Verizon Tells Customer To Get A Lawyer & A Subpoena To Get An Itemized Bill
from the judge-tells-verizon-to-get-stuffed dept
I've noticed in the last couple years that major telcos have really ramped up their customer service. I've had very positive exchanges with folks at Sprint and AT&T -- two companies, which used to have reputations for horrible customer service. Sprint, in particular, appears to have made it abundantly clear to customer service agents that they should bend over backwards to help customers. Apparently, Verizon has gone in a different direction. A woman, who called Verizon to try to find out about the $4.19 she was being charged for six local calls, was told by Verizon reps that the only way it would provide her an itemized bill was to get a lawyer and have the lawyer get a subpoena to force Verizon to disclose the information.Instead, the woman went to court (by herself) and a judge told Verizon to hand over the itemized bill info.
It is a basic matter of fair business practice that a consumer should be able to contact a utility about a charge on a bill and learn what the charge is for and learn that the charge was correctly applied. The only verification that Verizon's witness could offer that a charge like [the customer's] $4.19 measured use charge was accurate and billed correctly was her faith in the accuracy of Verizon's computer system. The only way that Verizon would offer any information about a past charge in response to a consumer inquiry was to require that customer to hire a lawyer and subpoena their own usage information. By no reasonable standard could this be considered reasonable customer service.The judge has also suggested Verizon should be fined $1,000 for its failure here, and that suggestion will be reviewed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: itemized bill, subpoena
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What is Verizon hiding in their bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is Verizon hiding in their bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is Verizon hiding in their bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is Verizon hiding in their bills?
I will agree with you that the process should be flatter. But since it isn't, the cost of providing the service is real, at least with the way these systems are designed today and the requisite engineer's time. I doubt that verizon will agree to incur these costs and not pass them along to its customers.
I will also point out that if you sign up for monthly itemized billing, the fee is much less than the $40 one-time charge (perhaps only a couple of dollars a month, I don't really remember exactly). It is when you agree to non-itemized billing that the data remains upstream and needs to captured for a request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is Verizon hiding in their bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is Verizon hiding in their bills?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
addiem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: addiem
That or maybe Verizon is enjoying all of the money they are making doing records lookups for the shakedown lawyers, and decided that was a good way to make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: addiem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is wrong with this picture?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do you hate America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YES, like everything else, you don't 'own' your own data...
okay, no problem at all, i'll just get my phone records to prove that i was calling at those times, not getting answered, leaving messages, etc, etc, etc...
as an aside, the particular bureaucrat INSISTED that, even if you could not get a hold of him (which was purposefully impossible), then to leave ONE AND ONLY ONE message...
i call "my" phone company, and A. it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to access a human being, PERIOD; B. it is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to get a hold of *ANYONE* who knew anything about this (phone records? what you mean kimo sabe? billing? okay, one second... *click*); C. after numerous tries over numerous days, i finally learn that i can't access MY OWN PHONE RECORDS, i have to "subpoena" them ? ! ? ! ? !
WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
i blew a fucking gasket, but it still took a BUNCH of calls to a BUNCH of company droids (and i contacted my kongresskritters about this, but i'm not sure if it had any effect or not) to FINALLY get a copy of MY OWN DOG DAMNED CALLS...
(which went on to 'prove' my case and get it resolved in my favor... i EVER catch up with that state bureaucrat, he is NOT having a pleasant day...)
again, i am agog and aghast that this has come to pass, but that is the korporate state we live in now...
ONLY non-corporeal, monied, legal fictions we united citizens call korporations ACTUALLY have enforceable legal rights; all the rest of us stupid -you know- "people" didn't bother getting the korporations to sign *our* one-sided EULAs, so we don't count for shit...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
artguerrilla at windstream.net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: YES, like everything else, you don't 'own' your own data...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Jay on Jul 15th, 2011 @ 7:24pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Class action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Necessary
By putting the $400 million into executives' and board members' pockets, they can concentrate their efforts to find child pornography and snuff it out as soon as they discover their networks being used to spread it. That's also why they're getting rid of the unlimited data packages. Think about it. $4 charge to all customers, broadband caps on data usage, *and* removing the Hot Spot feature they advertised before but have since been removed, FIGHTS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!! Without it, child exploitation will spread like wildfire and nobody will be safe from it.
Sweet Sister Mary Francis!!! Can't anyone else see this???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Necessary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Necessary
This article is about Verizon, not Verizon Wireless. Two separate companies, brah.
Get your story straight before you flip out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Necessary
And if they're so different, perhaps one side should sue the other for trademark or even copyright infringement in using the name 'Verizon'. They're all crooks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Necessary
All modern companies are lots of different interlocking business units. Its not just so they can give customers the run-around, its a way of losing revenue (so a large chunk of it turns up in an entity like "Verizon (Cayman Islands) Ltd." that's primarily responsible for licensing the Verizon name and trademarks to the other units). (Note that this isn't a real example, I haven't the faintest idea what the real Verizon hydra looks like.)
They are a bit of a nightmare to deal with because as a FiOS customer you have no idea how the TV bit relates to the phone and Internet bit. I rather naively assumed that it was just one company.....silly me....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Necessary
And never mind the fact that his whole comment was just tongue-in-cheek anyway.
And never mind the fact that opposing Smarta is a clear vote in favor of child porn.
The Internet Comment Rules Of Engagement state that any humorous comment must be 100% accurate and factual, and correctly aimed at the right subsidiary of the corporate parent. Sorry, Smarta, we don't make the rules, we just play by em. Way to go, Jke! Keep fighting the good fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But how is that not the United States known throughout the world? Things haven't changed, and if they do, it's likely for the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, all derivatives of AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon to look like there's a healthy market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure, I use a relatively obscure phone compared to the iPhones and Droids (an LC Rumor Touch) but I get good service at a price point I can afford.
If you're willing to use an off brand phone, then you can get great deals. Just because Virgin uses Sprint's network does not make me liable for Sprint's BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Understandable, in a warped sort of way. But still wrong.
Having said that, to refuse an itemized bill to a customer is just wrong. The other thing we realized over the years was if we DIDN'T ask for a detailed bill (preferably electronic - you can imagine the size of a paper bill for a large multinational) we usually ended up paying much more than we needed to be paying. We actually used companies who analyzed our telco bills for errors, saving us much more than the actual cost of the service.
After a while, we just agreed with the telco to chop a fixed percentage off every bill, and call it good. it fascinates me that some people will just pay their bill without actually looking at the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Understandable, in a warped sort of way. But still wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Went through similar with comcast
The records never arrived before the interview date. We were stressed. If you have never been in a situation like this each time crossing the border is a crap shoot. They can suddenly decide to not let my wife in if they think, key word Think, she will not return to Canada.
All went well at the interview and she has here green card. Two weeks after the interview the records arrive. NOT the records of all the phone calls I made - but a copy of my bills from Comcast for the past two years.
The other sad part about this is I can't switch to another carrier because there isn't a comparable one in the area. No competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Went through similar with comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Went through similar with comcast
As for there being no competition...sure there is. You just don't WANT what the others offer. But that is an absurd leap from "no competition" That is like saying that Burger King has no competition because you prefer a Whopper and no one else offers one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Went through similar with comcast
No - it is not like that at all. Possibly you misunderstand the definition of the word competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Went through similar with comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Section of this Site
This wasn't Verizon Wireless, it was Verizon... the "We're not Wireless and Our Customer Service Sucks" guys. Shouldn't be in the wireless news tab.
They're two different companies with two different customer service departments and philosophies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Section of this Site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong Section of this Site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even on the inside I'm not always happy, VZW has made some greedy-ish moves I think, but they do try. Example: I just underwent extensive re-training to support to a new billing system that is being built for CUSTOMERS. The new internal support for this external bill is going to make my job much much harder, but the bill will be much easier for customers to understand and read. Check out www.vzw.com/newbill for a preview of it or if you think I'm just trying to defend them.
Having said all that, I'm going to re-state, this article was about, Verizon Communications, the smaller, still growing, home services company that offers Fios to like, 20% of the U.S. It was not, in fact, about Verizon Wireless, who shares part of the name, but is a different company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wireless> Residential> Business
The paperwork may show them as "different" companies, but they use the same logo and share the same website. For whatever legal conveniences calling them "separate" provides, they certainly don't attempt to make that apparent in the public eye.
If Verizon Landline is different from Verizon Wireless, get a different logo and get a different website and stop acting like one company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is a different website. One is verizon.com, one is verizonwireless.com. Click on "Wireless" at verizon.com, it redirects you to the other.
It is a different company. One is public, one is not. They have different boards, different CEOs, different customer service departments, different guiding principles, different everything.
Just because your brain can't separate the two doesn't mean they're not completely different entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You had a good point until this line. Was that really necessary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. Is any of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Would seem to me that you are at least partly wrong. Please hold on the personal attacks. They aren't doing you any favors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or would Verizon.com put a link directly to Verizon Haircuts on their main page just as they do to the Wireless company. Which is a completely different company as well.
While they are on paper different, they try and appear as separate divisions of Verizon. At Verizon.com the first link is to "Wireless". Maybe that explains why I have trouble separating the two: shared graphics, shared website style, shared links, bundling services together on a shared bill.
Looks completely different to ... no, actually. It doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon Service or lack their of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds strange, how does that work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
people are the problem
I showed Verizon Wireless corporate liars the law and they relented their decision against me quickly enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: people are the problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TIME TO DUMP VERIZON ON IT'S ASS
FIND AN ALTERNATIVE, PEOPLE! GET IT, YET?!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TIME TO DUMP VERIZON ON IT'S ASS
FIND AN ALTERNATIVE, PEOPLE! GET IT, YET?!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
FWIW I think trying to capitalize on the name Verizon has made for itself in wireless to boost their sales of their "Home" stuff is going to fail. Pretty soon the owners of the Verizon name are going to have to step in and fix this crap before it starts giving Verizon a bad name (oh look, it's already happening...). And while yes, they operate independently, no they are not independent of each other: if Coca-Cola starts putting poison in the Diet-Cokes, you don't keep buying the Classic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Billing is probably wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
records for a period of at least 18 months under the Commission�s existing rules, see 47 C.F.R. � 42.6.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cramming a new / old thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they take away their business license they'll just get their purchased congressperson to fix it.
This country is owned lock stock and barrel by corporations like Verizon. This is why NOTHING makes sense in the US right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they take away their business license they'll just get their purchased congressperson to fix it.
This country is owned lock stock and barrel by corporations like Verizon. This is why NOTHING makes sense in the US right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhhhhhh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nowhere in the article does it state that the person that contacted Verizon was in fact the actual account owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
or a journalist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow that's sick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alltel doing biz in Sin City under Verizon
Service with Alltel paid it in person at Verizon store.
They could never furnish a itemized bill back then.
Then through the grapevine heard that Verizon legally could have service in Las Vegas as a parent company to Alltel
Still wonder is if I can get money back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next Up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! This goes directly to what other folks are talking about in their comments.
Virgin Mobile doesn't just "use Sprints network", it is a WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY of Sprint (in the U.S.).
So, in actuality, you ARE liable for Sprint's BS.
Still think there are alternatives??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Local calls have never been detailed on bills, not since time began. This judge, and this customer, need to grow up. Verizon needs to refund the charge and cancel the account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon
Get it together Verizon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon cable 200.00 "refundable" deposit joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon Communications
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Verizon Communications
I logged on to my verizon email and found a strong message all over the screen that my bill was overdue!!! I paid early and correct amount send to my bank on an ebill. I pay my verizon bill at my bank payonline but before I do I get an email from my bank saying it is going to be due (about a month before it is due) I can then view,pay on a scheduled date. I always pay on time and correct amount.
The bill had harrassing messages everywhere on my verizon, no email but messages that could not be avoided!!!!! I am not past due since I paid total bill on :these are from verizons website:
Paid $133.15, 4/12/15.
Paymennt (past due) $133.27
Payment due: 4/12/15
Late fee notice that I would be charged if I did not make a payment prior to April 20th!!!!
Harrassing and verrrrrrrry upsetting since my husband saw the messages as well and caused some strees since no one could see what I see (crazy wrong info on a site where people put money down for payment) I made copies of the errors and was not helped by anyone (transferred, put back to menus and basically was hungup on) 7 VERIZON STAFF told me it was because it was billable on a WEEKEND(tomorrow) and was not updated because of upcoming bill which is NOT DUE for more than a month away!!!!
EVERYONE AGREED THAT I AM PAID IN FULL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GET PHONE RECORDS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I cant believe it!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rude Manager
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon Customer Service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misrepresnting ability to provide bundle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
verizon
My question:
What is the reason for the increase?
Their reply:
"verizon reserve the right to increase fees"
My reply:
But you didn't tell me what the reason is"
their reply:
"verizon reserves the right to increase fees"
my reply:
"but you didn't tell me what the increase is based on"
their reply:
"we could go around in circles on this"
my take:
their customer service is terrible and verizon misleads their customers ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cellphone insurance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon Customer Service
Most recently, I ordered an iPhone 5 that was not delivered on the date promised and after making contact with customer service eleven times and being promised any number of remedies, I am left with a customer service supervisor today who could only apologize once more, tell me how much they value my business and essentially blame Apple for not making enough phones.
Mind boggling to say the least. I would be embarrassed to represent a company that treats its customers that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon and Tmobile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PROBLEM ANSWERED !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pissed off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Verizon SUCKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]