Comcast Sued For Robocalling Woman 153 Times Over A Bill She'd Already Paid
from the if-you're-annoyed,-press-1 dept
Techdirt's very own Karl Bode had just written about Time Warner being forced to pay over $200k for robocalling a woman 153 times about an overdue balance that actually was owed by a completely different person. What with all the complaints that ISPs these days aren't forced to actually compete with one another, Comcast, in its infinite wisdom, decided to prove to the public that it will in fact directly compete with Time Warner on the battlefield of robocalling people about stuff when they shouldn't. Comcast's entry into the competition concerns the company robocalling Kia Elder about an overdue balance...that she'd already paid four years ago.
According to the lawsuit, Comcast customer Kia Elder was robocalled repeatedly by Comcast for an overdue balance of $527 she said she paid way back in 2011. Yet Comcast repeatedly called Elder "once or twice a day" between September 2014 and "at least through" June 18, and was incapable of updating its systems to show the bill had been paid despite repeated complaints. Elder and her attorney are now seeking $500 to $1,500 for each alleged Comcast violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. "Defendant acknowledged plaintiff’s instructions to stop calling her phone but did not stop," states the complaint.Yes, Comcast apparently called Kia regarding a bill that had already been paid more often than a high school kid calls his ex to try to win her back. Kia reportedly complained about the calls, but they still kept coming. She tried to get Comcast to update its records to reflect the paid bill, but the calls kept coming. And now, thanks to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which essentially requires companies not plug up the public's cell phones with robotic corpo-vomit, she's seeking anywhere between $200k and half-a-mil-do as punishment.
Now, I'm not sure why legislation is required to inform companies that calling someone's cell phone twice a day is inappropriate, but it sure seems like Comcast hasn't given up on its dedicated aims to treating the public like shit now that the merger-dream is over.
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: customer service, kia elder, robocalls
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RE: Black Bellamy & What Happened Twice
"Hey dude! Dude! You're rich!"
"What the eff you talkin about?"
"Man, that stupid cable company that keeps callin about your brother's account, they ain't allowed to do that, you done tole them a dozen times you ain't him! You can get like, a million bucks in court for them doin that!"
"Holy eff, you serious? I gotta find me a lawyer!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Who says the relevant systems weren't designed that way?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's easy, most companies believe it's their god given right to abuse, harass, demean, anyone at anytime if there's the remotest possibility doing so might [and apparently any percentage above zero is good enough] make them the tiniest amount of additional income.
The only surprising thing is that such a law restricting such behavior exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pardon?
Er, what? I'm sure you don't mean what that reads like to me. Twice, I can accept. The third time, immediately escalate to their supervisor. Hundreds of times? That's just "Holy !@#$!" Of course this is legislation territory!
This is like that TV commercial: "Pay me now, or pay me later." You can't be bothered to fix your broken system after being told hundreds of times it's broken? You can't be bothered to test your system before you roll it out to ensure it's working as it should? You can't be bothered to exercise *any* quality control or due diligence or supervise your employees' actions? You owe me your first, second, and third child for twenty years of indentured servitude, and don't blame me if they hunt you down and kill you for that, you bonehead! Oh, and die screaming falling into a volcano!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you leave off the suburb area code when calling the counseling center from elsewhere in the city...
Took me quite some time to figure out how I was getting all those calls.
Not much the phone company can do about that though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Unlike telemarketing scams and illegal (doesn't abide by Do Not Call) calls both these cases involve a prior business relationship. Such relationship creates exceptions to the various laws, including calling cel phones (which requires prior consent).
What both companies (or their agents) did falls under the definition of harassment. That has always been illegal, even for collection calls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pardon?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Pardon?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There ain't no Selma here! The bitch don't live here!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which they willfully ignore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How many times?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]