# Judge OK's Class Action Suit



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

A class action lawsuit alleging that DirecTV imposes early "termination fees" of up to $480 on customers who cancel the service--often charging the customer's bank account or credit card directly without their permission--has been cleared to proceed by a California Superior Court judge.
Read more:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/07/ca_directv.html
​
More info here...

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayR...STORY=/www/story/07-15-2009/0005060797&EDATE=


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

How can it be 'without their permission' if it states they can do so in the customer agreement signed at installation???


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Its in the agreement and contract you sign. How does this case hold any water?

They better go after every other company that does the exact same thing with ETFs then..(Phone Companies, Cable Companies, Satellite Companies, they all do it....)


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

Mertzen said:


> How can it be 'without their permission' if it states they can do so in the customer agreement signed at installation???


whithout their permission = they failed to read what they were signing


----------



## richall01 (Sep 30, 2007)

Funny all those that started this "Class Action Suit " are women *Kathy* Grenier, *Amy* Imburgia and *Marlene* Mecca.


----------



## Cactus (May 22, 2009)

What happens if you never signed the aggrement? I never had to sign anything when I got my new box. Sorry if too off topic.


----------



## sum_random_dork (Aug 21, 2008)

In the end who will get all the money, the lawyers. If anyone signs up for this class action suit what do you think they'll see.....maybe $20?


----------



## Seattlezoid (Dec 16, 2007)

When DTV was installed in my home the installer did not have me sign anything either. I specifically remember that it was odd that I didn't sign the paper he left with me. In fact I found that paperwork and there is no signature. Now at least 2 people on this forum have a case.


----------



## chevyguy559 (Sep 19, 2008)

sum_random_dork said:


> In the end who will get all the money, the lawyers. If anyone signs up for this class action suit what do you think they'll see.....maybe $20?


Yup, and we'll see higher rates because of this....its the same in the insurance industry, lawyers get rich and we get poorer :nono2:


----------



## roadrunner1782 (Sep 28, 2008)

I don't agree with the ETF, but I sure wouldn't jump into a class action suit because of an ETF either. I agree with others here that only the lawyers are really going to see any money out of this!:nono2:


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

Grentz said:


> Its in the agreement and contract you sign. How does this case hold any water?
> 
> They better go after every other company that does the exact same thing with ETFs then..(Phone Companies, Cable Companies, Satellite Companies, they all do it....)


It is being brought in California. If you don't live there, or do business there, California has some of the most "progressive" laws in the country. It is very much a consumer and employee friendly state. I am frankly surprised that any company wants to employ or sell to anyone in that state. If this has a shot of winning anywhere, it will win California.


----------



## my1423 (May 16, 2009)

They made 424 million pure profit this first quarter of 2009 even with the economy like it is. 


What this case is about is that most installers never give anyone a contract and no customers are fully explained the agreement. The contract/ user agreement says that you agree to these terms by paying your first bill and not canceling in the first 30 days. Then there is a clause that they can alter the agreement at any time. That is one dirty policy and undisclosed clauses in any contract are a legal issue. 

Why dont you put up a poll asking if you physically signed a contract? 
Add a second poll asking if you knew all the hidden fees and how much they were. 
Then a third poll asking if you had known all these would you have added service.

Your going to be shocked what you see. And remember this site is dedicated to those who like sat tv found this site and usually like having sat service. Most households in the US dont have sat service and dont know about it.


----------



## Grydlok (Mar 31, 2007)

I agree with this. I hope they do win. I see it from an installer point of view. People are not told that if we come out on a service call to replaced a defective ird through no fault of their own they get a contract extended. Cell companies who went through this same thing do not extend your contract unless you upgrade your device. You can change your plan at will courtesy of class action lawsuits. Last I check cell phone rates haven't gone up a lot.


----------



## Grydlok (Mar 31, 2007)

my1423 said:


> They made 424 million pure profit this first quarter of 2009 even with the economy like it is.
> 
> What this case is about is that most installers never give anyone a contract and no customers are fully explained the agreement. The contract/ user agreement says that you agree to these terms by paying your first bill and not canceling in the first 30 days. Then there is a clause that they can alter the agreement at any time. That is one dirty policy and undisclosed clauses in any contract are a legal issue.
> 
> ...


You know installers shouldn't be handling the contract side of this. That's always been DirecTv wiggle room. It should be mailed out from D after the order was placed with an understanding that a verbal commitment is as good as a yes.


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

FWIW I was told when ordering over the phone there was an ETF. I have also been told about the ETF extending when adding new DVR's to my account. Ordering online the info is there also. 

Also they would be better off going to small claims as DirecTV most likely would not waste their time with it.


----------



## Mertzen (Dec 8, 2006)

Well with the HSP now using handhelds during ( AFAIK inhouse only at this point ) and with a feature for customer signature we should see less of the 'I never signed anything' argument.
I do know a load of tech that don't give a damn about paperwork.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

richall01 said:


> Funny all those that started this "Class Action Suit " are women *Kathy* Grenier, *Amy* Imburgia and *Marlene* Mecca.


Why is that funny?


----------



## lostman72 (Nov 28, 2005)

Two things that I think made this a hot ticket for lots of people. One, the installer would show up and install but a tree with wind would move so the signal was coming in and out. They would send out someone else and say you are SOL. But DirecTV would still charge them ETF. The 2nd thing the box is a lease if it breaks they should just swap it out. But what they do is say oh you don’t have the service protection we will extend your contract out. Leasing hardware has been around a long time. DirecTV made up their own rules. I don’t think it’s fair at all that they do this to their long standing customers. The box you lease from the cable company breaks you take to the office and swap it out and you are done. If someone comes to your home they may charge 40 bucks or so.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

It appears this is one of a number of suits on this same set of issues. DirecTV needs to cleanup the way they do business. I think they're also going to find that their ETF is going to face greater scrutiny because they also allow themselves to raise prices and change terms during the contract period.
The whole mystery of programming commitment and when it is invoked should be stated clearly. We shouldn't have to wonder if getting a replacement receiver means another two years. You can look at the number of threads in this forum to see there's always a question and a total lack of consistency by DirecTV on how they communicate commitments and extensions.

I doubt customers will get much out of it...except in the end DirecTV will probably settle and agree to change some of their business tactics.


----------



## nn8l (Sep 7, 2007)

sum_random_dork said:


> In the end who will get all the money, the lawyers. If anyone signs up for this class action suit what do you think they'll see.....maybe $20?


More than likely. And even then it will probably be in the form of 4 free PPV's.


----------



## Max Mike (Oct 18, 2008)

I have never signed a thing or seen a contract, I suspect it is the same with many if not most DirecTV customers.

DirecTV has some intentionally shady business practices they need to stop.


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

While on the topic of ETFs: My HR21-700 died a few weeks ago. So I called D* and they were unable to resolve the problem; said they'd ship out a replacement ASAP. I received it a couple of days later, and I returned the dead DVR the very next day (yes I've got the documentation).

Before I called D*, I posted here to ask those more knowledgeable than myself whether replacing a dead receiver would extend my commitment. I was assured by everyone who replied that it would not trigger an extension. Now, after reading some of these posts, I'm wondering if that was really true.

Can anyone tell me if a subscriber's commitment expiration date appears anywhere on the D* website? I visit my online account fairly often, but I don't ever recall seeing that information.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

scrybigtv said:


> Can anyone tell me if a subscriber's commitment expiration date appears anywhere on the D* website? I visit my online account fairly often, but I don't ever recall seeing that information.


Only way to get that info is to either call or e-mail them and ask for your commitment end date. Not reflected on web site or anything anymore (years ago it was).


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

If you just consider the number of posts here where people have no idea that they have active programming committments, often due to new equipment on an existing account, it's pretty clear that DirecTV is not doing a particularly good job of making sure that people are aware of these committments.


----------



## scrybigtv (Jan 25, 2008)

So, in your opinion was my commitment extended when D* replaced my dead receiver?

If there is no hard-fast rule, I suppose no one ever knows for sure when their commitment expires.


----------



## my1423 (May 16, 2009)

I replaced a owned dead h20 and saw on my next bill a leased receiver charge. I called and they fixed it but said my contract had also been extended and they supposedly fixed that to.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

There are many aspects of this case, which most people have touched upon. 

I'd like to also point out that the contract could have said that the ETF was one of your children or one billion dollars. Or if THEIR equipment broke through no fault of your own, YOU have to pay full price for it. Or the contract was changed by D* in the middle of your commitment without clear notification or an option to cancel. Or if your commitment was renewed without your knowledge, and you were not given 60 days to respond. Even if people signed it, it wouldn't mean anything as the contract violates all kinds of state laws.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Another thing I did was to make modifications to the lease agreement I signed. Mine was for a 72.5 local swap with owned boxes, so no commitment was required. And yet it was the same standard agreement. So I just crossed out all the parts concerning the commitments and early termination fees, initialed the changes, then signed it. It's up to the tech. as a proxy to notify D* that the standard contract has been modified, so D* can consent to the changes (or not) and send me their signed copy back. I'm not surprised that didn't happen. 

Heck, I'll be surprised if that EVER happens. But D* is supposed to either set that up or make sure someone from D* is there (or calls you for confirmation) to handle the contract during the installation. Can D* provide any of you with a copy of your signed agreement?


----------



## josetann (Oct 2, 2006)

markrubi said:


> A class action lawsuit alleging that DirecTV imposes early "termination fees" of up to $480 on customers who cancel the service--often charging the customer's bank account or credit card directly without their permission--has been cleared to proceed by a California Superior Court judge.
> Read more:
> http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/07/ca_directv.html
> ​
> ...


The problem I have is they try to charge it directly to any card you've used to pay them in the past. I had Dish Network do this to me once. Had a bill dispute, and they went and charged my wife's credit card (I think it was still in her maiden name at the time). So here's a very possible scenario. Someone needs to borrow $100 cash from you. You don't really have the money to spare, but say hey, I'll give you this $100 bill, if you'll pay my DTV bill using your credit card (you usually just mail a money order, you don't like credit cards). A year later you cancel, and they may automatically charge your friend's card. Even if you don't dispute the ETF, and would gladly pay it...this could happen.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

josetann said:


> The problem I have is they try to charge it directly to any card you've used to pay them in the past. I had Dish Network do this to me once. Had a bill dispute, and they went and charged my wife's credit card (I think it was still in her maiden name at the time). So here's a very possible scenario. Someone needs to borrow $100 cash from you. You don't really have the money to spare, but say hey, I'll give you this $100 bill, if you'll pay my DTV bill using your credit card (you usually just mail a money order, you don't like credit cards). A year later you cancel, and they may automatically charge your friend's card. Even if you don't dispute the ETF, and would gladly pay it...this could happen.


Which is why, also in the customer agreement, you agree to keep on file with them a current and valid credit card.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

oldfantom said:


> It is being brought in California. If you don't live there, or do business there, California has some of the most "progressive" laws in the country. It is very much a consumer and employee friendly state. I am frankly surprised that any company wants to employ or sell to anyone in that state. If this has a shot of winning anywhere, it will win California.


You sure california is a consumer and employee friendly state? Last I saw tons of consumers and employees were on the street.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> Another thing I did was to make modifications to the lease agreement I signed. Mine was for a 72.5 local swap with owned boxes, so no commitment was required. And yet it was the same standard agreement. So I just crossed out all the parts concerning the commitments and early termination fees, initialed the changes, then signed it. It's up to the tech. as a proxy to notify D* that the standard contract has been modified, so D* can consent to the changes (or not) and send me their signed copy back. I'm not surprised that didn't happen.
> 
> Heck, I'll be surprised if that EVER happens. But D* is supposed to either set that up or make sure someone from D* is there (or calls you for confirmation) to handle the contract during the installation. Can D* provide any of you with a copy of your signed agreement?


Yes, their resolution team can. Also, you actually believe they accepted your modifications? :lol:

Plus, go to #9 here: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P400042

Looks like the agreement sez you MUST go to arbitration, so the lawsuit is crap anyway.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

coldsteel said:


> Yes, their resolution team can. Also, you actually believe they accepted your modifications? :lol:
> 
> Plus, go to #9 here: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P400042
> 
> Looks like the agreement sez you MUST go to arbitration, so the lawsuit is crap anyway.


The mandatory arbitration clause has already been tossed by one court in a similar situation.


----------



## jimmyv2000 (Feb 15, 2007)

RobertE said:


> Which is why, also in the customer agreement, you agree to keep on file with them a current and valid credit card.


I *Never* had a credit card on file all the years i been with D* and will not give them it either. I pay old school way each month by Money Order,at least with my bank they are free with the account .


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

RobertE said:


> Which is why, also in the customer agreement, you agree to keep on file with them a current and valid credit card.


started doing business with them in 1996, account still indicates no credit card on file. I pay woth etf via my bank, they can go P.U.A.R if they try to do anything, they have 0 hooks into my finances

As far as the joke of a class action - only one group of people will come out ahead - and it is not the people that started the suit, or the current customers. Hope it gets transfered to the class action captial of the US, then I have a chance to end up on the jury


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

chevyguy559 said:


> Yup, and we'll see higher rates because of this....its the same in the insurance industry, lawyers get rich and we get poorer :nono2:


Really? So you think its costs that dictate the prices you pay and not the market?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

coldsteel said:


> Yes, their resolution team can. Also, you actually believe they accepted your modifications? :lol:
> 
> Plus, go to #9 here: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P400042
> 
> Looks like the agreement sez you MUST go to arbitration, so the lawsuit is crap anyway.


This is why the case was opened in CA. CA has a state law that is specifically setup to not have consumers be forced into arbitration.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

raott said:


> Really? So you think its costs that dictate the prices you pay and not the market?


In the case of ETF's and equipment yes. That's why DirecTV is higher then Dish in the cancellation fee department.

The bottom line to your question is they both go hand in hand. Companies will reflect the market but also must maintain a profit margin acceptable to shareholders.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

For the comments about the techs that should not be in the agreement business. Well I would say you should be if you choose to work for that company then you choose to deliver it's information.

With that said I would also say that it should never be a surprise when you talk to a customer about it. I'm sure it's happened to every tech at some point but I'm willing to bet it's the smaller %.

Either way I'd be surprised if this ever hits a court room.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> In the case of ETF's and equipment yes. That's why DirecTV is higher then Dish in the cancellation fee department.
> 
> The bottom line to your question is they both go hand in hand. Companies will reflect the market but also must maintain a profit margin acceptable to shareholders.


Drive your price above market price and total revenue falls.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

When I cancelled DirecTV, they tried to charge me more than $300 in early termination fees. Apparently, DirecTV extended my commitment without my knowledge or consent when they replaced a defective leased receiver under the Protection Plan (and in violation of the Protection Plan contract DirecTV had agreed to).

Although I eventually got it straightened out and the fee waived, a less tenacious customer would not have been successful in getting the fee waived.


----------



## Msguy (May 23, 2003)

jimmyv2000 said:


> I *Never* had a credit card on file all the years i been with D* and will not give them it either. I pay old school way each month by Money Order,at least with my bank they are free with the account .


I've been a DirecTv Customer since 1997. I have never given them my credit card information. I also pay the old fashioned way. I send in a check every month and i will never give them a credit card number for service. I pay my bills the old fashioned way. The day they force me to supply them with a credit card number is the day they will lose my business. The day they force me to use a landline to be hooked up to the service is also the day they will lose my business. I don't have a home telephone line any longer and nor do i plan to ever put one back in as i use Cell phone service now. They can't force me into anything. And By The way I never signed a contract for 2 years worth of service when i signed up for DirecTv.


----------



## Grydlok (Mar 31, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> For the comments about the techs that should not be in the agreement business. Well I would say you should be if you choose to work for that company then you choose to deliver it's information.
> 
> With that said I would also say that it should never be a surprise when you talk to a customer about it. I'm sure it's happened to every tech at some point but I'm willing to bet it's the smaller %.
> 
> Either way I'd be surprised if this ever hits a court room.


We should not have to tell you that your IRD was freezing, or the CID stops working will extend your contract if we replace it, unless you sign up for the Protection racket. Technician is there to do one job either install, or repair your equipment. Verizon explained to me that I am under contract, Sent out my contract stuff in the mail. Verizon didn't have to have their techs explain the agreement to me. Comcast is the same way. You sign the order for what you had done. The agreements come out in the mail.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

coldsteel said:


> Yes, their resolution team can. Also, you actually believe they accepted your modifications? :lol:
> 
> Plus, go to #9 here: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P400042
> 
> Looks like the agreement sez you MUST go to arbitration, so the lawsuit is crap anyway.


That's one of the parts I crossed out. So I didn't agree to that. Plus, that's illegal anyway. This thing called the Fourth Amendment protects your right to sue.

Since D* didn't contact me back, I'm assuming that they accepted my modifications. Just like when they take your money for your first bill via autopay, they assume you agreed to a two-year lease even if you didn't sign anything or weren't notified.

Do I think they received my modification? No. But it's not my fault their contract system is broken. If they didn't receive it, then there is no contract between us, oral or written. In most states, it defaults to a simple month-to-month lease with no ETF.

If D* is serious about enforcing their contracts, they need to do a much better job than they are doing.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> That's one of the parts I crossed out. So I didn't agree to that. Plus, that's illegal anyway. This thing called the Fourth Amendment protects your right to sue.
> 
> Since D* didn't contact me back, I'm assuming that they accepted my modifications. Just like when they take your money for your first bill via autopay, they assume you agreed to a two-year lease even if you didn't sign anything or weren't notified.
> 
> ...


Good luck with that. :lol:


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Whatever. Also, I would almost bet that all you 'never use cards' out there used a credit card to set up your account. So they have a card on file somewhere.


----------



## Albie (Jan 26, 2007)

coldsteel said:


> Whatever. Also, I would almost bet that all you 'never use cards' out there used a credit card to set up your account. So they have a card on file somewhere.


Direct didn't require credit cards to set up accounts in the 90's or even in 2003 when I became a customer.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

I would expect that to change the contract you have to send a copy to D* and they have to ok it 1st, before starting service..you pay your bill, you said ok..


----------



## Fabuloso (Jun 14, 2009)

No No No its not about physically signing a contract what DTV does is if you cancel your service ahead of your agreement and if you have ever paid your bill with a check or credit card DTV takes the ETF right out of your bank account without your knowledge or permission. You may in fact owe them the money but your not given the chance to pay it on your terms like say when you pay a bill at the end of the month. they take it and the only way you know its gone is when you get hit with over draft fees or your ATM card gets declined cause of lack of funds, that is what people are suing for and are angry about.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Believe it says something about all fees due at cancellation..


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> That's one of the parts I crossed out. So I didn't agree to that. Plus, that's illegal anyway. *This thing called the Fourth Amendment protects your right to sue.*


It does? How so?


----------



## Jared701 (Sep 9, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> That's one of the parts I crossed out. So I didn't agree to that. Plus, that's illegal anyway. This thing called the Fourth Amendment protects your right to sue.
> 
> Since D* didn't contact me back, I'm assuming that they accepted my modifications. Just like when they take your money for your first bill via autopay, they assume you agreed to a two-year lease even if you didn't sign anything or weren't notified.
> 
> ...


Wow, just wow. It's very obvious that you are not a lawyer after your first paragraph. Contracts which state you are bound by binding arbitration ARE legal. Take it from someone who is in law school and got good grades in contracts. You DO have a contract with them still and arbitration clauses are legal. You do however have a good argument that the term doesn't apply to you, but that does not mean you do not have a contract with them.


----------



## Fabuloso (Jun 14, 2009)

maybe it says that but its equates to theft when they deduct money out of your account without your knowledge or permission. i understand they just want their money in which they feel entitled too but, they cant take it with out your permission.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Fabuloso said:


> maybe it says that but its equates to theft when they deduct money out of your account without your knowledge or permission. i understand they just want their money in which they feel entitled too but, they cant take it with out your permission.


The contract states they can and will, and activating service means you agree to that.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

coldsteel said:


> Whatever. Also, I would almost bet that all you 'never use cards' out there used a credit card to set up your account. So they have a card on file somewhere.


wrong - The account page will tell you if there is a credit card on file - my states "No Credit Card on File"


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

raoul5788 said:


> It does? How so?


Kind of curious about that also, don't see anything in the admendment that deals with "the right to sue"


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

This is one of the big problems in the US. People can sue for any lousy ridiculous reason. Anyone that buys into this crap needs a lobotomy. There are valid reasons for lawsuits, this ain't one of them....


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> wrong - The account page will tell you if there is a credit card on file - my states "No Credit Card on File"


Mine expired years ago.... They can't bill it, but I am not cancelling either.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> This is one of the big problems in the US. People can sue for any lousy ridiculous reason. Anyone that buys into this crap needs a lobotomy. There are valid reasons for lawsuits, this ain't one of them....


I guess you have never read the many threads in this forum where people have been surprised about the programming commitment?

This is a valid lawsuit that has been certified as a class action by a judge. There are similar suits going on at the federal level as well. The fact that citizens can bring lawsuits against large corporations is one of the protections afforded consumers under U.S. law.

I would suggest that anyone that believes suits like this aren't valid and don't serve a purpose has already had a lobotomy.

Dish also got slapped yesterday for deceptive sales practices....maybe, just maybe if there are enough complaints the televison delivery industry will get forced into providing reasonable notice and at least mediocre customer service.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Cellphone companies should have been hit years ago..


----------



## lee78221 (Sep 25, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I guess you have never read the many threads in this forum where people have been surprised about the programming commitment?


Those are few a far between, if you look at the forum and DirecTV as a whole 99.99% of people know what they're getting themselves into.



Ken S said:


> This is a valid lawsuit that has been certified as a class action by a judge.


That doesn't mean anything. Just like many other class action lawsuits it will go nowhere and for good reason.


----------



## wmj5 (Aug 26, 2007)

you say you don't have to give D* a credit card number, when I went with them in sept. 1995 I had to give them my account number at my bank, so I guess that gives then the right to take money out if you owed them for somthing, I don't know.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

FYI people, if you have ever sent DirecTV a check, they have all the info they need (routing and account numbers) to drain your bank account electronically, without your explicity authorization. If the service agreement gives them permision to take out funds, I am sure they will. Don't be so sure you are "safe" from this.

I never fail to be amazed at the number of people who think that just because the rules say that something is supposed to happen one way and that it did for them, that it is simply not possible for others to have an issue. It happens just about every single time peopel post issues here. Now people insist that just because they were notified of the commitment that it is not possible that some reps do not tell people over the phone or that some installers do not leave proper paperwork or have it signed. Do you think DirecTV never had to fire a rep because they did a bad job? DO you htink that every installer is 100% by the book and never gets overloaded with too much work or even forgets? Get real.

Open you minds to the possiblity that something might just go wrong.


----------



## BAHitman (Oct 24, 2007)

well... if I ever cancel and they apply an ETF to my credit card, I would just tell the credit card it's an unauthorized charge if I didn't agree to pay it. alot easier then trying to get my money back into my checking account for sure... At least then I would have my money while I try to deal with them to correct it...

They told me one time on the phone when I ordered a new reciever that it would trigger a 2 year agreement, and in the next bill, there was a fresh copy of the updated customer agreement for me to read... don't know if that was because I ordered the reciever, or just because they updated it...


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Lee L -- You are certainly correct that just because things work properly for some customers, that does not mean that they work properly for all customers.

But I think the problem at DirecTV is more systemic than just the occassional CSR or installer failing to do what they are supposed to. My personal experience, and based on what I have read on this forum from other customers and people who seem to be DirecTV insiders, suggests that improper contract extensions without customer notification is a problem with DirecTV's systems and procedures, not DirecTV's employees.

It seems that DirecTV's systems automatically create a contract extension upon new equipment activation, unless the CSR jumps through hoops to prevent it. And once that commitment is created, it is almost impossible to remove it and prevent an erroneous ETF from being levied. 

And the policies around when a commitment is created are not clearly defined to DirecTV's customers or employees, which leaves a lot of gray area as to whether a commitment extension is legit or not (for example, is there a commitment extension when replacing a defective leased receiver or defective owned receiver).

Because the problems with commitments are so sytemic at DirecTV, I see almost no way that DirecTV does not either settle or lose this class action.


----------



## Grydlok (Mar 31, 2007)

houskamp said:


> Cellphone companies should have been hit years ago..


They where hit a long time ago. 
That why it real prorated etf's, you can change my plan with extending your contract, any time they make changes to your agreement/plan you can opt out.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

lee78221 said:


> Those are few a far between, if you look at the forum and DirecTV as a whole 99.99% of people know what they're getting themselves into.
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Just like many other class action lawsuits it will go nowhere and for good reason.


1. Please state the basis for your 99.99% statistic...or did you just make it up?

2. Okay, which law school did you go to?


----------



## beavis (Jun 9, 2005)

I hope D* destroys them in court, if it gets that far.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

I won't try to pass myself off as a lawyer, but here are my thoughts on the subject. When I enter into a new service, commitment period is one of the things I inquire about. Hard to believe folks go into this blind.

I will say that after your initial 2 year commitment is up, that should be the end of it. This idea of a never ending cycle because you wish to upgrade equipment doesn't hold water with me. Why? Because it's a lease model now. If I did leave, I'm required to return the equipment or be charged for it. Not like when equipment was owned, it's just recycled and sent to another customer. And since DIRECTV can put up all the account info on the web site, I don't see why an item for commitment time remaining can't be added.


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

I hope this lawsuit wins. DTV's contract extension practices are worse than wireless phone providers. With AT&T I can see when my contract ends online (vs a CSR telling me and crossing my fingers that it's the truth). If I modify my account to add service, move, upgrade equipment, etc. that would cause an contract extension, tell me on the phone AND in writing. If a CSR mistakenly extends a contract for a replacement receiver, fix that on the DTV's system to disallow it...it shouldn't be that hard to implement that policy. Make it easier to resolve mistaken ETF charge and contract extensions. None of these requirements are unreasonable. It's not about making the fine print easier to read or anything, it's about making the fine print available and consistent.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

They did it to me,when i replaced a DVR didn't know and didn't find out until i called looking for a deal in exchange for a commitment.

I was extremely PO'ed when i found out they wacked me whit a two year commitment.They cut me a deal but i am not to happy.

I thought that a one year commitment could be verbal and a two year had to be signed.


----------



## davidatl14 (Mar 24, 2006)

beavis said:


> I hope D* destroys them in court, if it gets that far.


Agreed.

Class Action Suits of this ilk are for people falling into one of three categories

1.Lawyers for obvious financial reasons.

2.Chronically Stupid people lining up as plantiffs that can't understand a simply executed contract.

3. The third and (IMO) the most contemptable subset, the people that do understand their contracts and yet join into this type of frivolous nonsense. Bringing that special sense of self loathing bitterness, righteous sense of entitlement usually accompanied with a healthy dose of sticking it to the "so called man". ie: "Little Man syndrome"

As an aside, I want to make it clear that DirecTV nor any other business has exemplary business practices in every case and there are legitimate complaints but this type stuff is complete overkill.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

davidatl14 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Class Action Suits of this ilk are for people falling into one of three categories
> 
> ...


Yes, because no company has ever operated in a deceitful way. All marketing is on the up and up and the fine print of light gray on dark gray in 4 pt font is done that way to make it easier to read and understand. How dare we expect any degree of honesty on the part of corporations.


----------



## davidatl14 (Mar 24, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Yes, because no company has ever operated in a deceitful way. All marketing is on the up and up and the fine print of light gray on dark gray in 4 pt font is done that way to make it easier to read and understand. How dare we expect any degree of honesty on the part of corporations.


Have the intelligence to understand what you are agreeing to.

If you dont have the mental acumen to understand then make the effort to find someone who does.

If neither of those steps can be taken. Then don't enter into an agreement.

The time for questions comes before the purchase, Not after.

Ignorance nor laziness is a valid excuse IMO.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

I went and read the agreements, found here. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see where it says the contract will be extended if you get new equipment. The way I read it, only changes in the programming affect the term. I imagine I'm not the only one confused by this. This seems like a good lawsuit to me.


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> I went and read the agreements, found here. I'm no lawyer, but I don't see where it says the contract will be extended if you get new equipment. The way I read it, only changes in the programming affect the term. I imagine I'm not the only one confused by this. This seems like a good lawsuit to me.


I guess you neglected to read the lease addendum in your link:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/globa...tId=P500014&DPSLogout=true&_requestid=4188828

And boy am I glad you're not a lawyer, or at least not my lawyer.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

cariera said:


> I guess you neglected to read the lease addendum in your link:
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/globa...tId=P500014&DPSLogout=true&_requestid=4188828
> 
> And boy am I glad you're not a lawyer, or at least not my lawyer.


No, I did not neglect to read it. It says you have to activate the equipment within 30 days and says you have to maintain the programming for 24 months. It says nothing about extending the contract if you need new equipment. If it does say it and I've missed it, please point it out and quote the text that states it.


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

Some lawyer is going to squeeze 5-6 mil out of DirecTV and I'm going to end up collecting an extra signature on every install.:nono2:


----------



## cariera (Oct 27, 2006)

ToBeFrank said:


> No, I did not neglect to read it. It says you have to activate the equipment within 30 days and says you have to maintain the programming for 24 months. It says nothing about extending the contract if you need new equipment. If it does say it and I've missed it, please point it out and quote the text that states it.


Okay:

Under "Programming Term"

For a current DIRECTV customer, the programming package(s) must be maintained for a period of not less than (a) twelve (12) consecutive months for accounts with only standard receiver(s), or (b) twenty-four (24) consecutive months for accounts with advanced product(s)/receiver(s) (DVR, HD, or HD DVR, including additional DIRECTV receiver(s)). 

Under "Consequences of..."

For a current DIRECTV customer, if you fail to maintain your minimum programming of 12 months for standard receiver(s) and 24 months for advanced receiver(s), you agree that DIRECTV may charge you a prorated fee of $240 for standard receivers and $480 for advanced products/receivers (e.g., DVR, HD, HD DVR, etc.).

The language "maintain the programming for 24 months" is the commitment you are entering into.

Hope this help you.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

cariera said:


> Okay:
> 
> Under "Programming Term"
> 
> ...


An example: I get a replacement receiver for my existing receiver and don't change my programming package at all. I am still maintaining my programming package as per the contract and what you quoted. Where does it say that the contract gets renewed when replacing receivers? My only commitments are to activate my receiver(s) within 30 days and to maintain the programming for 24 months. I can replace my receivers and still maintain the programming.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

davidatl14 said:


> Have the intelligence to understand what you are agreeing to.
> 
> If you dont have the mental acumen to understand then make the effort to find someone who does.
> 
> ...


Maybe those same rules should apply to DirecTV. Especially since they are the idiots who wrote the contracts, it is incredibly idiotic that they don't understand their own contracts.

Although I carefully and read the agreements I was provided (and also took the extra step to understand agreements which DirecTV created and never provided to me), DirecTV doesn't understand their own agreements.

And even though DirecTV's own agreement indicate that I was not subject to a commitment extension, DirecTV still extended my commitment when they replaced defective leased equipment under the Protection Plan. And when I objected to them charging me over $300 in termination fees, the idiots at DirecTV tried to tell me that the commitment extension rules were different than what was written in their contracts.

If you don't have the mental acumen to understand a contract you created, perhaps you shouldn't run a satellite company.


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

davidatl14 said:


> Have the intelligence to understand what you are agreeing to.
> 
> If you dont have the mental acumen to understand then make the effort to find someone who does.
> 
> ...


As Upstream has described as well as other posts here on dbs, DTV has repeatedly ignored what is in the agreement knowing that most people won't put in all of those hours calling DTV repeatedly and raising hell for an incorrect ETF.

It's not about the agreement (that's a different issue that I'm not a fan of), it's about DTV honoring the agreement, making the agreement consistent, and easily remedied when an ETF is charged incorrectly.


----------



## TANK (Feb 16, 2003)

Anyone remember which free ppv movie they watched with their settlement in NFLST class action lawsuit ?:lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

We live in an age where *any*one with *any* lame claim at *any* time and at *any* place can file a lawsuit.

I still roll my eyes at the hot McDonalds thingy - that was a disgrace to the legal system.

Folks will have to just sit back and see how this one plays out.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> We live in an age where *any*one with *any* lame claim at *any* time and at *any* place can file a lawsuit.
> 
> I still roll my eyes at the hot McDonalds thingy - that was a disgrace to the legal system.
> 
> Folks will have to just sit back and see how this one plays out.


Except if you ever read that decision (McDonalds) and not the press drivel you would understand what happened and what eventually was awarded...but like so many others it's easier to ignore the facts and use rumor and half truths as a basis for posts.

We also live in a time where someone that is wronged by a huge multinational corporation has at least a shot of being compensated for the damages they suffer in a court of law. That right is being squeezed more and more by those corporations and their paid lobbyists and the opinions of many people fed by a lazy group of journalists looking for nothing more than sensationalism. The really funny part is most of those people speaking out against civil lawsuits would do anything (including lie) to get out of jury duty.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> We live in an age where *any*one with *any* lame claim at *any* time and at *any* place can file a lawsuit.
> 
> I still roll my eyes at the hot McDonalds thingy - that was a disgrace to the legal system.
> 
> Folks will have to just sit back and see how this one plays out.


Third degree burns requiring skin grafts is a disgrace?

My guess is your opinion would be different if you were the recipient of the skin grafts and asked to have your medical bills paid.


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Except if you ever read that decision (McDonalds) and not the press drivel you would understand what happened and what eventually was awarded...but like so many others it's easier to ignore the facts and use rumor and half truths as a basis for posts.


People don't want to know the whole story because whole stories usually ruin any of the interesting rumors or so-called "facts" that people see on blogs/pages on the net.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

ToBeFrank said:


> An example: I get a replacement receiver for my existing receiver and don't change my programming package at all. I am still maintaining my programming package as per the contract and what you quoted. Where does it say that the contract gets renewed when replacing receivers? My only commitments are to activate my receiver(s) within 30 days and to maintain the programming for 24 months. I can replace my receivers and still maintain the programming.


The whole idea is that this is the language of the lease agreement/addendum, which applies when obtaining (leasing) equipment. You are not required to maintain the level of programming on your account that may have been there when you obtained/leased said equipment. You are required to maintain a *minimum* level of programming (which at the moment is the $29.99 per month Family Package) for the term of your agreement.

The trigger of the commitment is the obtaining of leased equipment (other than as a warranty replacement for defective equipment).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Ken S said:


> Except if you ever read that decision (McDonalds) and not the press drivel you would understand what happened and what eventually was awarded...but like so many others it's easier to ignore the facts and use rumor and half truths as a basis for posts.


I actually did read the judgement document.

Personal responsibility was again proven to be a thing of the past - everyone wants to blame someone else when things don't go right....excluding themselves.

Going full circle back on topic....

This is purely a contractual legal interpretation case. There is no way to forecast the outcome, as any judge at any time can rule on way or the other in those cases. We'll all just have to "wait and see".


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I actually did read the judgement document.
> 
> Personal responsibility was again proven to be a thing of the past - everyone wants to blame someone else when things don't go right....excluding themselves.
> 
> ...


No, this isn't purelya contractual interpretation case. It actually deals with concepts of fraud and contract formation among other issues.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

JLucPicard said:


> (other than as a warranty replacement for defective equipment).


Your last sentence is my point. People on this forum have stated replacing defective equipment triggered a new commitment.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I actually did read the judgement document.
> 
> Personal responsibility was again proven to be a thing of the past - everyone wants to blame someone else when things don't go right....excluding themselves.
> 
> ...


A major tenet in contract law is that any ambguities generally reflect poorly on the party that has drawn up the contract and more leeway given to those who are merely party to an ambiguous contract. I would imagine that this could be bad for DirecTV in this case since the contract does seem to be somewhat ambiguous in the wording, at least from what has been posted here. It would be much more clear if it said somethign to the effect of any new or added receiver will result in x amount of time being added to the contract, in excess of the original commitment.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

ToBeFrank said:


> Your last sentence is my point. People on this forum have stated replacing defective equipment triggered a new commitment.


And people on this forum have also stated that this happens mainly as a result of sloppy work on the part of the CSR processing the activation and/or inadequacies in the programming of the system the CSRs use, and that they have been able to get this corrected.

Unpleasant and usually time consuming, but if your commitment has been erroneously extended there are remedies. Depending on how much time you want to put into it, it can be either notes added to your account that explain the erroneous extension for future reference or if escalated to the problem resolution department, they can also fix the information on your account.

It sucks when it happens (and some would say it happens way too often - some say to the point of being intentional corporate underhanded tactics :nono2, but the fact is, when it comes right down to it, you will not be held to a commitment that you shouldn't be held to.

I know, let the flaming begin!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> I know, let the flaming begin!


Your explanation makes more sense than many of the other posts so far...


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Lee L said:


> A major tenet in contract law is that any ambguities generally reflect poorly on the party that has drawn up the contract and more leeway given to those who are merely party to an ambiguous contract. I would imagine that this could be bad for DirecTV in this case since the contract does seem to be somewhat ambiguous in the wording, at least from what has been posted here. It would be much more clear if it said somethign to the effect of any new or added receiver will result in x amount of time being added to the contract, in excess of the original commitment.


+1. There are two main problems:

1. D*, without explicitly obtaining customer's oral or written consent, are treating customers as if they entered a lease. It's D*'s legal responsibility as the supposed leaser to make the terms clear and require the signature of the lessee and the date as well. You can have an oral lease agreement, but many in states anything more than one year requires a written lease. In some states, the default state statute kicks in (usually 30 days notice). D* should be using a written lease with a two-year agreement. Otherwise, it's going to vary for them state to state.

2. D*, violating the original lease, is automatically extending the contract due to problems with THEIR defective equipment and with no notification! Their is no ambiguity here.

What will come out of this is another D* settlement, and D* will modify their lease agreement and their procedures.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

JLucPicard said:


> And people on this forum have also stated that this happens mainly as a result of sloppy work on the part of the CSR processing the activation


Sloppy work, or company policy? You can't answer that unless you work for them.



> and/or inadequacies in the programming of the system the CSRs use


Inadequate, or intentional? You can't answer that unless you work for them.



> to the point of being intentional corporate underhanded tactics


I wonder what remedies there are in that case?



> but the fact is, when it comes right down to it, you will not be held to a commitment that you shouldn't be held to.


It's good to know there are still optimists in the world.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You can't have fraud without a contractual (or in some states verbal) agreement.
> 
> Law school 101.
> 
> ...and most laws are in flux...pending the next judge's interpretation....


You can't? Please give us all more information on your unique legal theory. Or you may want to read the definition of the term in the link below or any other legal dictionary of your choosing.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud/

Seriously, are you just making things up now? If you are you're doing a disservice to the forum and yourself.

The laws are also not in a state of flux...they're actually very static and serve as the basis much of the way our society operates. Yes, there are changes and interpretations over time...but it doesn't happen all that often and in the case of a bad decision there is a rather complete appellate process available to cure those mistakes.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Here's a site which contains the pleadings and other information on the suit for those that are interested (or have problems sleeping)

http://www.directvclassactionsuit.com/


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JLucPicard said:


> And people on this forum have also stated that this happens mainly as a result of sloppy work on the part of the CSR processing the activation and/or inadequacies in the programming of the system the CSRs use, and that they have been able to get this corrected.
> 
> Unpleasant and usually time consuming, but if your commitment has been erroneously extended there are remedies. Depending on how much time you want to put into it, it can be either notes added to your account that explain the erroneous extension for future reference or if escalated to the problem resolution department, they can also fix the information on your account.
> 
> ...


JLuc,

I think one of the problems here is that DirecTV takes the money for the ETF first and then you have to start arguing with them to get it back.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

ToBeFrank said:


> It's good to know there are still optimists in the world.


Agreed.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Ken S said:


> JLuc,
> 
> I think one of the problems here is that DirecTV takes the money for the ETF first and then you have to start arguing with them to get it back.


In my case, they did not take the money first. Of course, I started arguing about it as soon as the CSR told me that they were going to charge me an ETF.

However, it took a lot of arguing with a lot of people over a lot of time to get DirecTV to finally admit that I did not owe an ETF. Several times I was told that I was misinterpreting the contract or the Protection Plan agreement.

If I had stopped fighting at any point, DirecTV would have just collected $300 to which they were not entitled.


----------



## oldfantom (Mar 13, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Except if you ever read that decision (McDonalds) and not the press drivel you would understand what happened and what eventually was awarded...but like so many others it's easier to ignore the facts and use rumor and half truths as a basis for posts.
> 
> We also live in a time where someone that is wronged by a huge multinational corporation has at least a shot of being compensated for the damages they suffer in a court of law. That right is being squeezed more and more by those corporations and their paid lobbyists and the opinions of many people fed by a lazy group of journalists looking for nothing more than sensationalism. The really funny part is most of those people speaking out against civil lawsuits would do anything (including lie) to get out of jury duty.


Somewhere, between the camp of "frivolous lawsuits" and the opposing "the man is stepping on the little guy" lives the truth I think.

Are we all a little better off because of all the lawsuits filed in this country? Yep. But we are also a little harmed by them as well.

As I recall the McDonald's suit, the issue was that the lids where inadequate and that the coffee was brewed at an unbelievably (and dangerous) high temp in order to delay spoilage. So the dummy who put a hot beverage between her legs was not showing good judgement, but then again, serving a beverage at or near the boiling point of water just so you can delay tossing an unsold 20 ounces of coffee at the bottom of the pot does seem reckless. Awarding millions of millions of dollars to someone who should fail the Darwin test seems silly, but awarding her the cost of the cup of coffee and a vial of Bactine probably won't change bad behavior.

There are better examples of silly lawsuits. There are better examples of gross negligence by corporations.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

oldfantom said:


> ...the issue was that the lids where inadequate and that the coffee was brewed at an unbelievably (and dangerous) high temp in order to delay spoilage. *So the dummy who put a hot beverage between her legs was not showing good judgement*...


...but that's of course, everyone else's fault but her own...

[_No wonder our courts are so screwed up and backlogged_]

As for the DirecTV case, it does come down to the interpretation of the customer agreement, as well as any company practices stemming from that agreement. We'll just have to see how this all turns out.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Here's a site which contains the pleadings and other information on the suit for those that are interested (or have problems sleeping)
> 
> http://www.directvclassactionsuit.com/


For me, this particular transgression deserves some legal attention:

"DirecTV enforcing unconscionable and unenforceable terms and conditions against subscribers, including terms and conditions that subscribers never agreed to."

I would say that extending a commitment term when a defective leased receiver is replaced falls into this category.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

oldfantom said:


> As I recall the McDonald's suit, the issue was that the lids where inadequate and that the coffee was brewed at an unbelievably (and dangerous) high temp in order to delay spoilage. So the dummy who put a hot beverage between her legs was not showing good judgement, but then again, serving a beverage at or near the boiling point of water just so you can delay tossing an unsold 20 ounces of coffee at the bottom of the pot does seem reckless. Awarding millions of millions of dollars to someone who should fail the Darwin test seems silly, but awarding her the cost of the cup of coffee and a vial of Bactine probably won't change bad behavior.
> 
> .


I beleive the main thing that hurt McDonalds was the fact that they had received hundreds of complaints and suits about the coffee being too hot over a period of years and had been warned by product and food safety experts that it was way too hot. Couple that with the often crappy lids and that is why the jury awarded damages here.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

oldfantom said:


> Somewhere, between the camp of "frivolous lawsuits" and the opposing "the man is stepping on the little guy" lives the truth I think.
> 
> Are we all a little better off because of all the lawsuits filed in this country? Yep. But we are also a little harmed by them as well.
> 
> ...


I agree fully. There are horrid examples of abuse on both sides of the courtroom...but the system we have is still pretty darn good...especially when you consider the chances for appeal.

BTW, for those that want some of the real facts around the McDonald's case here's the Wikipedia article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Unless DirecTV suddenly decides this is its "tobacco case" and wants to risk legislative/FCC action they'll settle this case. A pot of money will be divided up with a chunk going to the lawyers and affected DirecTV subscribers receiving some minor form of compensation (some form of coupon is my guess)....most importantly though they may get DirecTV to agree to change the way they do business going forward.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

As long as well all get a free PPV movie out of all this....I'm sure it will be worth it.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

free directv PPV movie for those that dropped their service and had to pay it :lol:


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

ToBeFrank said:


> Sloppy work, or company policy? You can't answer that unless you work for them.
> 
> Inadequate, or intentional? You can't answer that unless you work for them.
> 
> ...


Just out of curiosity, what information are you privvy to that shows that to NOT be the case? Seems you wouldn't be able to answer that, either, unless you worked for them.

Short of that it seems we may both be speculating. My natural inclination is not to tilt toward conspiracies. Maybe some see that as a personality flaw. I don't happen to.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Thats not a personality flaw, its a character strength.....


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> My natural inclination is not to tilt toward conspiracies.


If in fact this is what happened, deciding not to invest in fixing their systems to stop erroneous commitment extensions is not a conspiracy, it is just a bad business decision.

If the problem is with DirecTV's systems, processes, or policies, and DirecTV knows about it (which I believe is the case, considering the regularity of commitments being extended in error), then DirecTV should fix the problem. But I could see that someone may have decided that it is not worth the investment to fix the problem, since the errors are to DirecTV's benefit. DirecTV's management may have decided there is no payback in an investment which results in DirecTV collecting fewer early termination fees (and it won't help customer retention either, since ETFs are levied against customers who already quit).

However, I could also see that DirecTV could be working to resolve the problems with their systems, processes, and policies, but it is just taking longer to implement a solution than some of us would like.


----------



## ToBeFrank (May 15, 2009)

JLucPicard said:


> Just out of curiosity, what information are you privvy to that shows that to NOT be the case? Seems you wouldn't be able to answer that, either, unless you worked for them.


I have no proof either way and neither do you. That was my point. A judge has decided there is enough merit to allow a class action and it will decide.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As long as well all get a free PPV movie out of all this....I'm sure it will be worth it.


which is all the people will see if they decide to opt into this


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> which is all the people will see if they decide to opt into this


No, we can hope that DirecTV changes the way they do business for the better.

That's the key here. DirecTV is a hard nut to crack when it comes to obeying the law and consumer rights. They've now been fined twice for federal Do Not Call violations and hold the record for largest fine in that department...but it appears the message has gotten through.

They've already had problems with the Attorney General's office of many states and paid large fines.

It appears that the monetary damages need to be larger in order to get them to act in a responsible manner.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> which is all the people will see if they decide to opt into this


Since DirecTV knows who they charged ETF's to (and the customers presumably received bills from DirecTV, as well as bank/credit card records of the charges), it should be fairly easy to quantify actual damages. I would hope that if the plantiffs win the case, they would receive reimbursement of the early termination fees they paid.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Since DirecTV knows who they charged ETF's to (and the customers presumably received bills from DirecTV, as well as bank/credit card records of the charges), it should be fairly easy to quantify actual damages. I would hope that if the plantiffs win the case, they would receive reimbursement of the early termination fees they paid.


That would be possible if the case went to trial along with punitive damages, but the vast majority of these cases are settled for less.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

houskamp said:


> free directv PPV movie for those that dropped their service and had to pay it :lol:


You caught that, huh.....:lol:


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Upstream said:


> If the problem is with DirecTV's systems, processes, or policies, and DirecTV knows about it (which I believe is the case, considering the regularity of commitments being extended in error), then DirecTV should fix the problem. But I could see that someone may have decided that it is not worth the investment to fix the problem, since the errors are to DirecTV's benefit. DirecTV's management may have decided there is no payback in an investment which results in DirecTV collecting fewer early termination fees (and it won't help customer retention either, since ETFs are levied against customers who already quit).


This is a textbook example of conspiracy to commit fraud.



Upstream said:


> However, I could also see that DirecTV could be working to resolve the problems with their systems, processes, and policies, but it is just taking longer to implement a solution than some of us would like.


This is a textbook example of acceptable behavior.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see which of these "examples" the court finds that DirecTV is operating closest to...


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> This is a textbook example of conspiracy to commit fraud.
> 
> This is a textbook example of acceptable behavior.
> 
> I guess we'll just have to wait and see which of these "examples" the court finds that DirecTV is operating closest to...


You would expect if a company recognized they had a problem of this sort and were working to fix the issue they would make people aware of the issuewith notices AND take steps to at least stop charging credit cards or withdrawing money from bank accounts until they were sure there was no error. Failure to take simple steps to prevent damages when you know of an issue are what lead to large punitive awards.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Upstream said:


> Since DirecTV knows who they charged ETF's to (and the customers presumably received bills from DirecTV, as well as bank/credit card records of the charges), it should be fairly easy to quantify actual damages. I would hope that if the plantiffs win the case, they would receive reimbursement of the early termination fees they paid.


given what I have seen for this type of action the end user will see nothing much. Do a search on what the Sprint/Nextel people got on the ETF class action


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> given what I have seen for this type of action the end user will see nothing much. Do a search on what the Sprint/Nextel people got on the ETF class action


The Sprint case is a little different, because the claim is that Sprint's use of flat-rate ETFs instead of pro-rated ETFs is illegal. But the customers still agreed to the flat-rate ETF. In the DirecTV case, the claim is that the customers were never notified of the commitment and the obligation to pay the ETF, and the customer was not given the opportunity to challenge the ETF before the funds were pulled from the customer's bank account or credit card.

Also in the Sprint case, awards were given to people who chose not to cancel their service because of the ETF, even though they were not charged an ETF. So in that instance, it is difficult to quantify damages.

Sprint settled the case without admitting wrong-doing.

Nonetheless, people who were charged a flat-rate ETF by Sprint are entitled to a payment of $25 to $90, depending on when they cancelled their service. This is essentially a 50% refund on the difference of what they paid and what they would have paid if Sprint pre-rated the ETF. People who were not charged an ETF are entitled to a $35 payment. (There are also discounts if you sign up for Sprint again, but I don't count those as I see them as marketing promotions, not reimbursement to the customers.)

Also, Sprint has agreed to change their business practice and use pro-rated ETFs instead of flat-rate ETFs.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Upstream said:


> The Sprint case is a little different, because the claim is that Sprint's use of flat-rate ETFs instead of pro-rated ETFs is illegal. But the customers still agreed to the flat-rate ETF. In the DirecTV case, the claim is that the customers were never notified of the commitment and the obligation to pay the ETF, and the customer was not given the opportunity to challenge the ETF before the funds were pulled from the customer's bank account or credit card.
> 
> Also in the Sprint case, awards were given to people who chose not to cancel their service because of the ETF, even though they were not charged an ETF. So in that instance, it is difficult to quantify damages.
> 
> ...


funny, was just a article in the local paper concerning a class action suit that was just settled., one of the class action lawyers are billing for their activities in thesuit with ATT and taxes 16 million dollars for him and his legal team, taking away from the amount the townships will get. Sorry there is only one winner in this type of issue. As far as sprint goes - who got the majority of the settlement funds?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

wingrider01 said:


> Sorry there is only one winner in this type of issue. As far as sprint goes - who got the majority of the settlement funds?


The damn lawyers, of course. :nono2::nono:


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

wingrider01 said:


> As far as sprint goes - who got the majority of the settlement funds?


Sprint agreed to pay $14 million (plus another $3.5 million in non-cash promotional benefits, which I don't count). Of the $14 million, attorneys got $5.8 million to cover their expenses and fees.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Upstream said:


> Sprint agreed to pay $14 million (plus another $3.5 million in non-cash promotional benefits, which I don't count). Of the $14 million, attorneys got $5.8 million to cover their expenses and fees.


...and the annual payments on at least 15 Winnebagos...


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

HD -- Don't get me wrong. I think $5.8 million in attorney's fees sounds pretty excessive (although I have no idea what their expenses were). It also makes me wonder if the attorneys may have agreed to settle too quickly, as long as they got their cut, rather than holding out for better compensation for the customers hit with the ETFs.

But the customers are still getting about 50% of the difference between what they paid in ETFs and what they would have paid if the ETFs were prorated. And that is considerably more than the "PPV coupon" that is joked about on this board.


In the DirecTV case, I would like to see people get a full refund for ETFs which DirecTV charged them on commitments which were erroneously extended. But if they only get half, that is still better than what they have now.


And although I agree with Ken S that a benefit could be to get DirecTV to change their business practices to ensure that customers know when commitments are extended, and to ensure that DirecTV only extends them when they are supposed to, that alone is not sufficient unless the people who were incorrectly charged get their money (or a good portion of their money) back.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Upstream said:


> HD -- Don't get me wrong. I think $5.8 million in attorney's fees sounds pretty excessive (although I have no idea what their expenses were). It also makes me wonder if the attorneys may have agreed to settle too quickly, as long as they got their cut, rather than holding out for better compensation for the customers hit with the ETFs.
> 
> But the customers are still getting about 50% of the difference between what they paid in ETFs and what they would have paid if the ETFs were prorated.


Class actions are generally filed to change some kind of established behavior viewed as not acceptable - and to be ruled by a court as to their opinion along those lines.

To wingrider01's post...the only real winners are the attorneys.

Individuals themselves rarely reap any *significant* "reward" in those cases, especiallly since many are settled out of court.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Sprint agreed to pay $14 million (plus another $3.5 million in non-cash promotional benefits, which I don't count). Of the $14 million, attorneys got $5.8 million to cover their expenses and fees.


They also stopped pursuing ETFs in hundreds of cases.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Upstream said:


> HD -- Don't get me wrong. I think $5.8 million in attorney's fees sounds pretty excessive (although I have no idea what their expenses were). It also makes me wonder if the attorneys may have agreed to settle too quickly, as long as they got their cut, rather than holding out for better compensation for the customers hit with the ETFs.
> 
> But the customers are still getting about 50% of the difference between what they paid in ETFs and what they would have paid if the ETFs were prorated. And that is considerably more than the "PPV coupon" that is joked about on this board.
> 
> ...


Upstream in some cases they will. If I had a large claim I would opt out of the class and sue individually.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Upstream in some cases they will. If I had a large claim I would opt out of the class and sue individually.


How large can the claim be on an ETF? $300? $400? Hardly enough to justify a separate lawsuit. But enough to want to get your money back.


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

Ken S said:


> They also stopped pursuing ETFs in hundreds of cases.


and the majority of those where settled with the new pro-rated etf, hmm same exact thing that Directv has....


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Upstream said:


> How large can the claim be on an ETF? $300? $400? Hardly enough to justify a separate lawsuit. But enough to want to get your money back.


It's called small claims court. There have been large payments to plaintiffs in class action cases as well. Think about the money paid out to people in the asbestos and silicone breast implant cases for a couple of examples.

Each type of case is different and the person needs to determine what is best for them.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> and the majority of those where settled with the new pro-rated etf, hmm same exact thing that Directv has....


Okay, and the complaint in this case has little to do with that area...there are a lot of differences between the way the mobile industry handles customer commitments and DirecTV.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

Ken S said:


> It's called small claims court.


Could someone opt out of a class action in which partial reimbursement is provided, and then use the class action findings to try to get full reimbursement in small claims court?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Upstream said:


> Could someone opt out of a class action in which partial reimbursement is provided, and then use the class action findings to try to get full reimbursement in small claims court?


It depends on what you mean by findings. Many class actions are settled and the defendant admits no guilt. Certainly the evidence (if available) from those cases can be used in a new case. In smaller class actions companies will sometimes settle and bind everyone to very strict non disclosures....this is also a favorite tactic in single cases.

If the class action goes to trial then unless otherwise sealed all of the findings would be available to another plaintiff.

I am not a trial/class action attorney if there's one on the forum they certainly could go into greater depth and probably more accurately describe what they would do.


----------



## Parvopup (Jun 12, 2009)

Ask D* to send you a certified copy of the "Lease Agreement" that shows "YOUR" actual signature.

Odds are very good that you will never see this piece of paper.

Why, you ask?

Because the odds are very good that your lease agreement and your work order were tossed into the trash after a couple of years. I can only speak for the HSP where I work - but after spending a couple of days helping clean up the filing (light duty from a back injury) - I came across boxes and boxes going back over 3 years that were filled to the brim with the work orders and lease agreements the installers had the customers sign at the time of their install.

When I asked what gets done with these as I was surprised that these original contract documents were apparently NOT being forwarded to D* for proper storage as I had thought - I was told that anything over 90 days old to toss into the secure shredder bin. 

When I asked further about why a contract would not be kept for the duration of the service, I was told that the company "assumes" the documents were signed and therefore has no reason to store them for physical proof.

Not sure if this is the protocol at all offices - but it is the practice for at least one major HSP.


----------



## Jack S (Jul 30, 2009)

I am a independent DIRECTV Dealer and when a customer disconnects before the contract is up I also get a chargeback from DIRECTV. In most cases they don't go after the customer because they take it out of my account


----------

