Class Action Claims Suddenlink Owes Refunds for Frequent Outages, ‘Sluggish’ Internet Speeds

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Suddenlink Communications has continued to charge California customers for internet services regardless of whether they’ve experienced “frequent and prolonged” outages and “near constant” sluggish internet speeds, a proposed class action alleges.

Filed by a Nevada County, California resident, the 29-page case says that although Cequel Communications, LLC, which does business as Suddenlink, promises to provide “reliable” internet services, with download speeds of up to 100 to 940 megabits per second (mbps), to residents of Placer, El Dorado and Nevada Counties, customers, in reality, are often prevented from using their internet services due to painfully slow speeds and outages that can last a month at a time.

Despite Suddenlink’s failure to provide the services it promises, the Altice, USA subsidiary has refused to issue refunds to customers, the breach-of-contract suit claims.

The case relays that Suddenlink has over the last decade come to hold and maintain a monopoly in California’s Placer, El Dorado and Nevada Counties by acquiring agreements with homeowners’ associations and townships. For many residents, Suddenlink is the only broadband service provider available, the suit states.

According to the case, Suddenlink markets and promotes its internet services as a “blazing-fast and reliable experience” on a “next-generation network,” among similar representations. The complaint alleges, however, that the defendant’s representations are simply untrue.

What Suddenlink fails to disclose to potential customers is that its service is “frequently very slow to the point of useless” and experiences unreasonably long outages, the suit says. Per the complaint, Suddenlink refuses to offer rebates or refunds even though its internet services are often unavailable for use and well below the quality represented in advertising.

“Suddenlink charges Plaintiff and Class members for their broadband internet services regardless of whether subpar service or any service is provided,” the complaint scathes.

The lawsuit alleges that Suddenlink’s failure to provide the represented level of internet service amounts to a breach of contract and misleading advertising.

Moreover, the case claims the defendant has failed to manage the “various and frequently changing” third-party contractors who service and repair customers’ hardware, leading to mismanagement of customer service records, long delays and unnecessary repeated visits.

The lawsuit also takes aim at Suddenlink’s customer service, alleging the company lacks the sufficient ability to monitor service outages and respond to customer concerns regarding outages and slow download speeds. Citing a slew of online complaints regarding Suddenlink’s apparent outages and download speeds, the lawsuit argues customers “have been and will continue to be deceived” by the defendant’s misleading advertising claims and contractual promises.

The case, originally filed September 28 in Nevada County Superior Court and removed November 11 to California’s Eastern District Court, looks to cover anyone in the state who purchased Suddenlink’s broadband internet services in Placer, El Dorado and Nevada Counties and were not reimbursed for payments made during service outages and periods of slow download speeds.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.