dslreports logo
 story category
Charter Sued For Post Merger Billing Screw Ups

Charter Spectrum is being sued over a new $10 "WiFi Activation Fee" the company has started charging some users just to enable WiFi functionality on Charter-owned gateways. The fee quietly popped up last fall when Charter unveiled its new post-merger pricing and Spectrum branding. Users can avoid the fee by purchasing their own router (highly recommended). The fee was only supposed to be charged to new users using Charter's hardware, but Charter appears to have accidentally charged the fee to existing users, as well as some users that already own their own routers.

Click for full size
As a result, a former Bright House customer has filed a class action lawsuit against the company, saying that Charter "illegitimately asserted" that the customer "had newly enrolled in WiFi service."

Spectrum's "false assertions" to and errant billing of these customers, the lawsuit claims, "is collectively an unfair method of competition, an unconscionable act or practice and/or an unfair or deceptive act or practice."

The suit suit seeks $1,000 for each affected customer and "reasonable attorney fees."

Charter previously admitted to the error.

"Some former (Bright House) Internet customers were inadvertently charged the wifi activation fee when they transitioned to a Spectrum package, due to a billing-code error," a company spokesman says. "We apologize for the inconvenience, and will proactively and automatically credit any customer who was incorrectly charged and communicate that to those customers on an upcoming statement."

But users in our forums say that they too were charged the fee incorrectly, and that getting Charter to correct its error was neither automatic, nor easy.

"I was hit with the $9.99 WiFi Activation fee here in Orlando," noted one customer in our forums. "I've had my own modem for years. Took 4 calls to finally get a credit for it."

The WiFi activation fee fracas is only the latest issue for the company in the wake of its $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. The Tampa Bay Times lists a number of other recurring Charter billing screw ups, including activating vacation home service while users are away, without user consent. These "snow birds" are having their services turned back while they're away, only to return to face several months worth of bills for service they never asked for.

Many of our users have repeatedly noted that customer service has gotten significantly worse under Charter. Post meger the company has scaled back online support across social media, frozen 300 Mbps upgrades that had been occurring at Time Warner Cable, and socked customers of acquired companies with major, often non-negotiable rate hikes as soon as they exit their existing contracts. That's when it's not busy socking customers with strange and unnecessary new fees.

All told, like most telecom megamergers, the "consumer benefits" Charter promised are a far, far cry from what's actually being delivered for most of the company's customers.
view:
topics flat nest 

Anona5bf7
@rr.com

-3 recommendations

Anona5bf7

Anon

Tossed out

This will get tossed out. He agreed not to sue them by using the service.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Tossed out

that could depend, the Binding Arbitration was signed with say Time Warner and not with Charter. A judge could claim that requirement does not transfer to charter and all contracts are void. Remember the customer signed up with Time Warner, not with Charter.
InternetJeff
I'm your huckleberry.
join:2001-09-25
.

1 recommendation

InternetJeff to Anona5bf7

Member

to Anona5bf7
Bingo.

People continue to not read their contracts. The contract specifies arbitration. Game over.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

-1 recommendation

Kearnstd

Premium Member

Re: Tossed out

In this case a judge might allow it to trial, The contracts signed were with Time Warner not Charter. A judge likely could rule that normally it would have to go to the arbitrator but since the customer never signed a new contract with the new company they are not bound by the clause.

Mergers likely cause all kinds of contractual headaches.
InternetJeff
I'm your huckleberry.
join:2001-09-25
.

1 recommendation

InternetJeff

Member

Re: Tossed out

said by Kearnstd:

In this case a judge might allow it to trial, The contracts signed were with Time Warner not Charter. A judge likely could rule that normally it would have to go to the arbitrator but since the customer never signed a new contract with the new company they are not bound by the clause.

Mergers likely cause all kinds of contractual headaches.

I have had extensive business experience with contracts that transfer to the a entity in a sale or merger.

This is the legal principle known as assignment, and pretty well established.

The rule with respect to contracts is that they are freely assignable. Like other types of property, agreements and the rights under those agreements can be transferred from one party to another. Under commonly used contract terms, a person would not be required to sign a new contract with the "new" company following a sale or merger of said company. It happens all the time with business ... your mortgage is sold to another loan servicer, your bank is bought by another bank, etc.

There are exceptions to this rule. Specific legislation can restrict the assignability of certain types of contracts. Contracts that are personal in nature, involving personal relations or personal skills, are not assignable.

An assignment of a contract cannot result in an increase of the burden on the remaining third party to the contract.

Finally, contracts may also include anti-assignment provisions which prohibit assignment of the contract, or provide that such assignment can only occur under certain conditions.

It all depends upon the language in the contract a person originally signed with the company.

I will bet that the arbitration requirement will survive challenge.

george927
my current approval rating- 32%
join:2016-08-09

george927

Member

Re: Tossed out

said by InternetJeff:

said by Kearnstd:

In this case a judge might allow it to trial, The contracts signed were with Time Warner not Charter. A judge likely could rule that normally it would have to go to the arbitrator but since the customer never signed a new contract with the new company they are not bound by the clause.

Mergers likely cause all kinds of contractual headaches.

I have had extensive business experience with contracts that transfer to the a entity in a sale or merger.

This is the legal principle known as assignment, and pretty well established.

The rule with respect to contracts is that they are freely assignable. Like other types of property, agreements and the rights under those agreements can be transferred from one party to another. Under commonly used contract terms, a person would not be required to sign a new contract with the "new" company following a sale or merger of said company. It happens all the time with business ... your mortgage is sold to another loan servicer, your bank is bought by another bank, etc.

There are exceptions to this rule. Specific legislation can restrict the assignability of certain types of contracts. Contracts that are personal in nature, involving personal relations or personal skills, are not assignable.

An assignment of a contract cannot result in an increase of the burden on the remaining third party to the contract.

Finally, contracts may also include anti-assignment provisions which prohibit assignment of the contract, or provide that such assignment can only occur under certain conditions.

It all depends upon the language in the contract a person originally signed with the company.

I will bet that the arbitration requirement will survive challenge.

This is correct.

If there is a proper assignability clause, as well as the standard arbitration clause, then the suit is likely to be tossed out unless another defect can be found in the contract, or that the company has violated the actual terms of the contract.

Without legal standing, you cannot bypass arbitration procedures that you have agreed to in writing.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to InternetJeff

Premium Member

to InternetJeff
Good detailed reply thanks. I did not know they transferred now I do.

kfsutops
Premium Member
join:2002-08-19
Lutz, FL

kfsutops to InternetJeff

Premium Member

to InternetJeff
That's assuming there is an assignability clause in the original contract. I believe there would need to be a statement stating that it can be assigned to a different company based on business needs (for sure it's in mortgage contracts).

My first assumption is this would be in the original TOS, if not somebody is dumb....

WHT
join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX

1 recommendation

WHT

Member

Get your own wireless

Save the $120 per year and buy your own $30-$40 Netgear, Belkin, or Linksys wireless router and set it n bridge mode.
Henrypolk87
join:2012-11-05
Davenport, FL

3 recommendations

Henrypolk87

Member

Re: Get your own wireless

A lot of older people and seniors, many from the baby boomers gen don't know about this or people just aren't tech savvy...

Axe_man
join:2016-01-22
Everett, WA

Axe_man

Member

Re: Get your own wireless

Most people don't want to deal with it. Either have a "tech guy" or just go everything as is from the provider. They don't care nor do they want to know.
InternetJeff
I'm your huckleberry.
join:2001-09-25
.

4 recommendations

InternetJeff to Henrypolk87

Member

to Henrypolk87
It's the result of "appliance mentality". Some people never desire to learn about things, and will never learn about things.
Traveller
join:2002-10-10
Asheville, NC
Linksys EA6900

2 recommendations

Traveller to WHT

Member

to WHT
That does not work this is the first time in the 3 or 4 months I have had Spectrum, from the Time Warner buy out that the charge has not appeared on my bill and I have never rented a router from either company. First 2 months it took me going to 3rd level support to get them to remove the charge because anyone lower would not believe I had my own router and in fact told me if they remove the charge wireless in my home would stop working

Astyanax
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Melbourne, FL

Astyanax

Premium Member

It could be worse

Reminds me of BHN's $4.95 "Home Networking" fee they charged -every month- because you had an unbridged modem. At least Charter's was a one-time $10 and not monthly.
deefop
join:2016-05-05
Boulder, CO

2 recommendations

deefop

Member

Re: It could be worse

Charter also charges a monthly wifi fee with their standard package, this was merely a one time fee to "activate" wifi. It's kind of silly to be quite honest, it's not associated with technician visits but was even being charged on "no truck" orders.

rchandra
Stargate Universe fan
Premium Member
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105

rchandra

Premium Member

especially for New Yorkers

Someone tell Eric "I want to be Governor when Andy runs for US President" Schneiderman to add to his lawsuit, if it isn't already in there.

mt999999
join:2016-06-16
East Liverpool, OH

-2 recommendations

mt999999

Member

Fee

Companies sometimes have system issues that bill this fee when it shouldn't be billed. A lawsuit is absolutely absurd. ESPECIALLY giving a grand to EVERY affected customer. That's essentially giving them a year of free service, give or take. It's nothing to get your panties up in a bunch about... I just don't understand some peoples' mindset. I get the most asinine requests working for Frontier while taking supervisory calls. "If you don't lower the cost of my triple-play FiOS service to $13.99 per month, I am not only quitting, but I will report you to the FCC and 'smear your name' all over Facebook"... LOL! He wanted a top-of-the-line bundle with a premium TV and FiOS internet speed package as well as unlimited home phone for $13.99 per month, as he claims he was quoted. Where does common sense kick in? Honestly...
chrismitt
join:2012-07-09
Orange, CA

2 recommendations

chrismitt

Member

Re: Fee

They should sue about the $200 Upgrade fee or them killing whole home dvr when every other competitor offers it directv dish Cox Verizon Cumcast just to name a few
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to mt999999

Premium Member

to mt999999
I do not think this is a bad lawsuit, They should not have allowed this to happen.

Remember the customers never asked for a merger as such the company should not have allowed people to be charged due to screwups caused by a corporate merger.

Anona7619
@2602:100.x

2 recommendations

Anona7619

Anon

Re: Fee

said by Kearnstd:

I do not think this is a bad lawsuit, They should not have allowed this to happen.

Remember the customers never asked for a merger as such the company should not have allowed people to be charged due to screwups caused by a corporate merger.

The customer doesn't own the company. The customer doesn't get to dictate if a company wants to merge or not. This isn't communism. It was an error, it was fixed people got their money back. No need for $1000. Most of which will go to lawyers fees. You sometimes shit happens.

mt999999
join:2016-06-16
East Liverpool, OH

mt999999

Member

Re: Fee

Thank you! I wish everyone had the same common sense.
microphone
Premium Member
join:2009-04-29
Parkville, MD

1 recommendation

microphone to mt999999

Premium Member

to mt999999
I get that billing mistakes happen but it shouldn't take such egregious effort on the part of the customer to get it fixed. It should take just one phone call to correct such an issue.

mt999999
join:2016-06-16
East Liverpool, OH

mt999999

Member

Re: Fee

Well, if you reach me, I make sure it goes through in one phone call. Anything $25-$100, I can reach out to a team to make sure it goes through on the call as well. I'll admit, some agents don't care as much as me. Keep calling, trust me, you'll get your $10. I hate the mindset today where everything is a lawsuit... didn't used to be like that.
wispalord
join:2007-09-20
Farmington, MO

wispalord

Member

sue happy

instead of suing go elsewhere .. people suing like this is why everything is so damn high all the companies in the world have to pay armies of lawyers because of dumb people and we all pay for it
microphone
Premium Member
join:2009-04-29
Parkville, MD

microphone

Premium Member

Re: sue happy

Go where? Not everyone has somewhere else to go. Which is why I find the "you've should have read the contract" arguments annoying.