Comcast Gets $9 Million Fine For Tricking Customers With 'Worthless' Protection Plans
from the relative-wrist-slap dept
In August of 2016, Washington State sued Comcast, claiming the cable giant had long been offering consumers a "service protection plan" that was barely worth the paper it was printed on. According to the Washington State AG, the plan promised consumers "comprehensive" protection for all repairs, service calls, maintenance of inside wiring and customer-owned equipment, and "on-site education about Comcast products" for $5 more per month.
But the AG investigation found Comcast repeatedly misled consumers about the scope of the plan, and routinely charging consumers for repairs and service that should have been included under the plan's umbrella. Comcast misled more than 500,000 Washington state consumers in this fashion, and the AG's original lawsuit (pdf) noted that Comcast had even created a clear "service code" for techs to use when they wanted to incur charges for service that should have been covered under the plan.
Fast forward to last week, when a ruling in King County, Washington court (pdf) found that Comcast also technically violated the law more than 445,000 times when it charged tens of thousands of Washingtonians for this worthless Service Protection Plan -- without first obtaining their consent. From the full AG announcement:
"The court found that Comcast added the SPP to the accounts of 30,946 Washingtonians without their knowledge, and did not tell an additional 18,660 Washingtonians the true cost of the plan. The court ordered Comcast to refund affected consumers, and pay 12 percent interest on the restitution. The amount of restitution is unknown at this time, but is expected to be significant. The court ordered Comcast to issue the refunds within 60 days and report to the state on the specific details and amounts."
Comcast's little gambit was certainly profitable: the court ruling declared that Comcast netted more than $73 million in errant fees over a five-year period by signing up customers for the worthless service plan they never asked for. Court recordings even documented how Comcast would sign up customers for the plan even when they clearly rejected Comcast representatives' pitches.
Comcast, whose historically terrible customer service is already the stuff of legend, will be required to refund nearly 50,000 customers and pay a $9.1 million fine to make up for years of misleading behavior. And while that sets a Washington State record, that still likely falls well short of the total net profit Comcast made from scamming Washington State consumers. And that's of course just Washington State; if Comcast was doing this in Washington, it was likely doing it in other states, yet no other states have pursued investigations into the behavior.
In the wake of the federal government abdicating most of its authority to protect consumers from giant telecom monopolies that face little organic competition, states have tried to step up their game when it comes to consumer protection. But it hasn't been easy; with the Ajit Pai FCC's help, the telecom lobby has tried its damnedest to ban states from being able to hold giant ISPs responsible. That gambit hasn't been working out all that well -- at least in states that can be bothered to actually still care about consumer protection.
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: fcc, scams, service protection plan, washington, wireless protection plan
Companies: comcast
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Comcast netted more than $73 million in errant fees
and pay a $9.1 million fine
Yep. Crime pays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a 9.1 million fine yes, but you missed the part about also refunding customers their money with 12% interest.
"The court ordered Comcast to refund affected consumers, and pay 12 percent interest on the restitution. The amount of restitution is unknown at this time, but is expected to be significant."
So many the crime won't pay in this case. If people are getting all their money back plus 12% interest plus the added 9.1 million fine. I assume that puts it over the $73 million that they made, which will end up costing them money. So the crime didn't pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, it did because they only lost money in Washington. So far, no one else has batted an eye. So they're still running the scam elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While you have a point - the corporation has to pay that money back. I would assume that the individuals who personally profited won't have to pay back anything. It still pays for those individuals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're assuming that Comcast doesn't make it too hard for the affected consumers to file a claim and that the refund doesn't come in the form of service vouchers.
If they make the eligibility requirement similar to what TurboTax did for "Free" tax return filing, they'll still turn a profit, even in Washington.
Fines should at least match the estimated profit, in addition to the refunds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, they could easily just make the "refund" coupons good for 10% off a year's subscription to HBO or something similar. That's a really common tactic. Microsoft made an art form out of making fake refunds for customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some things don't add up
Somewhere in those, and probably other, numbers lies the answer, but I am having a hard time making these numbers make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The ceo should have his pubic hairs plucked from his testicles assuming ceo has testicles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How fucking funny...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's a 9.1 million fine yes, but you missed the part about also refunding customers their money with 12% interest.
I didn't miss it.
I just don't believe Comcast is going to do so. Even if they do, they'll simply work off the interest collected over the years.
No matter how you spin this, Comcast made millions illegally and gets away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which is why I say we need a law to cover such scenarios. Allow me to propose The Crime Does Not Pay Act: Should any business be found to have earned money through a violation of the law, they shall be fined a minimum of 100% of the gross revenue earned through their illegal business dealings.
You want companies like Comcast to stop treating fines for illegal behavior as "the cost of doing business" and profiting anyway? Make it impossible to profit therefrom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Crime Does Not Pay Act
But this is corporate crime - the lawmakers are paid too much to pass laws that would hurt corporations!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly the problem. You need to make sure the people who write and enforce the laws are on board before you can punish the people who exploit the loopholes, and that likely takes a systemic change that's going to be hard to create.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And like other laws of this nature, its use will be predominately against individuals rather than business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your proposal doesn't do that, because the chance of getting caught (and found liable) isn't 100%. It's incongruous with non-corporate rules too; imagine if the only punishment for bank robbery was having to give back 100% of the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mr. Wheeler didn't say "exactly 100%", he said "a minimum of 100%", so (theoretically) that just sets a floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that was deliberate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Half a million clients, $5/month, for years
$9 million fees
refund plus $18/client
vs
$5/month for years
:thinkingemoji:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But we can definitely trust Comcast to abide by NN without there being any rules.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well they did "pinky swear" right? I mean what could go wrong???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that amount is about as much harm as spitting into the ocean! i wonder how much the prick got for fining this pathetic figure? no wonder Comcast wont say anything as they made $73m out of the scam!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It only applies to 2016 as well I think. I remember there being something about how its a very limited scope ans thats why the ruling is an embaressmemt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is so much fun...
Anyone here ever call up the phone company and ASK what those Service charges were??
And in the past 15 years its been shown that about 1/2 of them were phony??
From a 1800's tax for phones, that expired years ago, and never removed by the gov. to service charges that Never happened..
https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-05-2012/avoiding-fake-phone-charges.html
And NOW we have cellphones and Apps...And even Google has been kicking Apps off the site because they TRACK you..or just SPY on you.
https://betanews.com/2019/01/15/sms-call-log-permissions-purge/
And dont forget that Calls to 411/information CAN cost you money also..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is so much fun...
https://business.comcast.com/help-and-support/voice/common-phone-scams/
COMCAST..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comcast scams
I almost was caught by a Comcast scammer.
I beat the scammer but Comcast MUST do something about this.
If they don't then they don't deserve to stay in business.
I believe there are workers in Comcast who are SCAMMERS.
Doesn't Comcast moniter their workers activities.
If the scammer shows you on your computer that you have errors on your
computer - it's fake - phony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]