A lawsuit filed by a California man, a customer of Frontier Communications Parent Inc. and Frontier Communications of America Inc. (collectively, Frontier), accused it of perpetrating a deceptive pricing scheme against its internet, phone, and television service customers. Wednesday’s class action claims Frontier has illegally extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from its California subscribers in the past several years through a combination of misleading advertisements and secret fees.
Connecticut-based Frontier provides cable, telecommunications, and internet services to over three million customers nationwide, including nearly one million Californians, the suit says. The complaint details how Frontier allegedly levied three monthly charges on its customers as a way to both charge more per month for the services themselves without having to advertise higher prices and to covertly increase customers’ rates, even during their promised fixed-rate promotional period or term contract.
The filing says that at different times, Frontier had charged customers three fees: the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, the VoIP Administrative Fee, and the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee. The plaintiff takes issue with them because Frontier “prominently advertised its service plans at particular, flat monthly rates that were locked in for a promotional period or term contract, without disclosing or including additional service charges for each of its services.”
The complaint notes that Frontier’s deceptive fees and false advertising practices were investigated by state prosecutors in response to a landslide of consumer complaints. In 2020, the Washington State Attorney General found that the service provider failed to disclose fees to customers and misled them about the nature of the fees it charged, in an action where it levied a $900,000 fine and imposed other restrictions.
The Riverside, Calif. complaint states three causes of action under California business practice and consumer protection laws. It requests public injunctive relief halting the allegedly deceptive practices and disgorgement of the allegedly ill-gotten gains.
Counsel for the plaintiff is Hattis & Lukacs.
