Pirl

Opt Out Of Comcast

samantha severyn

Comcast, based out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the largest television and Internet service provider in the United States, with over 22.5 million subscribers.

According to the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, Comcast Corporation (Comcast), “is engaging in a massive illegal scheme of falsely advertising its cable television service plans for much lower prices than it actually charges. Comcast promises to charge customers a fixed monthly price for the service plans, but in fact, Comcast charges a much higher rate for those plans via concealed and deceptive “fees” which Comcast intentionally disguises in both its advertising and in its customer bills.” Comcast also switched terminology of its Arbitration Clause in contracts with subscribers, deceiving subscribers of their lawful rights.

In regards to the first charges, “These illegal and deceptive fees, which Comcast calls the “Broadcast TV Fee” and the “Regional Sports Fee,” earn Comcast over $1 billion each year, accounting for approximately 15% of Comcast’s annual profits. Comcast has admitted these invented fees are actually just price increases for broadcast channels and sports channels in its cable television packages. But Comcast intentionally does not include the cost of these fees in its advertised or quoted rates for those channel packages, in order to mislead customers into thinking that they will pay less than Comcast will actually charge them.” (see attached)

To anyone who has followed the reported history of Comcast over the past decade, these charges are nothing new in terms of Comcast’s deplorable customer relations. This complaint also lists various individual State Code Violations by Comcast.

The complaint is brought by individuals listed as Dan Adkins, Jonathan Bailey, Reinier Broker, James McLaughlin, Nola Palmer, Christopher Robertson, Derek Villegas, and Dale Wynn, on behalf of others “similarly situated”. The plaintiffs reside in various U.S. states including California, New Jersey, Illinois, and others.

The crux of this case appears to hinge on what is known in legal contract terminology as an “Arbitration Clause”, commonly found in subscriptions and employment of goods and services across a wide variety of industries.

The position of the plaintiffs is the Arbitration Clause is substantively unconscionable, illusory, and unenforceable, along with claims the plaintiffs did not give their assent to the Residential Services Agreement and it’s Arbitration Clause (page 62). This is important because Comcast’s own website stated, “arbitration was elective, and not required.” (see attached) On March 23, 2016, Comcast posted a modified Arbitration Clause addressing these specific issues, due to the realization that subscribers had opted out of the original Arbitration Clause offered by Comcast. The company then offered no notice of new terms to those customers of their new Arbitration Clause.

To join this class action with representation, you are encouraged to contact info@myPirl.com immediately for access to further useful information for navigating your legal rights to recompense, as a Comcast subscriber.