AT&T is facing a class action lawsuit from customers who allege the wireless giant is profiting handsomely from the stolen smartphone trade.

The suit, filed in California, claims AT&T makes customers purchase new cell phones to replace stolen ones, while allowing the thieves to sell phones to buyers who can walk into any AT&T store and reactivate them with a new SIM card, helpfully supplied by AT&T.

In effect, the lawsuit argues, AT&T is earning new revenue from victims forced to purchase a new phone as well as from the buyers of stolen phones who reactivate as new paying AT&T customers.

A Salt Lake City television station couldn’t believe AT&T was looking the other way when dealing with the pervasive problem of cell phone theft, so they sent reporters undercover with a deactivated iPhone that was reported stolen, and found AT&T employees ready and willing to reactivate the dead phone.

“All you would have to do is pay for the plan, said the unnamed AT&T agent. “We’ll set up your account with your ID and then put the new SIM card in there and put money on it.”

Those victimized by smartphone theft found AT&T agents less helpful, as KTVX reports:

At a second store I tell an agent “I think my phone has been stolen.” Unlike the claims in the lawsuit, this agent at a second store tells me he can suspend the service, but there’s no way to shut the phone down.

The agent said, “If they tried to activate it, we don’t have a way to flag serial numbers on the phone unfortunately.”

So the thief has an activated phone and the victim is left buying a new one for several hundred bucks.

AT&T claims the suit is without merit.  The company also claims it is working with other cell phone providers and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), to establish a new database of stolen cell phones.  When a smartphone is reported stolen, the forthcoming policy would guarantee the phone could not be reactivated with any participating carrier.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/KTVX Salt Lake City Class action lawsuit claims ATT helps cell phones thieves for profit 4-30-12.mp4[/flv]

KTVX reporters go undercover and visit a few Salt Lake City AT&T stores to learn if the phone company is aiding and abetting smartphone thieves.  (2 minutes)

Verizon Communications has agreed to full restitution, as part of a class action settlement, for unauthorized third party charges on their customers’ phone bills.

Known in the industry as “cramming,” extra unauthorized fees pop up on phone bills for voicemail, dating lines, ringtones, or 800 numbers many customers have no idea they even had.  Almost all of the charges come from independent companies unaffiliated with Verizon.  But critics charge phone companies have been ignoring abusive cramming practices, in part because they share a percentage of money billed and collected from customers.

Deceptive cramming charges are often hard to spot on phone bills replete with cleverly-named-to-be-obscure surcharges, taxes and fees.  Many crammers deliberately keep descriptions about the services they are billing as vague as possible, sometimes appearing as “special services charge,” “voicemail access,” or even “monthly charge.”  Many ratepayers assume it is all just a part of the cost of having phone service.

A class action lawsuit against Verizon accused the company of doing little to stop unauthorized third party fees, and many customers afflicted by them report getting them off their bills is not as easy at it should be.

“When I had a mysterious $14.95 monthly fee for ‘voicemail,’ a service I knew I didn’t have, Verizon required me to fight with some Bermuda-based company to get the charges reversed, and they just kept repeating I must have authorized the service because it was on my bill,” reports Stop the Cap! reader Kevin Sessly. “They wear you down until you just pay the bill.”

Sessly eventually won refunds after contacting his state’s public utility regulator.

As part of the settlement, Verizon customers will be entitled to full refunds of all unauthorized third party charges from April 27, 2005 through Feb. 28, 2012.

“Some settlement class members may have a claim for hundreds or thousands of dollars in refunds under the settlement,” class counsel Bryan Kolton said.

Verizon has also agreed to adopt an “opt in” system where customers must first allow third party charges on their phone bills before a company can bill your account.  Currently, customers are subject to third party billing unless they specifically block it with their telephone company.

“It is difficult to overstate the credit that is due Verizon for its commitment to fixing the third-party billing system as it relates to Verizon customers,” said John Jacobs, one of the lead attorneys for the class. “By this settlement, Verizon has committed to extensive and unprecedented changes that we believe will go a long way toward eliminating cramming and will change the industry.”

Crammers have used a variety of tricks to bill phone customers for services they never ordered.  Completing sweepstakes or contest forms with a phone number is one common method, asking for a cell phone number as part of a “free ringtone offer” is another.  Many services also trick customers into signing up with free offers or discounts on other products or services.  Many customers forget to cancel before the trial ends, resulting in recurring charges.

Customers will be able to recover the full amount of the unauthorized charges, if they have copies of their past phone bills, or obtain a quick $40 flat-rate refund by submitting claims at www.verizonthirdpartybillingsettlement.com or calling toll-free 1-877-772-6219.  Both services should be up and running by March 9.

Non-Verizon customers can still take steps to protect themselves from unauthorized charges by calling their provider and requesting a block on all third-party charges.  This service is provided at no charge.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ABC News Phone Cramming How to Get Money From Verizon Settlement 3-5-12.mp4[/flv]

ABC News reports on the Verizon settlement and steps consumers can take to identify cramming and obtain refunds for unauthorized charges.  (2 minutes)

Angry Netflix investors upset that they did not receive advance warning the online and DVD rental movie service was facing the expiration of several important content contracts and would have to pay substantially more to renew them have launched a class action lawsuit against the company.

The City of Royal Oak Retirement System, which holds a substantial number of shares in the company, hired Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd LLP, who filed the suit in U.S. District Court Friday on behalf of the pension fund and similarly situated investors.

The suit claims Netflix management misled investors with plans to grow the business while the company was actually preparing to significantly increase prices to cope with the increased licensing costs to stream content.

Netflix management in July announced it was effectively separating its streaming and DVD-by-mail businesses by charging individual subscription rates for each, resulting in a 60 percent rate hike for some subscribers.  Then it suggested it would spinoff its DVD rental business to its own division, to be called Qwikster.  Neither plan impressed customers, and led many to downgrade or discontinue service.  It did nothing for Netflix’s stock price either.  The stock tumbled from a July price of $291.27 to $94.79 last week.

The suit charges:

“At the beginning of the class period, Netflix was facing increasing competition for streaming business, and content providers were exploring new ways to distribute their content and/or maximize their licensing fees. Rather than fully disclose the devastating cost increases which were then threatening Netflix’s entire business, the defendants talked about [their] ability to grow.”

Several Netflix executives’ personal portfolios have grown as a result of selling their personal shares in the company, netting more than $90 million before the rate increase was announced, a fact the lawsuit also prominently mentions.

Motorola cable modem

A California federal judge has thrown out most of a class action lawsuit that charged Comcast with marketing broadband service plans without disclosing extra fees for cable modem equipment.

The head plaintiff, Athanassios Diacakis, claimed Comcast sold Triple Play promotions over the phone and in the media without mentioning customers would also have to pay additional fees to lease a cable modem.  Diacakis accused the cable operator of violating California’s tough false-advertising laws by not fully disclosing all fees and surcharges while explaining the promotion.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong disagreed, however, dismissing most of the plaintiffs claims.  The judge didn’t declare Diacakis’ claims untrue, but ruled they were insufficiently documented to proceed to trial.

“The [amended complaint] fails to specify when or where Comcast advertisements were viewed, the content of those advertisements, or which of them in particular Plaintiff relied upon,” Armstrong wrote.

Diacakis is free to submit an amended complaint if he wishes to proceed with his class action case.

Comcast charges customers $7 a month to lease cable modem equipment, but invites customers to purchase their own cable modems to avoid rental fees.  Many customers do just that, choosing from several dozen approved models Comcast will provision for broadband customers.  The cost to purchase cable modem equipment ranges from $50-125 on average, depending on the cable modem selected.  It takes less than two years for purchased cable modems to effectively pay for themselves at Comcast’s current rental rate.

An Illinois family’s home is now infested by roaches, and the Aurora resident is blaming Comcast’s reportedly bug-infested set top box for the problem. Read up about these pest facts that are not commonly know so you’ll know how to deal with them.

Antonio Muñoz recently signed up for Comcast cable service, but tells the Beacon News cockroaches began crawling out of the refurbished cable box installed in his parents’ room.

In addition to the roaches he has collected in a plastic bag to show the cable operator, the Muñoz family has now seen several of the bugs running loose around the home.

Muñoz is upset with the cable company for dragging their feet on replacing the infested equipment.  He’s since sealed the box in question and dropped it off at Comcast’s local cable store.  But the cable company refused to exchange it with a new box until a technician could be sent to the Muñoz home.

“Given the rigorous quality control processes we have in place, it’s difficult to say exactly what happened,” a Comcast representative said. “As our goal is to do right by our customers, our immediate focus is to resolve the issue to Mr. Muñoz’s satisfaction.”

It’s not the first time Comcast has faced allegations of roach-infested equipment, prompting more rigorous and Detailed pest removal inspections to ensure customer safety and hygiene.

More than a dozen current and former employees of a Comcast facility on Chicago’s South Side are part of a federal class-action lawsuit filed last month alleging racial discrimination and a hostile, bug-infested work environment.

The suit claims Comcast management ordered technicians to install equipment in customer homes regardless if it was defective or infested by vermin.

The plaintiffs claim Comcast facilities are plagued not only with roaches but also rats.  Some supervisors are accused of telling some Comcast workers that equipment given to African American employees would be stolen, and there was little reason to provide those installers with a complete set of installer tools.

Most cable equipment is recycled and re-used as customers turn in equipment.  Cable operators routinely refurbish and test equipment before it is put back into service.  But cable equipment can offer an inviting home for invading insects or small rodents.  Customers receiving obviously used equipment should inspect it carefully for plant debris, dead insects, or points of potential entry for unwelcome visitors before allowing the installer to leave.

The Muñoz family has since received a new box, but no word if the special visitors that arrived in the original equipment have been effectively evicted.