A California attorney has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against AT&T for fraud and misrepresentation over claims the company baited consumers to purchase Apple iPads with unlimited access and then subjected them to Internet Overcharging schemes after AT&T ended its unlimited data plan.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP claims AT&T knew it was going to break its promise to thousands of customers who were told they could switch between unlimited and limited data plans as their needs changed.  On June 7th, AT&T ended its unlimited data plan but grandfathered existing contract customers, permitting them to retain the plan indefinitely.  But if a customer changed to a limited usage plan or discontinued service, they lose the chance to get the unlimited plan back.

Apple and AT&T announced this policy change with less than one week’s notice to their customers and only about a month after Apple and AT&T began selling 3G-enabled iPads.  Apple and AT&T had promised consumers flexibility with their data plans, allowing them the ability switch back and forth between the limited data plan, the unlimited data plan, and no data plan.

No more.

“The availability of an unlimited data plan was a key reason why consumers paid the extra $130 charge to access the 3-G network, and their ability to switch in and out of the unlimited data plan was also an important consideration in the decision to purchase an iPad,” stated Lieff Cabraser attorney Michael W. Sobol. “The complaint alleges that Apple and AT&T should have known at the time they were promoting the availability of unlimited data plans, they were not going to keep that promise.”

“I originally purchased a standard iPad. Three weeks later, I returned it to the Apple store, paying an additional $130 plus sales tax to upgrade to an iPad with 3G capability. I thought the iPad 3G was worth the additional money because, with the unlimited data plan, I could work outside my office or home and access all the data I needed for a fixed, monthly price,” commented plaintiff Adam Weisblatt of Fulton, New York. “But I also knew that for several months each year, with my schedule, a lesser expensive, limited data plan was sufficient. I would have never purchased a 3G-capable iPad if I knew Apple and AT&T were planning on suddenly taking away from me the freedom to opt in and out of an unlimited data plan at my choice.”

The proposed class plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class consisting of all individuals and entities within the United States who purchased or ordered an Apple iPad 3G on or before June 6, 2010.

Consumers wishing to join the suit can contact the law firm for additional details.  There are no details on exactly what the attorneys will be seeking from AT&T.

Class action lawsuits have often delivered far more in benefits and compensation to the law firm that filed the lawsuit, with consumers usually left with discount coupons or less than $10 in compensation.  In this case, demanding AT&T deliver on its marketing promises or permitting customers to return their iPads for full refunds would seem appropriate.  Thanks to Stop the Cap! reader Marcus for the news tip.

Frontier Communications filed suit Tuesday against Google claiming the search giant stole its patent for giving users one phone number connecting their home, work and cell phones, the core feature of Google Voice.

Frontier, the independent phone company based in Stamford, Connecticut, claims it holds the patent for allowing a subscriber to “be reached on multiple telephone lines from a single dial-in number.”

“Google’s deliberate infringement of the patent has greatly and irreparably damaged Frontier,” the lawsuit charges.  Frontier is seeking unspecified damages and an injunction to stop the use of the technology.

The lawsuit distracted from Google’s announcement that Google Voice was out of beta and now available to anyone in the United States.  Google Voice lets users obtain a free phone number that will ring multiple telephones and screen calls.

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>

The one number follow-me feature is hardly new to either Google or Frontier.  Phone companies have offered similar features to businesses through telephone products like Centrex since the 1960s.

Frontier filed its lawsuit hours after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Frontier’s requested patent.

“We believe these claims are entirely without merit, and we’ll defend against them vigorously,” said Google spokesman Andrew Pederson.

Frontier will likely face an uphill battle in its lawsuit, because the company’s patent request from 2007 comes two years after Google Voice’s predecessor, GrandCentral launched service in 2005.  Google acquired GrandCentral in 2007, rebranding it as Google Voice. GrandCentral offered the same “one number” feature Frontier is complaining about two years before the phone company applied for its patent.

Perhaps Frontier’s lawyers might acquaint themselves with the concepts of “prior art” and “first-to-invent.”

AT&T has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the company of selling DSL service at speeds it often never provided to customers.

The case, Robert Schmidt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. AT&T and SBC Internet Services, Inc., (d/b/a AT&T Internet Services), was filed in 20o9 when AT&T customers learned the company was configuring some customers’ DSL modems at maximum speed rates below those advertised by AT&T.

AT&T has agreed to settle the lawsuit for a maximum of nearly $100 million, or less depending on the total number of claims received nationwide.

The amount customers are entitled to receive will vary depending on how much of an impact AT&T’s speed limiting configuration had on a their service.  The settlement is also retroactive back to April 1, 1995 meaning longtime AT&T DSL customers could be entitled to several hundred dollars in compensation.  For those dissatisfied with the speeds they received from AT&T’s DSL service, their compensation will be limited to a one-time payment of $2.00.

For some others, the settlement will provide more generous compensation.  The law firm that brought the case, Dworken & Bernstein, will receive up to $11 million in compensation and also get to hand out $3.75 million dollars of AT&T’s money to no less than 20 charities.

Some Background

AT&T provides DSL service to the vast majority of its customers.  This technology works over traditional copper wire phone lines.  Unfortunately, that infrastructure was never designed to carry data, but after years of development engineers found a way to make Ma Bell’s wires work for broadband service.  Unfortunately, the service has never been able to provide consistent speeds to every customer.  The further away you are from the phone company’s central office (where your phone line ultimately ends up), the slower the speed your line can support.  Someone a block away from the phone company office can easily achieve the speeds AT&T promised its customers in its marketing.  But if you are a few miles away, chances are you cannot.

For those more distant, or who live in areas with bad phone lines, your DSL modem won’t be able to maintain a consistent connection at the speeds AT&T sold you.  That will cause the modem to reset itself regularly, trying to re-establish an appropriately fast connection.  That can drive customers crazy because your service will often stop working while the modem tries to renegotiate the connection.  Some phone companies stop the constant reconnection battle by configuring the modem to work at a lower, more stable speed that will work with an individual’s phone line.

For instance, here in Rochester Frontier Communications advertises 10Mbps DSL service.  But for me, more than 10,000 feet away from Frontier’s central office for my area, the line simply couldn’t support that speed.  So Frontier locked the modem to deliver just 3.1Mbps, not the 10Mbps the company markets to customers in this area.

While that practice may seem technically smart, it’s obviously not legally smart, as AT&T has discovered.  Even using the traditional weasel words of “up to” when marketing broadband speeds, AT&T felt it was exposed to charges of false advertising and defrauding customers, and decided to settle the case.  It should be noted AT&T strongly denies any allegations of wrongdoing, but has agreed to settle to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation.

AT&T now faces the prospect of paying compensation to every DSL customer it speed limited in this fashion, and has also agreed to stop the practice.

The Details

Who Gets the Settlement? — Potentially any AT&T DSL customer paying for service after March 31, 1994.  This also includes customers of companies acquired by AT&T:

• SBC Internet Services, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Internet Services
• BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.
• Pacific Bell Internet Services
• Southwestern Bell Internet Services, Inc.
• Ameritech Interactive Media Services, Inc.
• SNET Diversified Group, Inc.
• Prodigy Communications Corporation
• Oklahoma Internet Online

Many AT&T customers may have already been notified about this settlement through postcards or other mailers sent by AT&T based on customer records.

What Kind of Settlement Will I Get? — For longstanding AT&T DSL customers, the amount could be substantial, so it’s worth your while to participate, even if you are no longer a customer.  For most everyone else, it’s probably worth $2.00.

There are three types of benefits that will be paid to those who submit valid claims under the settlement once it becomes final. Payments will be made by check or by credits on a customer’s bill.

• Group A Benefit. If AT&T’s Records indicate that AT&T configured the downstream speed of your DSL service, for one month or more during the Settlement Class Period, at a level lower than the Maximum DSL Speed for the plan you purchased, you may be eligible to receive $2.90 for each month your service was so configured.  This could add up to hundreds of dollars.
• Group B Benefit. If you are not eligible for the Group A Benefit and AT&T’s Records show that your DSL service may have performed, for one month or more during the Settlement Class Period, at downstream speeds below the following levels, you may be eligible to receive $2.00 for each such month:
  • 200 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 768 Kbps;
  • 384 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 1.5 Mbps before October 2008;
  • 769 Kbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 1.5 Mbps after October 2008;
  • 1.5 Mbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 3.0 Mbps; or
  • 3.0 Mbps, if you purchased a plan with a Maximum DSL Speed of 6.0 Mbps.

  Because the settlement provides for monthly credits, you could also receive hundreds of dollars in refunds or service credits, making participation in the settlement worthwhile.

• Group C Benefit. If AT&T’s records do not show that either you fall within Group A or Group B but you nonetheless believe that your DSL service has not performed at satisfactory speeds based upon the plan that you purchased, you may still be eligible for a one-time payment or bill credit of $2.00. In other words, if at anytime you were underwhelmed by AT&T’s DSL speeds, you can file a claim and get two dollars back.

AT&T has also agreed to monitor customers’ DSL speeds over a period of 12 months and if service cannot achieve the speeds promised, the company will either make repairs to boost speed or adjust billing.

For AT&T customers in Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas, AT&T’s settlement would replace a similar class action case filed in St. Louis.  Ford and Dunne v. SBC Communications, Inc. and SBC Internet Services, Inc., would have only covered customers after December 31, 2000.

Customers who believe they are entitled to participate in the settlement can get additional information and file an online claim at the DSL Speed Settlement website.

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.

An inmate serving time for robbery is convinced the local cable company and state corrections department are robbing him on his monthly cable bill.

Joel Santos Maldonado, 28, of Lancaster is serving a 12- to 26-year sentence at the State Correctional Institute at Fayette in Labelle, Luzerne Township, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Maldonado already feels his monthly bill from Texas-based Correctional Cable TV (CCTV), which provides cable service to prisoners, is high enough, but when he discovered the state included a 75-cent monthly “administrative fee” he filed a lawsuit.

Maldonado accuses the state of interfering with his business relationship with CCTV by including the fee.  Without the fee, his bill would be $15.75 a month for the 47-channel cable package.

His suit asks for a reversal of the 75-cent fee as well as unspecified damages.

Prison officials counter the administrative fee has been part of the cable package for at least four years.

Trinity Broadcasting Network offers inmates special programming on CCTV that it claims "rebuilds inmate lives and reduces recidivism"

“The inmate signs an agreement that states we charge this fee when he elects to purchase cable,” corrections department spokeswoman Susan Bensinger told the newspaper. “If he doesn’t want to pay the fee, he can simply elect to not purchase cable TV service.”

Those outside of prison pay more for their cable service.  Cable pricing from Atlantic Broadband is a comparably worse deal.  For $19.99 a month, residents of Labelle get 20 channels, mostly local broadcast stations, public access, and a handful of basic cable channels.  To get a package comparable to what Madonado receives, a customer would have to upgrade to the 67-channel standard service package — for $59.99 a month.

The lawsuit awaits further action in Fayette County court.

Correctional Cable TV began providing cable service to Correctional Facilities in the early 1990’s and currently serves more than 130 facilities across 20 states, particularly in Colorado, Virginia, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  The company furnishes, installs, and maintains the equipment to provide the programming at no up front cost to the prison authority.  Programming costs are recouped by charges paid by inmates to receive the service.