Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Network The Almighty Buck The Courts Communications Networking Security Television The Internet News Technology Your Rights Online

Washington State Sues Comcast For $100M Over 'Pattern of Deceptive Practices' (komonews.com) 90

Posted by BeauHD from the illegal-deception dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Washington State has filed a lawsuit against Comcast to the sum of $100 million, accusing Comcast of "engaging in a pattern of deceptive practices." It claims that Comcast's documents reveal a pattern of illegally deceiving its own customers for profit. KOMO News reports: "The lawsuit (PDF) alleges more than 1.8 million individual violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The Attorney General's Office says 500,000 Washington consumers were affected. The lawsuit also accuses Comcast of violating the Consumer Protection Act to all of its nearly 1.2 million Washington subscribers due to its deceptive 'Comcast Guarantee,' Ferguson said. The lawsuit accuses Comcast of misleading 500,000 Washington consumers and deceiving them into paying at least $73 million in subscription fees over the last five years for what the attorney general says is a a near-worthless protection plan. Customers who sign up for Comcast's Service Protection Plan pay a $4.99 monthly fee to avoid being charged if a Comcast technician visits their home. But the plan did not cover wiring inside a wall, the lawsuit says. The Attorney General Office says 75 percent of the time, customers who contacted Comcast were told the plan covered inside wiring. Customer service scripts, which the Attorney General's Office said it obtained during its investigation, told Comcast representatives to say that the plan covers calls 'related to inside wiring' and 'wiring inside your home.'" According to KOMO News, the lawsuit is seeking more than $73 million in restitution to pay back Service Protection Plan subscriber payments; full restitution for all service calls that applied an improper resolution code, estimated to be at least $1 million; removal of improper credit checks from the credit reports of more than 6,000 customers; up to $2,000 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act; and that Comcast clearly disclose the limitations of its Service Protection Plan in advertising and through its representatives, correct improper service codes that should not be chargeable and implement a compliance procedure for improper customer credit checks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Washington State Sues Comcast For $100M Over 'Pattern of Deceptive Practices' More

Washington State Sues Comcast For $100M Over 'Pattern of Deceptive Practices'

Comments Filter:

  • $100 million? (Score:3)

    by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @03:26PM (#52623743)

    Don't most large companies just budget for this amount as a lawsuit settlement fund for any new initiative? Seems like pocket change for most big guys, especially since they probably have billions in liability insurance stashed away for just such a purpose...

    • Re:$100 million? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @03:33PM (#52623799)

      bingo. Even if the state got everything it wanted in full Comcast would cheerfully pay it as nothing more than the cost of doing business. Most companies today are simply too big and too rich to care about the law. Until we start slamming them with fines in the tens of billions and jailing executives nothing is going to change.

      • Needs to be an exponential payout.

        $1.01 to (x number of misbehavior) = fine.

        Anything over 5000 cases basically breaks a company.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Anything over 5000 cases basically breaks the entire global economy.

          FTFY.

          You might wanna re-think that base, there: 1.01 ^ 5000 ~= $4,044,537,935,523,532,667,942.07

          Simply put, any plan that involves having to sell off significant fractions of the earth's crust [xkcd.com] is probably unworkable.

          • Yeah, that's exactly my point.

            If you screw over a population larger than a small town, you go bankrupt. So get your shit together, or else.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bengie ( 1121981 )
          Just makes fines a percentage of global revenue.

    • Big pharma is just buffering up the cash to deal with the inevitable 1-800-BAD-DRUG lawyers and class action suits. I'm pretty certain they'll cure cancer but the cure may cause ouchy hangnails in 0.0001% of patients, and 1-800-BAD-DRUG will put them out of business.

    • Don't most large companies just budget for this amount as a lawsuit settlement fund for any new initiative? Seems like pocket change for most big guys, especially since they probably have billions in liability insurance stashed away for just such a purpose...

      Could you tell me why chiefs of companies (Financial, Marketing, Technology, Planning) and who own no company shares receive remuneration in the millions, while the shareholders receive bubkas (trivial amounts). Former President Carter had it right when he said, the max salary of an employee should not exceed 20 times the weighted average salary of the employees. He was saying, take 20 employees from installation and their boss, and for all departments and use that.
      You would see the multi-million dollar re

  • Protection plans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @03:31PM (#52623779) Homepage Journal
    Who buys protection plans for a service? If the service doesn't work, Comcast needs to fix it on THEIR dime, or the service gets cancelled. After all, their dime is YOUR dime, because you are paying a monthly fee for the service.
    • Not if it's related to wiring inside the house, with cable it can be the issue, especially if it's old cable.. That's the problem. Verizon phone service used have this. They actually covered the wiring in your house.
      • Then they better replace the cable. Why would I pay them to replace the cable for THEIR service? If they don't want to replace the cable then I won't buy their service. I am amazed that people would pay for them to put cable in.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Holi ( 250190 )
        But the plan didn't cover internal wiring, so exactly what did it cover? I mean the only time you would need a tech to come is due to either a wiring problem from the pole to the house or due to an internal wiring problem.

        • But the plan didn't cover internal wiring, so exactly what did it cover?

          I was kind of wondering that too. I would assume they are responsible for everything to the pole at least. As far as I know, they are responsible for everything to the box on the outside of the house. Just like the phone company. Even so, $5 per month for the cable from the pole to the outside connection is ridiculous.

          I mean the only time you would need a tech to come is due to either a wiring problem from the pole to the house or due to an internal wiring problem.

          You'd think, but no. At my last house the line from the pole to their location was old and needed to be replaced. After a dozen service calls I finally got a tech who told me the truth. Rather

        • I hate Comcast as much as anyone and no longer use their service but in this instance it is hard to see clear cut deception. The Comcast service plan doesn't cover wiring _INSIDE_ the walls (read the OP). But the repair service will cover all of the wiring from the wall outlet, across the floor, the tangle of wiring behind the entertainment center, etc. Oh, and before everyone gets too snarky on me, most utility services, even your electric company, provide repairs only up to the exterior wall of your re

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            I hate Comcast as much as anyone and no longer use their service but in this instance it is hard to see clear cut deception. The Comcast service plan doesn't cover wiring _INSIDE_ the walls (read the OP). But the repair service will cover all of the wiring from the wall outlet, across the floor, the tangle of wiring behind the entertainment center, etc. Oh, and before everyone gets too snarky on me, most utility services, even your electric company, provide repairs only up to the exterior wall of your resid

        • Sometimes people call a tech and it turns out they haven't plugged in one of their boxes correctly or it got unplugged. I would imagine they would charge you for that.
        • They tried the same nonsense up here in Canada with Bell. "Line protection". I said they installed the line, up to them to repair it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bengie ( 1121981 )
        That's pretty crappy. My ISP uses Ethernet for everything, including voice and TV. They had to run Cat5E throughout my house. My friend built a new house with no CAT and he said they ran the cabling through his dry-wall like pros. All "free" of course. If my podunk ISP can afford to run CAT in every house in the city, then Comcast can easily afford to fix or re-run COAX for a small number of customers.

  • Punitive damages (Score:3)

    by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @03:35PM (#52623811)
    Without punitive damages (loss of right of ways, permission to do business) they will laugh this off and keep right on going.

    • Re:Punitive damages (Score:4, Insightful)

      by H3lldr0p ( 40304 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @03:45PM (#52623875) Homepage

      I'm betting that the state DA is doing everything they're allowed to under the applicable laws. I greatly doubt that the Washington legislature gave the DA the ability to yank right-of-ways or anything of the like. That power either lies with a utility commission or with a legislative committee. Rightly so. I wouldn't want a DA to be playing politics with utility companies. I'd rather have them be as independent as possible.

      If I lived in that state, I'd be calling and writing my rep and those on said committee and push there.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wbr1 ( 2538558 )
      Comcast had approximately 68 Billion in revenue in 2015.

      100M? Pittance. They will spend double that on attorneys to fight, and then quadruple that to get accounts and attorneys to hide things better next time. Then they will pay that again to lobby for lighter restrictions.

  • Nice to see some real money for these violations. $100M certainly wont bankrupt Comcast, but hopefully it will make them sit up and take notice.

  • When is Government Going to Get Off Our Backs! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Monday August 01, 2016 @03:39PM (#52623839)
    The Comcasts of the world are the backbone of the U.S. economy, the job creators, shining examples of the free market at work. And yet again, we have government coming in to ride rough-shod over a company with a long history of innovation and customer service. If only there were a candidate who was a real leader when it came to business. Then we'd see things change for the better...
    ...OK. I give up. I can't type with a straight face anymore.

    • You might find this article [unlockyourbravado.com] interesting.

      In any event, if you think any issue is more important than illegal immigrant amnesty, feel free to vote for that other candidate.

      Specifically, amnesty that will dump 17 million new job seekers into the economic market.

      If you're secure in your job, and don't think you'll have trouble finding a new one if needed, then by all means vote for her.

    • What is wrong with you? There is no such thing as a free market in the telecom space. The free market has been regulated out of existence by the FCC and its regulations.

      You are blaming free market for problems created by socialism and corrupt government practices. Once you cry for regulation, all you are doing is putting the government and businesses in bed together. Now I see you crying over it all since your plan has failed... but you still have not missed the parts of the instructions that say immedi

      • So Comcast steals from its customers because zOMG SOOOOCIALISM!
        So Comcast puts you through the wringer for daring to cancel their "service" because zOMG SOOOOOCIALISM!
        Don't put any rules at all on business and we'll all be drinking that free bubble up and eating that rainbow stew, just like we were about 1880 or so before the zOMG SOOOOCIALISTS! ruined everything.
        And here I thought thievery was the fault of the thief, and Republicans were about personal responsibility.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Jawnn ( 445279 )

          So Comcast steals from its customers because zOMG SOOOOCIALISM! So Comcast puts you through the wringer for daring to cancel their "service" because zOMG SOOOOOCIALISM! Don't put any rules at all on business and we'll all be drinking that free bubble up and eating that rainbow stew, just like we were about 1880 or so before the zOMG SOOOOCIALISTS! ruined everything. And here I thought thievery was the fault of the thief, and Republicans were about personal responsibility.

          Whoosh much?

  • Places should not be able to hide under fine print & a system of contractors / sub contractors.

    It's seems like reps where saying one thing but the fine print stated something different. Now maybe when it's 1-2 reps the company should not take full responsibility but when it's poor training / a big hit your sales numbers or your out push / miss leading scripts and or sales pitches then company needs to take responsibility.

    Also 200 fix codes just shows how messed Comcast's back end is and how easy it is f

  • $2,000 per violation of the Consumer Protection Act. Shouldn't that be more like $2,000,000 per violation?
    That's not much of an incentive to keep companies from screwing customers.

  • If the corporation has rights and is considered a entity, can't the state declare that the entity has revealed itself to be a habitual violator and undesirable corporate citizen and remove its' utility protections ? Systemic violation and internal documentation that enforces unfair/illegal practices should be rewarded with 'shunning'

  • pattern of illegally deceiving its own customers for profit

    Otherwise known as business - why single Comcast out?

  • I remember calling BS on this when I had Comcast Comcast is a bad actor.
    • WOAH! What the heck? My post changed when I hit the button!

      Should be - I remember calling BS on this when I had Comcast less than 5 years ago here in Georgia. And it's not even the most outrageous deception they tried to pull on me.

      Comcast is a bad actor.

      (I see what happened. I had a "less than" in front of the 5, accidentally clicked post after preview.)

  • Comcast failed to install Internet for 10 months then demanded $60,000 in fees [arstechnica.com]

    Bet this guy wishes he had paid Comcast's paltry $500/month "we won't sue you after we fuck you over" protection fee. They don't push that one quite so heavily. You have to know and ask about a special promotion code.

  • The state AG announced the lawsuit the day before the primary election. Bob's definitely looking to make friends!

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close