Guy Sues Time Warner Cable For Deceptive Acts & False Advertising Over Bogus Promotional Rates, Hidden Fees
from the transparently-non-transparent dept
For many, many years, plenty of people have complained about hidden fees and bogus promotional rates offered by various broadband companies. It appears that Jeremy Zielinski has had enough. He's actually sued Time Warner Cable in NY for "deceptive acts and practices" and "false advertising." Specifically, he signed up for Time Warner Cable at a promotional $34.99/month package, only to discover his first bill was for $94.45. The $34.99 had magically morphed into $39.99 plus a $5.99 "internet modem lease" fee and a $47.99 installation fee -- all of which he insists were never mentioned anywhere in the original offer. The modem lease and install fees are fairly common these days -- and it's ridiculous but they're the kinds of things that people should absolutely clarify before signing up for new internet service. The wrong promotional fee, though, seems really questionable. Zielinski then had a rather typical customer service experience with a big broadband player:On or about the next day, Plaintiff called the defendant's customer service number to complain about the overbilling. Plaintiff specifically informed TWC that the prices and services billed for were neither advertised, explained, nor agreed to. After waiting on hold for some time, a representative claimed that the $34.99 was a "promotional price" that should not have been on the website anymore and that the "modem lease" fee and installation fee were "standard" and could not be taken off. Inexplicably, the representative nevertheless agreed to remove the $47.99 "Internet, Install fee" from the bill.A few calls later, TWC promised to lower the price to the advertised $34.99, but did not (of course). After many more complaints, TWC did temporarily lower his bill to $19.99 (plus the "modem lease fee").
Zielinski also notes some other practices that he suggests are unfair or deceptive, such as leasing certain modems that the company insists will not work on its system if you buy them (thus pressuring people into the lease fee):
Another page on TWC's site, taken down at an unknown point in the last few months, contained a list of which modems TWC will "approve" if owned by a consumer and which modems TWC will "lease" to consumers. The list of modems which are compatible with its services is substantially larger than the "approved" list. Many modems which TWC falsely claims "will not work" because they are not on the "approved" list are the very same ones that TWC "leases" to consumers and charges them non-advertised fees for. Exhibit H.He also claims that Time Warner Cable sold him a speed upgrade, which was never actually delivered, though the company continued to bill him for it.
For some modems, the only distinction between whether consumers can use it to receive TWC services is whether TWC or the consumer owns the modem. If the consumer owns it, TWC will not allow the consumer to use it, but if TWC owns it—and can charge the consumer a monthly "modem lease" fee for it—the modem is perfectly acceptable to TWC. There is no legitimate technological reason for this distinction.
Many of the modems which TWC falsely claims "will not work" with its services are substantially cheaper than the ones on the "approved" list. TWC's false statements about which modems are compatible with its services, and its refusal to "approve" consumer-owned modems which are actually compatible with its network, have no legitimate technological justification, and are intended to deter consumers from purchasing compatible modems and to coerce them into paying exorbitant and unnecessary "modem lease" fees.
Despite TWC's email, Plaintiff observed that his upload and download speeds did not seem to have improved in any noticeable way. He began conducting a series of speed tests and discovered that his upstream and downstream speeds were the same as they were before the upgrade, even though he was now being charged $10 per month more for TWC services.One interesting note in all of this: early on, Zielinski made the decision to pro-actively opt-out of TWC's mandatory arbitration clause, which most customers just accept, and which would significantly limit the ability of most users to go to court. Here's one of the exhibits in his lawsuit filing:
Plaintiff then contacted TWC customer service using its online chat portal and spoke with several representatives attempting to resolve the problem.
The first representative revealed after checking Plaintiff's account that the modem TWC had previously provided was not compatible with the higher speeds. According to that representative, in order to receive the services advertised, Plaintiff would have to travel at his own expense to the local TWC office and swap out the modem for a newer one.
The second representative proposed the preposterous solution of giving Plaintiff a one-day credit for the services TWC was apparently incapable of providing, then canceling the upgrade and going back to the lower speeds.
When Plaintiff requested to speak to a third representative, that person initially said the first representative was wrong and that the modem was compatible with a "Turbo" Internet access line, then after a speed test showed the same sub-advertised performance it had a few minutes before, changed his mind and said the modem was not compatible.
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: broadband, cable, deceptive practices, false advertising, jeremy zielinski, lawsuit, new york, promotional rates
Companies: time warner cable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Price changes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price changes
Thank you for your patience. I have corrected the issue. If you'll refresh the website, it will now show the correct prices.
Have a nice day and thank you for choosing __________.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is sad since to anyone else out here it looks open and shut. They padded his bill with hidden charges, then took them off and added others. Their technical support is poorly trained if not incompetent. TWC wouldn't have done anything unless he'd first wasted his time and researched then forced the issue.
If this is what consumers should expect from compliant providers, somebody's not doing their job regulating them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTC, where are you????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FTC, where are you????
I had the same conversation with TWC. I signed up for a new internet plan and the very first month it was a different price. I was told I could have it for a year. They checked the notes and fixed it. The price has remained since (thankfully, since there is virtually no recourse).
I had a line crammed on Sprint and I called them repeatedly on it. Finally after the third call, I called the state's public utility commission. They got me in contact with the dumbest "executive" I have ever dealt with in my life (and that's saying a lot, she didn't know the difference between a balance and a credit) but I eventually got it taken care of with one phone call once the PUC was involved.
That's why it's so important to have the ISPs classified under Title II. It gives you a recourse when they treat you like crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is so crazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the same.
Uh, no. Leased modems usually have custom firmware and are *not* the same as visually similar retail models. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same.
"[...] a list of which modems TWC will "approve" if owned by a consumer and which modems TWC will "lease" to consumers".
If some retail models - which would not conceivably possess any "custom firmware" unique to TWC - are compatible, then it follows logically that most models that meet basic specifications should also be compatible.
The only plausible way it could be otherwise would be if TWC has deliberately nobbled its network to reject unapproved hardware, purely in order to levy a fee.
Either way, it's clear that TWC has engaged in an unethical and immoral trade practise, for the sole purpose of gouging its customers.
While this might be common behaviour among ISPs in the US, in the UK, this kind of behaviour isn't normal or legal and would almost certainly result in a legal slapping by regulators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the same.
Different modems with different firmware can behave totally differently even if based on the same basic hardware design.
"The only plausible way it could be otherwise would be if TWC has deliberately nobbled its network to reject unapproved hardware, purely in order to levy a fee."
I would ask you to provide some justification for that comment, but being an engineer with experience designing such devices I recognize you statement as pure bollocks and wont waste my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not the same.
My mistake - and a very noobsome mistake it was too - was in confusing cable modems with routers. Yes, I actually am that stupid sometimes. Dear lord, I wish I could say I was surprised.
In my defence, I'm in the UK, where cable modems aren't all that common - I'm only aware of them being used in Virgin Cable installations and the still-relatively-uncommon fibre setups, where in both cases they're provided by the ISP. I've never seen one available for purchase from UK retailers.
In rebuttal to my defence, I've read a fair amount on the topic, on Techdirt and other places, so I really should have known better before opening my big, fat gob. Also, I actually do have a cable modem, since I am on a fibre connection. D'oh!
In rebuttal to the rebuttal to my defence, my cable modem has sat hidden behind a permanently-open door since it was installed and the number of times I've looked at it is probably still in the single figures.
I've no reply to the allegation of general ignorance and stupidity, though. It's a fair cop, guv.
So, now that I've both annihilated my credibility and actually have researched the issue somewhat and have a slight idea of what I'm talking about, what do I think?
I think it's still suspicious.
Actual retail models won't come with TWC firmware on board, that makes no sense at all, so they're presumably updating automatically as they're connected to the network.
It seems highly questionable at best that certain models can't be updated, when TWC clearly already has firmware for those models, which they're already leasing and selling to customers.
I concede that I can envisage a situation where there are issues with certain hardware that isn't properly compliant with the relevant standards and must be updated in more direct fashion than is normally the case.
I also concede that I can envisage a situation where one party or another has slapped stupid licensing restrictions on how their hardware is updated, forcing a cumbersome workaround.
Both of these scenarios seem like a stretch, however, since hardware providers don't seem likely to gain from not fixing such issues. Lack of compatibility seems unlikely to be a useful selling point.
It still seems far more plausible that TWC just wants to make more money by chewing on its customers for extra fees.
You seem to have some knowledge of the matter, AC. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what the issues actually are?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not the same. The bigest rip of f!!!
Everybody are involved in this scandal and rip off. The modems like Arris(Motorola),TP-link or any other that have to drop their logos are built by those mfg. to specs regulated by Time warner or Comcast,Charter,Spectrum. The firmware is NOT -UPGRADABLE by customer or end user,only the cables company's can upgrade the firmware.As a results of this they directly control the operation and behavior of the mmodem accordingly to them and if no internet access is provided from them they telling customers that customer have faulty equipment.They can throttle down the bandwidth ,the amount of channels on downloads and uploads they do have total control over the firmware of Modem.Conclusion - STOP buying any new modems and wasting your money !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same.
Yeah, and you know what makes it "Custom"? Their logo.
Go peddle your soap somewhere else, troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not the same: Cable modems reference
When people suddenly had the choice of buying their ATT phones (long ago) instead of leasing them, the service didn't stop working properly the minute you connected other units...lol. I use this example because, regardless of the sophistication of the internet vs basic phone service, the "same" units SHOULD be interchangeable---
--unless for some reason the "customized firmware" is designed for use in some diabolical manipulation of the unit--like being able to auto-reduce speed or shape bandwidth traffic in high demand periods or areas...heh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can I contribute to his legal costs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How can I contribute to his legal costs?
Supreme court of New York. Albany court clerk. Susan F. Partington, notary public, ... It's all there in the supplied brief. Shouldn't be that hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just happened to ME!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just happened to ME!!!
Quelle suprise. What's that old saw, "There's a sucker born every minute." Don't feel singled out. They do it to everybody. You're not special.
I am so thinking Casablanca right now for some indefinable reason. Mmm, Ingrid Bergman, gurgle, slather, rouf, rouf, rouf!
[That wasn't intended to be as disgusting as it looks, sorry.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We've had TWC for the last couple of years and finally got fed up with incredibly poor wifi and overall low speeds. We were paying for the 100 Mbs service and were lucky to get 60...our average was 50-55. Our upload was generally 5-10 and our ping 30-120, averaging around 70.
A local ISP offered a better deal so we finally decided to make the switch. We have the same advertised price...100 Mbs...and so far average around 80 Mbs (our peak was actually 110 Mbs!) with uploads averaging around 20 with a peak of 30. It also costs $30 less per month *including* basic cable and DVR (interestingly it was cheaper with cable than without...I don't use it but my wife enjoys Jeopardy).
Either way cancelling TWC was a mess. My wife talked to a service representative about canceling and they put her on hold for four hours...then the call just disconnected. She ended up calling a general customer service line having to threaten to just drive our rented modem to the local office, make a huge fuss at the office, and tell our credit card company to cancel them if they refused. It still took her three more hours to finally cancel the service.
Seven hours to cancel, three of which were on the phone with actual people. Even when she told them directly "I'm canceling" they still tried to argue and offer reduced rates and better service...all of which was BS.
Honestly the sad part is this guy's situation doesn't even seem that abnormal to me. All I could think about was "yeah, sounds about right."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What would happen if more people filed a chargeback? Would Visa or Mastercard cut off their credit card account if they got too many chargebacks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two peas in a pod
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same TWC issues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Class action? ...same thing happened to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TWC - False & Deceptive Services
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TWC - False & Deceptive Services
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is an idea. TWC (and other cable companies) offer free hotspots for their customers. I know Cablevision has tons and tons of hotspots that I can connect to. Obviously Cablevision isn't putting up hundred's of thousands of wifi routers, it comes from their customers modems. TWC does this also.
I wonder if a TWC owned router is built to allow others to access the free TWC hotspot while a customer owned router would not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Justice so blind it simply cannot see the victim.
1.Big Bizness breaks the law and rakes in a few million bux.
2.Big Guv "fines" Big Biz for a portion of the take.
3.Big Biz walks away with the lion's share of the illicit proceeds.
4.Big Guv walks away with their percentage.
End of victimless legal process.
Little Guy - the victim - get screwed outta his cash once again.
Like I said, this is a business model.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who is the legal firm handling this class action lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contact for Mr. Zielinski's counsel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's my story
It's certainly a strange sort of arithmetic they use. I'm not done with them. I really want to know why they think 22 * 2 == 66.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STOP TWC IN THEIR TRACKS - NOW!
TWC will also do this trick where you will get overcharged on your bill. When you call them and try to explain, to not just one, but to several reps. about their "billing mistakes" they will up sell you on why they are the best compared to other TV and Internet providers by stating you will never be locked into a contract with Time Warner Cable.
When they finally adjust your bill after being on the phone with them for an average of 2 hours or more, they will do the following:
For example say you were overcharged by $25.00, what they do next is tax you on that over charge “mistake or not” on your current or next months bill, when they claim to have just credited that money to your TWC account, and saying you should be able to see it in the following months bill. So when your next month’s bill comes you may or may not see it credited but you’re most likely to see an "unpaid balance" on your bill. This is a scare tactic which works really well for them; to have you call because of coarse you don't want to be delinquent on your bill.
So now you call them again and explain yourself as to why the charge should be removed. Plus you literally have to take notes of who you spoke with and what transpired. Just try asking for their full name and they will pause... and say "I'm not allowed to give out my full name or location but I can give you an ID. I'm sure we all been to this point on the phone. They have our full name and social security, but we can’t get their full name or location either?
The person that sued TWC whether he wins or not, has the guts to follow through on what all of us American’s believe is the right thing to do, but will most likely think this type of company is too big and has lots of government backup so anyone who goes against them will lose. We’ll here is one way to start the winning, “put it on (TV and Radio media news)" of how you are being treated unfairly with YOUR hard earned money and let the public decide on what is justice with this type of price gouging.
Don't believe me then take out your current and previous TWC bills and look at each charge -item by item- and chances are they will not be the same rate for everyone, not even if they reside in the same location.
Finally, retention does absolutely nothing to help you get any further then with a regular TWC rep. If you want to get your bill corrected without spending hours on the phone, then do this:
Call customer service, billing dept., or retention, it doesn’t really matter. Don't ask but demand to speak with the manager or supervisor on duty, the retention reps. absolutely hate this because they are rated on their customer service experience with you the CUSTOMER. If you get passed them and connected to the manager or supervisor on duty, then consider yourself close to 90% on your way to really getting your issue resolved. The key here is to be very nice and stick to the facts of what is wrong with your bill or service. If you are not rude to them they will really listen and help try to resolve your issue. I’m talking about the manger or supervisor. Don’t get me wrong, there are really good representatives on the phone, but the problem is, they are limited as to what they can do, such as giving credits or just understanding your specific billing and service issues. The reps. depend on the notations on the computer screen, they have everything that the previous rep. discussed with you on the phone, so if you can be very specific on what your issue about, you will get a better response as long as it compares to their notes.
"Reason for this venting"
You get a new promotion that was guaranteed for 12 months (1 year) and you are happy that very day. The following month's bills are due, guess what??? You are now being overcharged by $25.00 on each bill, plus your $300.00 promotion is in jeopardy of being cancelled. Now you are forced to call TWC to get all this mess resolved but unfortunately this is the same song and dance until you finally decide to CUT THE CORD with TIME WARNER CABLE and save thousands of dollars, of your money.
Plaintiff, Jeremy Zielinski and the FTC has had enough with TWC, and so should we.
Feel free to re-post this everywhere online, so everyone can stand up to this company and other’s like it, and MAKE THEM work NOT TAKE from US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: STOP TWC IN THEIR TRACKS - NOW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: STOP TWC IN THEIR TRACKS - NOW!
I signed up for there ultimate package and online it included showtime. After I got hooked up I found I did not have showtime. I called and talked to several people and they told me , "oh sorry I can't help you, but I can add it for $8 More per month. When I obviously said "no I want what was advertised and sold to me for the advertised price" I was told," I understand I'll see what I can do" Then they came back with I can add showtime for $3 per month" and were surprised when I insisted on getting it for the advertised price. Guess what I got no where. My last call they hung up on me! I'd go to another provider but Time Warner is our only option for Internet. Why can't anything be done about TW!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TWC deceptive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
charges for services not being Install ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: charges for services not being Install ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shitty harassing TWC service
I had a TWC connection from May to August of 2015 in High-point, North Carolina. My roommate returned their equipment and had the account closed on 08/22/2015 and yet they kept the account till November 2015 just for Fuck's sake!
They charge me for a period when I wasnt using the service and during the service too they added miscellaneous charges such as one-time only $98 for online fee and always charged more than the plan stipulated that too for a service that had a 305 chance of working on any given day!!
Retards have the worst sort of customer service which asks you the same questions and details over and over again. On one occasion I was put on hold for 25mins for resolving one fucking discrepancy in bill that too on their part!! The entire call costed me 1hr 20mins!! Never, never should anyone take up TWC!! I am gonna spam all consumer forums with complaints against their shitty service!!
I wish I had the financial resources to screw these fucktards in a Court!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't like Time Warner, but...
"Additional charges apply for equipment, installation, taxes & fees, broadcast, sports programming, activation and other surcharges, Directory Assistance, Operator Services, International calls outside of the calling area and other one-time charges."
This wasn't hidden in 500 pages of text. It is on their home page. It continues to show as you progress through the site to choose your plan. As you progress through, they outright tell you what the costs are.
As for the TV ads, it will say something like $39.99 plus tax and fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't like Time Warner, but...
I ordered it over a month ago, to have the internet kit sent to her house. The kit never came but got emails saying I needed to call them. I called them and they said everything was fine and the kit should be on it's way. But I Still kept on getting emails telling me I needed to call them about the order. Called them again, this time I taped my phone call. I told them I ordered it online, kit never came etc. I even have like 10 emails and order confirmation that I ordered it online.
So when I call the last time for them to give me the shipping tracking number for the internet kit and square away my online order, that I signed up for $34.99. The Time Warner rep said it is actually $39.99 a month, and I ask them why? Oh the price is different when you order it online verses on the phone. I said but I ordered it online and even have emails and confirmations etc. She said but the price is $39.99 and that the website list it as $34.99!
I got it on tape! I looked at my girlfriend during the call and my eyes got huge and after I hung up I laughed at how stupid is this company are you begging to be sued!
Here's my back story, I won't say who I produced and worked for but I have been in and on national radio and producing news segments for over 15 years. My long time radio host friend actually who I grew up with and worked with for years has been battling with his cable company to the point he has gone on air about how these cable companies are screwing everyone over. He has gotten so much press about it, that his former cable provider is doing damage control.
I also have a bevy of who's who of top lawyers in the country, that I have personally booked on our show and shows during the years. And I mean we do legal segments where these top attorneys have gotten major press from our show. And to boot my sister has worked in law for years and works at one of Manhattan's top law firms.
I waited over a month going back and forth, I called Time Warner and all this wasted time. My mother lives four hours away from me so that's why I had it sent to her. And because of this not being sent a month ago, it actually screwed me because I had to cancel plans of going to my mother's with work and canceled plans. And on top of that, Time Warner decides to do this bait and switch.
Sorry folks, but I won't stand for a company trying to make extra money off me like I am some sucker. This is pure bait and switch!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want to sue Time Warner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False promise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UPDATE: TWC Scam 2016-2017
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is a sex offender
Google his very unusual name and new york and see what I found
[ link to this | view in chronology ]