Credit challenged AT&T customers may be out hundreds of dollars if they fail to understand the difference between AT&T’s service deposit and a “credit management fee” for new customers. 

For years, postpaid customers with damaged/no credit have been asked by AT&T employees to post a significant deposit to establish service. For many U-verse and cell phone customers that amount can reach $449 or more. Customers complain AT&T sales employees rarely explain whether they are being asked to put down a refundable deposit or being billed AT&T’s novel “credit management fee,” especially after they are reassured the “deposit” will eventually be returned to customers.

In Ohio, one customer is upset that AT&T has misrepresented its $449 one time “credit management fee” as a refundable deposit and claims AT&T now wants to keep that money for itself, despite his perfect payment record.

Michael Tedesco told FOX 28 in Columbus when he signed up for cable provider AT&T, he was required to spend $449 towards a deposit to get U-verse service activated.

“I was 19 and didn’t have any established credit, so they told me I had to put down a deposit,” said Tedesco. He claims AT&T promised to return $5 of that money each month as a credit on his bill, which means Tedesco would receive his full deposit back only after approximately 7 1/2 years of staying with AT&T. Tedesco also claimed AT&T promised to immediately return the balance of any remaining deposit if he canceled service.

But that isn’t what happened.

“I’d been with them for two years, so that’s $120,” said Tedesco. “So $329 should be returned to me. But now they’re saying they changed their story. That it’s a non-refundable fee.”

AT&T’s non-refundable “Credit Management Fee” is often called a deposit by AT&T’s salespeople. But it isn’t.

A Google search about the non-refundable nature of AT&T’s “deposit” has revealed considerable controversy over AT&T’s “credit management fee” and how it is represented by AT&T employees trying to make a sale. When customers return to complain, they are told to read AT&T’s voluminous terms and conditions, which claim the fee might or might not be refundable.

Telecom companies have traditionally used refundable deposits as a way to insure themselves against a customer considered more likely to default on their bill. For decades, phone companies usually returned deposits back to customers, with interest, after 12-24 months of a satisfactory payment history.

AT&T has instead turned that insurance protection into another way to earn revenue for itself, and critics contend AT&T employees are misrepresenting the costly fee and how customers can get it back.

An AT&T spokesperson admitted shareholders come before customers.

“The credit management fee is in place to cover the upfront cost of service while protecting our shareholders against loss in the event a customer isn’t able to pay their bill,” wrote the spokesperson in a written statement. AT&T also claimed it tells customers up front it is not a deposit. “We communicate to these customers before they sign-up that this is a one-time non-refundable fee.”

If AT&T returns a portion of its “Credit Management Fee” at its discretion, it comes in $5 increments, which means it will take over seven years to get your money back.

The Ohio Attorney General has little power over AT&T’s contracts, language, or sales practices, and offered that consumers need to protect themselves from companies like AT&T.

“It’s helpful to ask things like ‘is there a schedule of when money will be credited to my account? What happens if I leave? How long do I have to stay with the company?'” Melissa Smith, from the AG’s Consumer Division, told the Columbus FOX affiliate. “But what’s most important, no matter what that operator says, is to make sure it lines up with what’s in the contract.”

In dozens of pages of terms and conditions for AT&T’s products and services, the relevant language is found under the Billing section (emphasis ours in the language below), and it is highly confusing because it conflates a traditional deposit program with AT&T’s newer, non-refundable “credit management fee,” making it next to impossible for consumers to understand which applies  until after their first bill arrives:

Advance Payments, Deposits, Fees and Limits.

We may require you to make deposits or advance payments for Services, which we may use to satisfy your initial bill for Services, to offset against any unpaid balance on your account, or as otherwise set forth in these TOS or permitted by law. Interest will not be paid on advance payments or deposits unless required by law. We may require additional advance payments or deposits if we determine that the initial payment was inadequate. Upon determination solely by AT&T of satisfactory payment history or as required by law, AT&T may begin refunding of the deposit or advance payment through bill credits, cash payments, or as otherwise determined solely by AT&T. Based on your creditworthiness, a non-refundable fee may be required to establish service and we may require you to enroll, and remain enrolled, in an automatic payment or electronic funds transfer plan. We may establish additional limits and restrict service or features as we deem appropriate. If your account balance goes beyond the limit we set for you, we may immediately interrupt or suspend service until your balance is brought below the limit. Any charges you incur in excess of your limit become immediately due.

Many customers learn about the fee only after receiving their first bill, which usually arrives after the contract grace period deadline offered to customers who change their mind and exit the contract penalty-free.

“I recently ordered new service and I was told ‘Congratulations you don’t require a deposit,'” wrote ‘Susanja.’ “That’s great, right? Not! I just opened my first bill and there’s a $500 credit management fee for a total of $600+ for my first month’s bill.”

By the time the first bill arrived, she was already locked into a contract with a substantial cancellation penalty.

WTTE-TV in Columbus investigates AT&T’s “Credit Management Fee.” (3:29)

Even as millions of Spectrum subscribers began paying higher rates for programming and equipment this month, Charter Communications has sweetened the deal for its new customers by offering free DVR service with their triple play bundle of TV Select, internet, and voice service for $89.97/mo during the first year. The cable company will also reimburse customers up to $500 to cover any early termination/contract buyout fees for canceling their satellite or telephone company video package.

Charter’s “Strategic Accounts” department is handling the promotion, and it will benefit customers where there is significant competition between Spectrum and AT&T and Verizon or satellite providers like DirecTV and Dish Networks. Spectrum does not cover early termination fees from cell phone companies, and you must have subscribed to a “comparable level of service,” which disqualifies competitors like Hulu, Netflix, DirecTV Now, and Amazon.

Like the rebates Time Warner Cable used to offer customers, there is a specific process to submit documentation to qualify for this rebate, and skipping a step means… no rebate and no recourse. In addition to this FAQ, Stop the Cap! has this advice:

1. You must install and keep current a qualified Spectrum triple play package from the time you submit the rebate request until the day you receive a check.
2. You cannot have had Spectrum Video service within the last 30 days, something we’ll explain below.
3. Your account must not be past due.
4. You must submit a copy of your provider’s final bill showing itemized early termination fees actually billed to your account. Bank/credit card statements showing charges are not eligible.
5. You must complete the “Charter Contract Buyout Form” in full and submit it by e-mail or by mail to: Spectrum, 7800 Crescent Exec. Dr., Charlotte, NC 28217, ATTN: Strategic Accounts Dept. with your documentation. Try to make sure the names on both accounts match.
6. Your rebate request must be received by Charter within 60 days of installation of a Charter triple play package or within two weeks of the date listed on the competing provider’s final bill, whichever is later.
7. Charter will only reimburse you for the actual amount of the early termination fee, up to a maximum of $500. Cash the check within six months or lose it.

Charter insists customers who have had Spectrum Video service within the last 30 days cannot qualify for this rebate. This is an effort to close a loophole where an existing Spectrum customer cancels their regularly-priced cable service, switches to a competitor for a few weeks, and then promptly switches back to a Spectrum package at the new customer price, which also leaves Charter on the hook for paying the early termination fee charged by the other company. To avoid this, a customer would have to cancel Spectrum service, switch to a competitor for at least 31 days, and then switch back to Spectrum. That is likely to be a hassle for most people.

Customers who have participated in these rebate schemes in the past also warn that companies can reject a rebate if you do not have a “comparable” level of service with a competitor. In other words, if you signed up for a $20 basic video package and then head to Spectrum for a $90 triple play package, the company may not consider that “comparable.” “Comparable” can mean the dollar amount of the video package you have with a competitor or the combination of a satellite package with one provider and a broadband package with another. You can contact Charter directly and check if your existing package(s) qualify. If the representative says yes, write down the name of the person and keep it handy in case your rebate request is later rejected.

Charter says you won’t have long to wait for a rebate rejection or a check.

“When you submit your information to the Contract Buyout Team, your information goes through a verification process, which can take up to 5-7 business days. After approval, your check will arrive within 10 business days,” the company reports.

Other factors to consider:

• Cable TV equipment is required and costs extra ($5.99/mo per HD box or DVR for new customers).
• You will receive Spectrum’s base internet package, which is 60Mbps or 100Mbps in former TWC Maxx service areas. A $199 upgrade fee applies for faster speed.
• Installation fees apply. You can avoid them with a self-install kit which can be mailed or picked up at a Spectrum retail store at no extra charge.
• Fees and surcharges apply. The most important is the Broadcast TV Fee, which usually adds around $7.50 a month to your TV bill.
• Rates reset to Charter’s regular price at the end of one year. There is no contract, so you can cancel anytime.

Smartphone manufacturers are dealing with sluggish sales for the newest and greatest phone models because American consumers are increasingly resistant to paying for top of the line devices.

Apple, Samsung, and others are facing some of their biggest challenges ever delivering upgrade features deemed useful enough to encourage consumers to spend the more than $600 that many high-end phones now command in the marketplace. As blasé new features fail to deliver a “must-have” message to consumers, many are hanging onto their existing phones and refusing to upgrade.

The decision by wireless providers to stop subsidizing devices backed by two-year contracts have delivered sticker shock to consumers looking for the latest and greatest. The Apple iPhone 7, expected to be announced this month, will likely carry a price of $650 — a serious amount of money, even if your wireless provider or Apple agrees to finance its purchase interest-free for 24 months. Despite the fact wireless providers charged artificially higher service plan rates to recoup the cost of the device subsidy over the length of the contract, consumer perception made it easier to justify paying $200 for a subsidized phone versus paying full retail price and getting cheaper service.

As a result, consumers are strategically holding on to their cell phones longer than ever and avoiding upgrade fever just to score a lower cell phone bill. The Wall Street Journal reports that since T-Mobile started the trend away from device subsidies in 2013, Citigroup estimates the smartphone replacement cycle has now lengthened to 29.6 months, considerably longer than in 2011 when upgrades were likely even before the two-year phone contract expired.

The average combined monthly revenue (in $) earned per subscriber from service and equipment installment plan fees is still rising, despite the alleged “price war.” (Image: Trefis)

Wireless providers don’t mind the change since they endured fronting the subsidy cost to phone manufacturers and slowly recouped it over the next two years. Not dealing with a subsidy would make the accounting easier. But AT&T and Verizon Wireless both understood the average consumer doesn’t have a spare $650 sitting around for a new device, much less the nearly $2,500 it would cost to outfit a family of four with a new top of the line smartphone every two years. So they entered the financing business, breaking the cost of the device into as many as 24 equal installment payments. Instead of paying $672 for a Samsung Galaxy S7, Verizon Wireless offers 24 equal installments of $28. That would be a distinction without much difference from the old subsidy system except for the fact some carriers are trying to sell their equipment financing obligations to a third-party, allowing them to move that debt off their books as well.

In fact, wireless providers are doing so well under the “no-contract/pay full price or installments” system, Wall Street analyst firm Trefis has started to ask whether the so-called wireless carrier “price war” is just a mirage. The firm notes (reg. req’d.) all the four major carriers are doing well and collecting an increasing amount of money from their customers than ever before. Much of that added revenue comes from customers bulking up data plans and being forced to pay for unlimited voice and texting features they may not need. But Trefis also points to reined in marketing spending at the carriers, who no longer have to entice customers into device upgrades as part of a contract renewal.

Things are looking worse for phone manufacturers that have relied on revenue based on the two-year device upgrade cycle in the United States. Apple is under growing pressure as its iPhone faces declining demand. In the U.S. alone, analysts predict iPhone sales will drop 7.1% this year. UBS predicts an even less optimistic 9% drop, followed by a 5% drop next year, even after iPhone 7 is introduced. AT&T has already reported some of the lowest upgrade rates ever during the first three months of 2016.

Another clue consumers are planning to hold on to their smartphones longer than ever — sales of rugged cases and screen protectors are up, as are smartphone protection/loss insurance plan sales, according to AT&T senior VP Steven Hodges. Parents even expect their children to give their phones better care.

Customers “realized it was a $500 to $700 device,” Hodges said at an industry conference held in June. “As such, they started taking care of them differently. You tell a kid this is only $49, the kid is going to use his phone as a baseball at times.”

Other customers are looking forward to benefiting from a dramatically lower bill after paying off their device in 24 months.

Kristin Maclearie has an iPhone 6 and she wants to keep it for the long term, if only to see her Verizon bill drop once she finishes her monthly payments. She told the Wall Street Journal as long as it keeps working, “I’ll just hang onto the one I have,” she said. “Unless something really cool comes out…but they’re always similar.”

Is your cable television service included in your rent or condo “services” fee? Have you ever called another provider and told service was not available at your address even through others outside of your condo neighborhood or apartment complex can sign up for service today? Chances are your landlord or property management company is receiving a kickback to keep competition off the property, while you may be stuck paying for substandard services you neither want or need. Worst of all, chances are it’s all legal and everyone is getting a piece of the action… except you.

Welcome to the world of Multiple Dwelling Unit (MDU) Bulk Service Agreements, the seedy underbelly of the anti-competitive cable and telco-TV world. When cable TV first got going, most people wanted access. In the early days, cable franchises were typically exclusive and cable companies maintained the upper hand in negotiations with apartment owners and property owners. Since the service was in demand, many property owners were told to sign whatever “Right Of Entry” Agreement (ROE) was put in front of them. Most contained clauses that guaranteed that cable company would get exclusive access to the property for as long as it was given a franchise to operate within that community. In other words, basically forever.

This turned out very handy when competitors started showing up. First on the scene were satellite television providers, which had a rough time dealing with landlords who loathed tenants installing satellite dishes that “ruined the aesthetics” of the property. Many rental agreements still restrict satellite television dishes in ways that make their use untenable. But things got much more serious when Verizon and AT&T got into the cable business. Initially, both companies found extending FiOS and U-verse to some rental and gated communities was blocked by the exclusive agreements held by cable operators. By 2007, the FCC finally acted to forbid exclusive service contracts, but the cable industry and property developers have played cat and mouse games with the FCC’s loopholes ever since.

Property Developers, Management Companies, Landlords, and Homeowner Associations With Their Hands Out

With the FCC’s 2007 declaration that exclusive contracts between cable companies and property owners were “null and void,” the power of the cable industry to negotiate on their terms was markedly diminished. Although many property owners applauded their new-found freedom to tell the local cable company to take a hike if they did not offer better service to their tenants, many others saw dollar signs in their eyes. With leverage now in the hands of the property owner, if the local cable company wanted to stay, in many cases it had to pay. Only the most brazen property owners kicked uncooperative cable companies off their properties, putting tenants at a serious inconvenience. Instead, many found life more peaceful and lucrative to stick with the existing cable company, signing a new contract for “bulk billing” tenants. On the surface, it seemed like a good deal. Property owners advertised that cable TV was included in the rent (and they paid a deeply discounted price per tenant) and the cable operator had a guaranteed number of customers, whether they wanted the service or not.

Bulk billing also proved a very effective deterrent for would-be competitors, who had to overcome the challenge of marketing their service while the tenant was already paying for another as part of their rent. As a result, telco TV competitors often stayed away from properties with bulk billing arrangements.

As broadband has become more prominent and threatens to become more important than the cable TV package, the cable industry has refined its weapons of non-competition. While they cannot force competitors off properties, they can make life very expensive for them. The latest generation of ROE agreements often grant access rights to the building’s telecommunications conduit, cabling, and equipment exclusively to the cable operator.

If Google Fiber, AT&T U-verse or Verizon FiOS sought to offer service on one of these properties, they would have to overcome the investment insanity of wiring each building with its own infrastructure, including duplicate cables, in separate conduits and spaces not already designated for the exclusive use of the cable company. Verizon in New York City has faced numerous obstacles wiring some buildings, including gaining access to the building itself. Intransigent on site employees, bureaucratic and unresponsive property management companies, and developers have all made life difficult for Verizon’s fiber upgrade.

AT&T often takes the approach “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” and offers its own bulk billing incentives, along with occasional commitments for fiber upgrades. Google Fiber can afford to skip places where it isn’t wanted, although with recent revelations that landlords can raise the rent by up to 11% with the arrival of Google Fiber alone, it may hurt to alienate that fiber to the home provider.

Kickbacks for New Developments = Windfall

Kickbacks for existing properties are lucrative, but nothing compared to the lucrative windfall new property developments can achieve with the right deal.

In 2013, one property developer in Maryland went all out for an exclusive deal with a provider that was going to get de facto exclusivity by using a convoluted series of entities and agreements designed to insulate the company from competition and a challenge from the FCC. A court later ruled the provider used an “elaborate game of regulatory subterfuge” using various corporate entities to escape potential competition.

Some lawyers devote a substantial amount of their practice to the issue of bulk contracts and ROE agreements. Carl Kandutsch serves clients nationwide, many trying to extricate themselves from bad deals of the past. In many cases, an attorney may be needed to find a way out of contracts that don’t meet FCC rules. Other communities sometimes have to buy out an existing contract. Many have to sit and suffer the consequences for years. One residential community found itself trapped with a service provider that was quietly protected by an “airtight contract” negotiated not with the property management company or the homeowner association, but the development’s original builder. The provider delivered lousy service and the community spent six years trying to get rid of the offending firm with no result until they hired an attorney. Although happy to be rid of the bad provider, the homeowner association ended up illustrating how pervasive this problem is after it signed a similar contract with another provider also handing out kickbacks.

Comcast pays up to 10% of a renter’s cable bill to the landlord. (Image: Susan Crawford)

Comcast is more creative than most. It calls its handouts: “Marketing Support Compensation.” The property owner gets an increasing reward for every tenant signed up for Comcast service. Once around two-thirds of tenants are subscribed, the owner gets up to a 10% take of each bill, plus a one time payment of up to $130 per tenant.

Because Comcast’s reputation often precedes it, customers reluctant to sign up without considering other providers will find that tougher to do because Comcast bans other providers from marketing their services to tenants with the support or cooperation of the landlord. In other words, no door hangers, free coffee, brochures in the lobby, or any other on-site promotions. In case a property owner forgets, Comcast sends reminders in the mail:

Comcast likes to remind landlords it has an exclusive. (Image: Susan Crawford)

Susan Crawford calls it “astounding, enormous, decentralized payola” and claims it affects millions of renters.

Crawford

“These shenanigans will only stop when cities and national leaders require that every building have neutral fiber/wireless facilities that make it easy for residents to switch services when they want to,” Crawford wrote. “We’ve got to take landlords out of the equation — all they’re doing is looking for payments and deals (understandably: they’re addicted to the revenue stream they’ve been getting), and the giant telecom providers in our country are more than happy to pay up. The market is stuck. Residents have little idea these deals are happening. The current way of doing business is great for landlords and ISPs but destructive in every other way.”

One real world example of how this deters competition comes from Webpass (recently acquired by Google), which offers gigabit Ethernet speeds in select MDUs in San Francisco, San Diego, Miami, Chicago, and Boston. The service comes with a low price, but that doesn’t get the company in the door, according to its president, Charles Barr.

Barr has been refused entry by multiple building owners who have agreements with Comcast, AT&T, or others.

“Tenants want us, but we can’t get in,” Barr said.

Crawford argues the FCC has once again been outmaneuvered by ISPs and their attorneys.

“Sure, a landlord can’t enter into an exclusive agreement granting just one ISP the right to provide Internet access service to an MDU, but a landlord can refuse to sign agreements with anyone other than Big Company X, in exchange for payments labeled in any one of a zillion ways,” added Crawford. “Exclusivity by any other name still feels just as abusive.”

This isn’t a new problem. Stop the Cap! first reported on these kinds of bulk buying arrangements back in 2010, all made possible by the FCC’s regulatory loopholes. Six years later, the problem appears to be getting worse.

A plea from unhappy Frontier Communications’ broadband customers in West Virginia to have their complaints about Frontier DSL heard by a judge will get a hearing before Lincoln County Circuit Judge Jay Hoke on Aug. 19.

The class action lawsuit claims Frontier deceptively advertises fast Internet service that in reality is often unreliable and delivers only 5-10 percent of the speeds advertised. Many West Virginians have no other broadband options.

In response, lawyers for Frontier Communications have fought to get the case dismissed. They want customers to take their complaints through Frontier’s binding arbitration dispute resolution process.

In 2011, Frontier changed its terms and conditions, adding a lengthy arbitration provision that forbids customers from bringing class action cases and generally limits the damages customers can receive. Frontier argues customers automatically agreed to the arbitration process by continuing to use Frontier’s broadband service after the changes were announced.

The attorneys bringing the case think Frontier’s insistence that customers are automatically bound by the company’s contractual terms and conditions is ironic.

“No contract. No signatures. No worries,” claims one Frontier ad. “There’s no contract. Yep, that’s right, no contract,” advertises another. Since 2013, Frontier has gone out of its way advertising broadband without the gotchas and hidden fees their competitors charge. “Frontier is now in the unenviable position of trying to enforce hidden terms in the very contracts they repeatedly represented did not exist,” argues the plaintiffs in a court document.

Some Frontier customers never realized they may have given up their right to bring a civil case against Frontier. The company first notified customers about this change in their terms and conditions in 2011 through a small message on Frontier invoices. Customers effectively agreed to those changes through their continued use of Frontier’s service, Frontier claimed. But the plaintiffs signed documents attesting they had never seen or heard of Frontier’s enforced arbitration policy. The lawyers bringing the case are not surprised. A copy of the changed terms and conditions obtained by Stop the Cap! shows the binding arbitration clause buried on page five of a leaflet rendered in very small print in very large paragraphs unlikely to be read or understood by many customers.

The current arbitration policy is reproduced below. Have you read it?:

As explained more fully below and in the terms and conditions document, Frontier’s terms and conditions set forth important details about your relationship with Frontier including the requirement to resolve any dispute with Frontier by binding arbitration, on an individual basis, rather than through a lawsuit, jury trial or class action.  If you do not agree to Frontier’s terms and conditions, you may not use the Frontier service and must terminate service immediately.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION WITH FRONTIER BY BINDING ARBITRATION

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY. IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS.

Frontier encourages you to contact our Customer Service department if you have concerns or complaints about your service or Frontier. Generally, customer complaints can be satisfactorily resolved in this way. In the unlikely event that you are not able to resolve your concerns through our Customer Service department, we each agree to resolve all disputes through binding arbitration or a small claims court rather than lawsuits in courts of general jurisdiction, jury trials, or class actions. Arbitration is more informal than a lawsuit. Arbitration uses a neutral arbitrator instead of a judge or jury, allows for more limited discovery than in court, and is subject to very limited review by courts. Arbitrators can award the same damages and individual relief affecting individual parties that a court can award, including an award of attorneys’ fees if the law allows. For any non-frivolous claim that does not exceed $75,000, Frontier will pay all costs of the arbitration. Moreover, in arbitration you are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees from Frontier for your own dispute to the same extent as you would be in court.

In addition, under certain circumstances (as explained below), Frontier will pay you more than the amount of the arbitrator’s award if the arbitrator awards you an amount that is greater than what Frontier has offered you to settle the dispute.

Arbitration Agreement:

(a) You and Frontier agree to arbitrate all disputes and claims between us. This agreement to arbitrate is intended to be broadly interpreted. It includes, but is not limited to, all claims arising out of or relating to any aspect of our relationship, whether based in contract, tort, statute, fraud, misrepresentation or any other legal theory, that arose either before or during this or any prior Agreement, or that may arise after termination of this Agreement. It also includes claims that are currently the subject of purported class action litigation in which you are not a member of a certified class. References to “Frontier,” “you,” and “us” include our respective subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, employees, predecessors in interest, successors, and assigns, as well as all authorized or unauthorized users or beneficiaries of Frontier Broadband under this or prior Agreements between us.

Notwithstanding the foregoing agreement, Frontier agrees that it will not use arbitration to initiate debt collection against you except in response to claims you have made in arbitration. In addition, by agreeing to resolve disputes through arbitration, you and Frontier agree to each unconditionally waive the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action, representative proceeding, or private attorney general action. Instead of arbitration, either party may bring an individual action in a small claims court for disputes or claims that are within the scope of the small claims court’s authority. In addition, you may bring any issues to the attention of federal, state, or local agencies, including, for example, the Federal Communications Commission. Such agencies can, if the law allows, seek relief against us on your behalf.

This agreement evidences a transaction in interstate commerce, and thus the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this provision, even after the agreement is terminated.

(b) A party who intends to seek arbitration must first send to the other, by certified mail, a written Notice of Dispute (“Notice”). The Notice to Frontier should be addressed to: Frontier Communications, Legal Department – Arbitration, 3 High Ridge Park, Stamford, CT 06905 (“Notice Address”). The Notice must (1) describe the nature and basis of the claim or dispute; and (2) set for the specific relief sought (“Demand”). If Frontier and you do not reach an agreement to resolve the claim within 30 days after the Notice is received, you or Frontier may commence an arbitration proceeding. During the arbitration, the amount of any settlement offer made by Frontier or you shall not be disclosed to the arbitrator until after the arbitrator determines the amount, if any, to which you or Frontier is entitled.

(c) The arbitration will be governed by the Consumer Arbitration Rules (“AAA Rules”) of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), as modified by these Terms of Service, and will be administered by the AAA. Procedure, rule and fee information is available from the AAA online at http://www.adr.org, by calling the AAA at 1-800-778-7879, or by calling Frontier at 1-877-462-7320, option 3. The arbitrator is bound by the terms of this Agreement. All issues are for the arbitrator to decide, except that issues relating to the scope and enforceability of the arbitration provision, including the scope, interpretation, and enforceability of section (f) below, are for the court to decide. If your claim is for $25,000 or less, you may choose whether the arbitration will be conducted solely on the basis of documents submitted to the arbitrator, through a telephonic hearing, or by an in person hearing as established by the AAA Rules. If your claim exceeds $25,000, the right to a hearing will be determined by the AAA Rules. Unless Frontier and you agree otherwise, any in person hearings will take place at a location that the AAA selects in the state of your primary residence unless you and Frontier agree otherwise. Regardless of the manner in which the arbitration is conducted, the arbitrator shall issue a reasoned written decision sufficient to explain the essential findings and conclusions on which the award is based.

Frontier agrees to pay your AAA filing, administration, and arbitrator fees (“AAA fees”) for claims for damages of up to $75,000 and for claims for non-monetary relief up to the value of $75,000, as measured from either your or Frontier’s perspective (but excluding attorneys’ fees and expenses). After Frontier receives notice that you have commenced arbitration, it will promptly reimburse you for your payment of the filing fee, unless your claim is for greater than $75,000. (The filing fee currently is $200 but is subject to change by the AAA. If you are unable to pay this fee, Frontier will pay it directly upon receiving a written request.) In addition, Frontier will not pay your share of the AAA fees if the arbitrator finds that either your claim or the relief sought is frivolous or brought for an improper purpose, as measured by the standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b). In such case, the payment of AAA fees will be governed by the AAA Rules, and you agree to reimburse Frontier for all monies previously disbursed by it that are otherwise your obligation to pay under the AAA Rules. If you initiate an arbitration in which you seek relief valued at more than $75,000 (excluding attorneys’ fees and expenses), as measured from either your or Frontier’s perspective, the payment of AAA fees will be governed by the AAA Rules.

(d) If Frontier offers to settle your dispute prior to appointment of the arbitrator and you do not accept the offer, and the arbitrator awards you an amount of money that is more than Frontier’s last written settlement offer, then Frontier will pay you the amount of the award or $5,000 (“the alternative payment”), whichever is greater.
If Frontier does not offer to settle your dispute prior to appointment of the arbitrator, and the arbitrator awards you any relief on the merits, then Frontier agrees to pay you the amount of the award or the alternative payment, whichever is greater. The arbitrator may make rulings and resolve disputes as to the payment and reimbursement of fees, expenses, and the alternative payment at any time during the proceeding and upon request from either party made within fourteen (14) days of the arbitrator’s ruling on the merits.

(e)  Although Frontier may have a right to an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses if it prevails, Frontier agrees that it will not seek such an award.

(f) You and Frontier agree to seek, and further agree that the arbitrator may award, only such relief—whether in the form of damages, an injunction, or other non-monetary relief—as is necessary to resolve any individual injury that either you or Frontier have suffered or may suffer. In particular, if either you or Frontier seek any non-monetary relief, including injunctive or declaratory relief, the arbitrator may award relief on an individual basis only, and may not award relief that affects individuals or entities other than you or Frontier. You and Frontier agree that we each may bring claims against the other only in an individual capacity and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class, representative, or private attorney general proceeding. Furthermore, unless both you and Frontier agree otherwise in writing, the arbitrator may not consolidate more than one person’s claims, and may not otherwise preside over any form of a class, representative, or private attorney general proceeding. If a court decides that applicable law precludes enforcement of any of this paragraph (f)’s limitations as to a particular claim for relief, then that claim (and only that claim) must be severed from the arbitration and may be brought in court. Further, an arbitrator’s award and any judgment confirming it shall apply only to that specific case and cannot be used in any other case except to enforce the award itself.

(g) Notwithstanding any provision in these Terms to the contrary, you and Frontier agree that if Frontier makes any change to this arbitration provision during the period of time that you are receiving Frontier services, you may reject that change by providing Frontier with written notice within 30 days of the change to the Notice Address provided above and require Frontier to adhere to the language in this provision. By rejecting any future change, you are agreeing that you will arbitrate any dispute between us in accordance with the language of this provision.

Corporations began to favor private arbitration over the civil courts several years ago, arguing arbitration would save money and lead to faster resolutions of customer complaints. Many customers and trial lawyers disagree, arguing arbitration favors the corporations that pay for arbitration programs, shields bad acts from public disclosure with confidentiality agreements, limits damage awards and prevents class action cases seeking relatively small amounts of damages for a large number of customers who would otherwise never bring a case to court. Early attempts by some companies to offer voluntary arbitration programs as an alternative to civil actions offered more limited benefits and many companies have since moved to mandatory, binding arbitration instead. Disputes subject to mandatory arbitration usually must be resolved through arbitration. The parties give up their right to sue in court, participate in a class action lawsuit, or appeal the arbitration decision.

The law firms handling the case against Frontier — Bailey Glasser in Charleston and Klein, Sheridan & Glazer in Huntington, are arguing Frontier customers cannot be bound by mandatory arbitration policies without evidence Frontier informed them of the program and can show evidence of their consent. In a lengthy argument to the judge, the attorneys argue Frontier can show neither. They point to Frontier’s website, which “buries” the terms and conditions as a tiny link at the bottom of their main web page. Customers must click that link, then find the link for the arbitration provision, then read and understand it. Notice about the arbitration policy originally came in occasional billing notices. Since the lawsuit was filed, Frontier has given more prominent mention of its terms and conditions, including its arbitration policy, on monthly billing statements.

Frontier’s defense is that the plaintiffs are misrepresenting the meaning of “no contract.” The company argues customers commonly understand that term to mean they will not be asked to sign a term contract for one, two, or three years, facing an early termination penalty if they seek to end the contract early. The fact Frontier advertises “no contract” does not mean there are no terms and conditions, the company’s attorneys argued.

A potentially weaker defense is Frontier’s claim that customers can be bound by a contract once they continue to use the service after a change in terms is published. Frontier admitted it could not prove the customers read and understood the change of terms notification or the new terms and conditions. It also never asked customers to directly consent, either in writing or by checking a box on a website, to the new terms and conditions. The plaintiffs also question the legality of Frontier reserving the right to unilaterally change any terms and conditions after a brief notification period and win consent of those changes if subscribers do not cancel service or, in some cases, opt out.

The attorneys call that “take it or leave it” Internet access from Frontier, often the only provider in large parts of rural West Virginia.

Find the terms and conditions link on the bottom of Frontier.com.