Washington State Sues Comcast For Routinely Ripping Off Its Customers
from the customer-service-is-our-top-priority dept
Washington State has sued Comcast for, well, being Comcast. A new lawsuit filed by the state this week (pdf) accuses the cable giant of 1.8 million violations of Washington state’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA), including misrepresenting the scope of the company's "Service Protection Plan," charging customers improper service call fees and improper credit screening practices. More specifically, the lawsuit states that Comcast misled more than 500,000 Washington State customers by charging them $5 per month for this protection plan, then intentionally hitting them with fees for services the monthly fee should have covered.As it stands, the company repeatedly sold the plan as being "comprehensive," covering all service calls, including those related to inside wiring, customer-owned equipment connected to Comcast services and "on-site education about products." But when customers called up thinking they'd then get a break from Comcast on service charges, the company would routinely bill customers for all manner of services that should have been covered under the plan:
Comcast’s Customer Guarantee promises: “We won’t charge you for a service visit that results from a Comcast equipment or network problem.” Comcast discloses no limitations on this guarantee. Contrary to this promise, Comcast charged thousands of Washington customers for service calls that resulted from a Comcast equipment or network problem, including issues with Comcast HDMI and component cables, Comcast cable cards, and the installation of drop amplifiers, which fix Comcast signal problems.Anticipating that Comcast would claim this sort of thing was accidental or the behavior of some rogue support technicians, the AG's office pointed out that billing customers for things that should have been covered under the protection plan was so routine, Comcast had actually created a specific technician code allowing them to sock consumers with charges they never should have been subject to:
"In addition, until approximately June 2015, Comcast provided its technicians with a service call fix code that expressly allowed them “to add service charges to a normally not charged fix code.” In other words, the company created a code for technicians to add charges to a service call that should be provided at no cost."Of course if you've followed Comcast over the years, this is a relatively minor offense for a company that works tirelessly to take full advantage of the lack of competition, especially in its broadband markets. And while for a decade now Comcast annually informs the press it's doing everything in its power to shore up what's statistically the worst customer service of any company in America, apparently eliminating systemic, routine fraud from the company's repertoire was somehow overlooked until the AG's office became involved last year. Whoops a daisy!
Granted these are the same regulators that routinely approve Comcast's merger requests to grow larger and less competitive, then act shocked after the fact when this time, and time, and time again results in systemic fraud. Washington also is one of 19 states that let ISPs write and pass state protectionist laws hindering municipal broadband competitors. Meanwhile, Washington State AG Bob Ferguson is up for re-election; surely only coincidental as he targets what is probably the easiest, most broadly-hated target in politics: ye olde cable company.
Should Comcast lose the lawsuit, those costs will be immediately passed on to consumers that -- at least if they want a relatively fast broadband connection -- will in most cases have no alternatives to switch to.
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 tv, consumer protection, washington, washington cpa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Charades and slapped wrists
Given the above I can't help but think that this has nothing to do with actually protecting the public, and everything to do with trying to make it look like if Comcast abuses the monopoly position the state granted it it will be punished for it.
"Sure we let them write the laws and make sure that no-one can come in and compete with them, but no worries, if they get out of line we'll absolutely go after them for that, so no need to object to the whole 'corporate written laws' bit."
Comcast continues to rake in the money thanks to the lack of competition they bought, the state gets to pretend that they aren't just tools and will actually do something if Comcast steps out of line, and the public gets hosed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indeed. To make it hurt the fines must come with an obligation not to raise any prices for a determined period of time and limiting the next hikes. Of course even this will be cosmetic unless something is done to really foster competition like force ISPs to open their networks so others can sell the service, a Government owned and shared network and others.
Not happening, too much money being injected to prevent it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slight correction
Needs to read:
"Comcast is going to use this as an excuse to charge consumers more, regardless of they win or lose the lawsuit"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No fines - null contracts...
Oh, and prohibit Scumcast from providing service for at least a decade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No fines - null contracts...
BREAK THEM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government Overreach?
(for the sarcasm impaired, I hope Comcast has to pay restitution and a very fine fine.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comcast equipment?
Except, by federal law, after wiring is installed in the home it no longer belongs to nor is the responsibility of the cable company. I wonder if the AG is claiming that there is some state law that supersedes federal law on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcast equipment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comcast equipment?
That's an interesting claim. I've got an old Ford that needs a new engine. How do I make Ford replace it for me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Comcast equipment?
Don't be dense. There's a difference between wear and tear, and manufacturing defects. Further, the complaint revolves around assertions the company made that for an ongoing fee, it would address service issues without charge in the future, but charged anyhow.
If Ford had offered you an extended warranty on that engine, but then denied claims for supposedly covered work, that would be closer to an accurate analogy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Comcast equipment?
I don't see anything about "wear and tear, and manufacturing defects" in that statement. You seem to making crap up.
Further, the complaint revolves around assertions the company made that for an ongoing fee
That's a different issue from JoeCool's claim. Maybe you're the one who should try being a little less dense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Comcast equipment?
Federal law may provide that the company is not automatically legally responsible for the wiring after installation, but the company offered to its customers that it would support that wiring. To me, that seems like the company purported to accept a burden it was not legally required to accept. Once so accepted, it then treated customers in a way different from the marketing materials promised. Comcast could have availed itself of that Federal law by refusing to support wiring it did not own. It did not. Instead, it pretended to provide free support for that wiring, then turned around and charged customers who actually used that support.
The reference to "Comcast equipment" may also be shorthand for "equipment that was previously purchased by Comcast and then installed in the customer's home" rather than "equipment owned by Comcast."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Comcast equipment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly!
BTW, the drop amplifier did not solve the issue since it did not boost the data channels that my DOCSIS 2.0 modem was using to a level high enough for it to work reliably. In the end, to get reliable internet, I had to switch to a Docsis 3.0 modem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The service visit was a result of the customer calling us. We have no problem with our equipment or our network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hateing Com cast!
Now I read how their ripping people off. They've done the same to me! Double billing, saying they aren't going to charge me for a tech call, but put it on my bill anyway! & saying its on your bill,but it also shows we took it off.
I hope Comcast goes bankrupt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]