Comcast Settles Lying Allegations, Will Issue Refunds and Cancel Debts (arstechnica.com) 23
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Comcast has agreed to issue refunds to 15,600 customers and cancel the debts of another 16,000 people to settle allegations that the cable company lied to customers in order to hide the true cost of service. Comcast will have to pay $1.3 million in refunds. The settlement with Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, announced yesterday, resolves a lawsuit filed by the state against Comcast in December 2018.
The attorney general's lawsuit alleged that Comcast "charged Minnesota consumers more than it promised it would for their cable services, including undisclosed 'fees' that the company used to bolster its profits, and that it charged for services and equipment that customers did not request," the settlement announcement said. Comcast also "promised [customers] prepaid gift cards as an inducement to enter into multi-year contracts, then failed to provide the cards," Minnesota alleged. Refunds to the 15,600 customers will total $1.14 million. Comcast must also pay another $160,000 to the state attorney general's office, which can use any or all of that amount to provide additional refunds. That brings the total amount Comcast will pay to $1.3 million.
The attorney general's lawsuit alleged that Comcast "charged Minnesota consumers more than it promised it would for their cable services, including undisclosed 'fees' that the company used to bolster its profits, and that it charged for services and equipment that customers did not request," the settlement announcement said. Comcast also "promised [customers] prepaid gift cards as an inducement to enter into multi-year contracts, then failed to provide the cards," Minnesota alleged. Refunds to the 15,600 customers will total $1.14 million. Comcast must also pay another $160,000 to the state attorney general's office, which can use any or all of that amount to provide additional refunds. That brings the total amount Comcast will pay to $1.3 million.
Where is the punishment? (Score:5, Insightful)
All I see is a minor amount of restitution and no actual punishment for the crimes committed. We don't let people give back money they stole and walk away so why are we letting corporations do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where is the punishment? (Score:5, Interesting)
Rather than taking it up with a particular AG over a particular case, I think we should pass a law. Call it the "corporate death penalty law." If a corporation commits a crime that would get a human being over X years in prison (we can work out the details) then that corporation is immediately dissolved, and its assets sold off. The stock owners who allowed the crime to happen in their name (they are the owners, and the ones who would profit from the crime after all) get no prison time, but no recompense.
This mitigates the moral hazard that arises from letting people profit from crimes with no liability. Until we start revoking corporate charters, corporations will consider themselves above the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Logistics (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, it's a great idea. If you want to completely tank the US economy and make us an irrelevant third world country, that is. I'm sure Russia and China love the idea.
A solution that's much more practical, simple, and realistic is making the fines for this stuff higher than rounding error. The core problem is courts are often bound by precedent to apply fines similar to past fines in similar cases. I say give courts more leeway with sentencing so they can really give bad actors a good kick in the ass rather than a slap on the wrist.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a funny idea about how federal law works. Commerce clause gives the Fed the right to overrule state governments on issues like this. The idea that only state laws can regulate state business is ludicrous.
It won't tank the economy at all. As the poster above me said, we could simply nationalize the criminal enterprise. Give it to the employees. Nothing of value would be lost.
You really sound like you like the idea of profiting off of criminal activity without any liability. That's kind of an elitist
Re: (Score:2)
in the early days of our country, the corporate death penalty by the states was very much a thing and in 1855 the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the state's powers over corporate charters.
What screwed everything up, was a sneaky court clerk who decided to reframe the 1886 Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad as a precedent about corporate personage, which allowed the government to disgusti
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if the Fed could currently revoke a state charter. I'm talking about a NEW law that would let them, and yes, it would be constitutional, the court has already ruled on that, pretty much the commerce clause lets the Fed do anything they like if it can be loosely tied to regulating commerce.
Yes, we also need to reverse the damn corporate personhood, er, what do we even call it? A "decision?" As you mentioned, it was a LAW CLERK, so not their decision to make.
We should honestly go back to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
To the company it is just a cost of business that they have to pay because they were caught scamming. A scam that they thought that they might get away with.
This scam was dreamed up by individuals at Comcast. It is these individuals who should have to pay. Unless individuals pay they will just do this again.
a landslide, a windfall, we're all rich (Score:2)
fees are going up to cover this payout! (Score:2)
fees are going up to cover this payout!
Bend over, Comcast (Score:3)
Lying? (Score:2)
Comcast had $85,000,000,000 in revenue last year. (Score:2)
Re:Comcast had $85,000,000,000 in revenue last yea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How about jail time? (Score:2)
The CEO and the entire board should be prosecuted for fraud since it appears to be a business policy from high up.
Until we start tossing corporate heads into prison for this kind of shit, it will continue. The money being refunded is just a cost of doing business and is probably only a fraction of the profits made from the fraud. There is currently no incentive to stop.
The correct fine should be ... (Score:3)
Have the corporate books audited and calculate the profits made from the fraud. The fine is ten times that. A second offense is one hundred times the profit. Bankrupting the business would be a happy bonus.
This should have happened to Wells Fargo. And even if it didn't bankrupt them, the business should have been broken up and sold off.
The government really made a statement (Score:1)