speculated the reason Time Warner Cable so heavily favored Motorola equipment came from contractual support agreements and guarantee obligations with that company. But the representative claimed Time Warner Cable “will activate and support any modem model they currently lease to customers.”

Our Take: This claim represents a new development, but one unlikely to prove consistent across the country. Time Warner Cable’s national call centers have employees currently trained to activate and support only those modems on the approved list. However, local technical support and “Tier 3” agents inside of local offices seem to have a more flexible attitude about accepting other equipment. This is a classic case of “your results may vary.”

Q. Why are there modem fees for Internet service but no modem fee if I use the exact same equipment for my Time Warner Cable phone service.

A. The representative claimed it has to do with Federal Communications Commission rules governing phone equipment.

Our Take: We are not certain what rules would apply in this case, but it is possible the company’s lawyers found some “exposure” if Time Warner began charging the fee for phone service equipment. Again, we suspect the fee applies to broadband primarily because it is the service customers are least-likely to cancel over a price hike. Phone service is more tenuous. Increase the price and disconnect requests are likely to rise.

Q. Why are these fees being instituted to “cover costs” when records show capital expenses for Internet service (and cable modem equipment) have dropped for the past three years in a row?

A. The representative claimed that capital costs don’t cover cable modems.

Our Take: That answer is completely inaccurate. Nice try. Stop the Cap! earlier reported that capital expenditures for customer premise equipment dropped for the last three years in a row. For the benefit of readers (and Time Warner Cable), here is the company’s own definition of that equipment¹:

“Such equipment includes digital (including high-definition) set-top boxes, remote controls, high-speed data modems (including wireless), telephone modems and the costs of installing such new equipment.”

 ¹- Time Warner Cable 2011 Annual Report, “TWC’s capital expenditures,” p.60

A surprise announcement from the U.S. Supreme Court that it will hear an appeal brought by Comcast Corporation in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Philadelphia consumers, despite a pending settlement, may mean the Supreme Court is on the verge of issuing another business-friendly ruling that will make class action cases more difficult to file.

Comcast had reached a tentative settlement in June with lawyers who brought a $875 million class-action lawsuit on behalf of Philadelphia area cable subscribers. The antitrust case, originally filed in 2003, accused Comcast of strategically swapping or acquiring cable systems owned by Marcus Cable, Greater Philadelphia Cablevision, Inc., Lenfest Communications, Inc., AT&T, Adelphia Communications Corp., Time Warner, and Patriot Media in and around Philadelphia for the purpose of creating a super-sized Comcast cable system that could deter competitors from entering the market and allow Comcast to charge higher prices for service.

RCN Telecom Services originally intended to compete for cable customers in the Philadelphia region, but found it could not break into the market because Comcast allegedly hired as many available technicians it could find and tied them down with exclusive contracts. RCN also claimed Comcast targeted potential customers with special, allegedly below-cost deals to retain their business. RCN later filed for bankruptcy.

“Stated bluntly, Comcast and other large cable operators have demonstrated both the inclination and the wherewithal to use their market power to crush broadband competition in their local markets whenever it has the audacity to appear,” RCN alleged.

In 2002, RCN went public with a series of allegations:

Comcast intimidates independent construction and installation contractors. Comcast prevented or tried to prevent about 15 Philadelphia-area contractors from doing business with RCN through “non-compete” clauses, RCN alleged. The company provided specific names of contractors and Comcast personnel in sealed documents.

Those practices dated at least to the late 1990s, when Comcast acquired Suburban Cable, RCN said. Both Suburban and Comcast went “to extraordinary lengths to document ‘violations’ and intimidate contractors who were thought to be in contact with, or working for, RCN,” RCN said.

RCN cited instances of Suburban Cable employees, many of whom later worked for Comcast, allegedly following contractors in their trucks and taking photographs to document contractors seen at an RCN office or work site. These photographs then became “evidence,” RCN said, to support contractors’ termination.

As for predatory pricing, RCN claimed that before its entry into Folcroft in 2000, Comcast allegedly established a sales “swat team” instructed to sign up customers for 18-month contracts in exchange for cheaper cable services.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys want subscribers to receive refunds representing the savings they would have enjoyed had a competitor successfully forced prices down.

Comcast and the plaintiffs’ counsel reached a tentative settlement in June after both sides learned the lawsuit would proceed to trial this September. But in a surprise announcement, the U.S. Supreme Court suddenly decided to step in and hear an appeal filed by Comcast. Comcast immediately declared the settlement incomplete and has now declined to proceed with it, believing it has a more favorable outcome waiting at the Supreme Court.

Kenneth A. Jacobson, a professor at Temple University’s law school, told the Philadelphia Inquirer the Supreme Court does not typically decide to hear a case “during the settlement negotiation and approval process.”

Other Supreme Court watchers suspect the Court’s sudden involvement in the case means it is likely to issue a precedent-setting decision, more likely than not in Comcast’s favor, that will be talked about in law journals for the next decade.

Comcast Center in downtown Philadelphia

The specific point of Comcast’s appeal that interests the Supreme Court has to do with how a class action case certifies damages to the court hearing the case. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case based on, “whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.

Currently, courts insist that the burden of proof for damages lies with the plaintiff, but they are not necessarily required to demonstrate the actual individual damages suffered by each member of a proposed class action. Many judges accept the concept of fixed group damages based on a composite of an average proposed class member. That amount gets multiplied by the number of members in the certified class action to arrive at the total requested damages. Typically, both sides negotiate a final settlement, deduct attorney fees and costs, and then class members typically get a change in a company’s policies, coupons good for a future purchase or an actual refund in the mail.

The Supreme Court may find that concept inadequate, and insist on a detailed analysis of actual harm done to each proposed class member — a high and potentially expensive hurdle to cross for many class action cases. Legal analysts suggest the intended effect of such a decision would be to further deter class action lawsuits against companies, because the costs and complexities involved would increasingly not be justified.

In the Comcast case, the cable company wanted the court to dismiss the case, and for some very novel reasons:

1. Since Comcast effectively kept competing “overbuilding” cable systems out of Philadelphia, there is no evidence of any theoretical competition benefits such as reduced prices;
2. Since no competitor actually got their service up and running in Philadelphia, Comcast argues there was no competition to eliminate;
3. RCN, in Comcast’s view, was never actually going to start service in Philadelphia because of their own financial woes;
4. Without actual competition in Philadelphia, there is no basis for any expert witness hired by the plaintiff to credibly estimate damages;
5. Even if Comcast was engaged in anti-competitive behavior in Delaware County, that cannot be used by plaintiffs to serve as evidence of class-wide impact for the entire multi-county Philadelphia Comcast cluster.

Over the past few years, the Court has ruled in favor of corporations trying to compel less-costly legal avenues — like mandatory arbitration — for consumers who feel harmed by a company’s actions.

If you were or remain a customer of Verizon Wireless under either their America’s Choice I or America’s Choice II plans (unavailable to new customers), a class action settlement benefit should be arriving in your mailbox this week.

In July 2005, a lawsuit was brought against Verizon Wireless alleging the company improperly assessed roaming charges on customers. Cowit et al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless was filed in Hamilton County, Ohio. In eventually became a nationwide class action case.

The two sides reached a settlement for all America’s Choice customers, one that considerably benefits the plaintiff’s lawyers. They will receive attorney’s fees, costs and incentive awards not to exceed $6 million dollars. The original complainant, Barry Koblenz, will receive a check in the mail from Verizon Wireless for the princely sum of $50. Koblenz can also apply for an “incentive award” not to exceed $10,000. Other Class Representatives can apply for their own awards not to exceed $20,000 each.

What do customers get? Not much:

• Customers who did not submit a valid claim to participate in the action by the fall of 2011 will receive 25 additional calling minutes good on any Verizon Wireless plan when you exceed your current calling allowance. The minutes expire in one year.
• Customers who submitted a valid claim will receive a transferable long distance calling “card” worth up to 40 minutes of domestic long distance calling (or around 13 minutes of international calling) valid for 24 months.
• All affected customers enrolled in an unlimited calling plan will receive the long distance calling “card” as described above.