A class action lawsuit has been filed this week to recoup what a law firm has called “improper data charges” for Verizon Wireless customers who discovered $1.99 fees on their phone bills for “data charges” many customers claim they never used.

Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., a law firm with offices in Cleveland, OH and Conshohocken, PA, filed the suit against the wireless giant in federal court in New Jersey.

The lawsuit alleges non-smartphone customers frequently incurred “data fees” on their monthly Verizon Wireless bills.

Karon

Stop the Cap! reported on this in 2009, and believes most of the charges appeared after consumers accidentally triggered their phone’s built-in mobile web browser.  Although Verizon Wireless claims it does not charge for accidental access, customers report otherwise.  Many have fought to have data access blocked to prevent future charges.  The fees potentially impacted any account that does not have a monthly data plan.  Verizon Wireless offers a pay-per-access plan starting at $1.99 for non-data customers.

The lawsuit seeks to reimburse customers should the charges be deemed improper.

The law firm is looking for those charged for data services that believe they were billed incorrectly.  Customers can e-mail the firm at [email protected] or call attorney Daniel Karon at (216) 622-1851.

Cable ONE intentionally eavesdropped on what its customers did online in order to profit from targeted advertising.  That is the allegation contained within a class action lawsuit filed Wednesday in the Alabama Northern District Court.

The suit alleges the cable operator installed network monitoring software from NebuAd, an advertising provider, which monitored and profiled customers for the purpose of delivering customized, targeted advertising.

Cable ONE is named as defendant in the suit because the company did not inform customers that such profiling was taking place, and never gave customers an opportunity to opt out, according to the complaint.  NebuAd itself has not being named in the suit.

Customer Samuel Green claims NebuAd paid the cable company a “price per customer, per month” and placed tracking cookies on his computer to follow his online activities.  He accused the company of violating his privacy.  The lawsuit establishes a class action case opening the door for a settlement with every customer, potentially nationwide.

The suit asks for damages of $100 per day for the period Cable ONE utilized the tracking services of NebuAd.  It also demands the company destroy all of the data the suit alleges was wrongfully obtained.

The case is being handled by Florence attorney Joey K. James.

Comcast has agreed to settle a $16 million dollar class action lawsuit filed on behalf of broadband customers who experienced slowed speeds while using peer to peer applications.  The original lawsuit, Hart v. Comcast, accused the company of advertising broadband speeds that were unavailable to customers when using certain applications the company allegedly impaired from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008.  As part of the proposed settlement, Comcast denies any wrongdoing but has agreed to modify its “network management” policies and feels further litigation over the matter would not be in the company’s best interests.

Customers are eligible for a settlement up to $16:

If you live in the United States or its Territories, have a current or former Comcast High-Speed Internet account, and either used or attempted to use Comcast service to use:

• The Ares, BitTorrent, eDonkey, FastTrack or Gnutella P2P protocols at any time from April 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008; and/or
• Lotus Notes to send e-mail any time from March 26, 2007 to October 3, 2007.

Starting January 5, 2010 affected customers can file a claim online or by mail for their share of the settlement.  Additional information is available on the settlement website P2PCongestionSettlement.com.

BitTorrent's peer to peer protocol was impacted by Comcast's speed throttle

The Comcast throttling incident helped make the case for Net Neutrality proponents that broadband providers would, in certain instances, be willing to impede traffic it deemed undesirable or burdensome.  Peer to peer traffic has been blamed by several providers for creating congestion problems on their broadband networks, particularly those that share a limited amount of bandwidth among hundreds of customers.  Unlike typical file transfers, which originate in one location and deliver content to consumers, peer-to-peer relies on groups of people sharing individual pieces of files with one another until everyone obtains the complete file.  Because many peer to peer networks consider it good etiquette to share as much as one receives, upstream bandwidth is consumed at a much higher than average rate.

For consumers who leave file sharing applications running 24/7, the amount of traffic can build to considerable levels.  Many providers consider such traffic a nuisance that clogs their networks, and some have sought to artificially reduce the speed of such traffic.