‘Completely Fabricated’: Lawsuit Claims Suddenlink Operated Bait-and-Switch Scheme in Calif.

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action claims Suddenlink Communications has operated a bait-and-switch scheme through which California customers were charged more than the advertised flat monthly rate for Internet services by way of an unlawful hidden fee.

The lawsuit alleges defendants Cebridge Telecom CA, LLC and Altice USA, Inc., who provide Internet services under the brand Suddenlink, have unlawfully charged higher rates than promised by tacking on to customers’ monthly bills a “Network Enhancement Fee.” Per the case, this “completely fabricated charge,” which is disguised as a tax or government pass-through fee, is “entirely within Suddenlink’s control” and amounts to nothing more than a means to “covertly increase customers’ rates” while maintaining a lower advertised price.

The plaintiff, a California Suddenlink customer, estimates that the defendants have generated roughly $1.6 million in California alone through the network enhancement fee and looks to “put an end to Suddenlink’s unlawful scheme.”

The case alleges the network enhancement fee first began appearing on customers’ bills in February 2019 at a rate of $2.50 per month. According to the suit, Suddenlink “invented” the extra charge, which currently amounts to $3.50 per month, without adequately disclosing or explaining it to customers. Although Suddenlink advertises flat monthly prices for Internet service plans that are locked in for a year or more, the network enhancement fee is not included in the advertised promotional rates and amounts to an unlawful bait-and-switch scheme, the lawsuit argues.

“Neither the existence nor the amount of the Fee was disclosed or adequately disclosed to customers prior to or at the time they signed up for the services, even though Suddenlink knew that it planned to charge the Fee to its customers and knew with certainty the exact amount of the charge,” the complaint scathes.

The suit goes on to claim that Suddenlink disguises the network enhancement fee as a tax or government-mandated fee outside the defendants’ control when, in truth, the charge is “fabricated and made-up by Suddenlink” as a means to inflate the cost of its services “at any time, even during promised fixed-rate promotional periods.” Per the case, the fee is buried in the “Taxes, Fees & Other Charges” section of customers’ bills along with legitimate taxes and government fees.

“However, the Network Enhancement Fee is not a tax or government fee,” the complaint argues. “The Fee is not even a third-party pass-through charge. Suddenlink invented the so-called Network Enhancement Fee out of thin air, and the existence of the Fee and its amount are entirely within Suddenlink’s control.”

The lawsuit claims that if a customer contacts Suddenlink to inquire about the fee, the defendants’ agents falsely represent that it is a tax or pass-through government charge.

Even if customers discover they have been charged more than promised, they “cannot simply back out of the deal,” the case adds, noting that Suddenlink’s 30-day money-back guarantee excludes the network enhancement fee. Moreover, under the terms of Suddenlink’s agreements with customers, they cannot recover the full cost of what they paid given there is an early termination fee, non-refundable installation charge and no option to receive a pro-rated refund, according to the suit.

The lawsuit, which was removed from state to federal court in California on August 18, looks to cover former and current Suddenlink customers who were charged a network enhancement fee on their bill for Suddenlink Internet services received in California within the applicable statute of limitations.

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