Allegedly, the fee rose from 61 cents to $1.99 per month over the course of five years. The company allegedly called this a pass-through fee, but according to the customers, it was really an administrative fee from which the company profited. However, this allegedly turned out to not be the only fee they were charged.Īccording to the customers, AT&T then began charging an additional fee in 2013. They had claimed the carrier advertised a monthly price, based on which the customers decided to sign up for service. The customers filed their AT&T bait-and-switch class action lawsuit in June 2019. The judge did not allow customers to claim that the fee itself violated California law, and did not allow customers to make claims against the company before the 2018 identification of the fee in question. Judge Beeler did trim some claims from the AT&T bait-and-switch class action lawsuit. In the judge’s view, each new bill a customer incurred had its own limitations period, whereas AT&T had attempted to lump the bills together to claim they were beyond the statute of limitations. Allegedly, the 100-day limit could have been honored if the company had just charged a monthly fee that was disclosed.ĪT&T attempted to say some claims should be barred based on the statute of limitations, an argument Judge Beeler largely rejected.
0 kommentar(er)
