AT&T Hit with Class Action Over Alleged ‘Bait-and-Switch’ Wireless Service Administrative Fee [UPDATE]
Last Updated on August 1, 2022
Vianu et al. v. AT&T Mobility LLC
Filed: June 20, 2019 ◆§ 3:19-cv-03602
A class action says AT&T has pulled a "bait-and-switch" on customers by charging a per-line administrative fee that amounts to the company covertly increasing its monthly price for wireless service.
Case Updates
August 1, 2022 – AT&T Post-Paid Wireless Plan Bait-and-Switch Settlement Site Is Live
The official website for the $14 million AT&T class action settlement is live and can be found here:
https://www.attvianuclassactionsettlement.com/
To file a claim, head to this page. If you received a personalized email or postcard notice about the settlement with a notice ID and confirmation code, select the option on the left to begin. If you did not receive a personalized notice via mail or email, select the option on the right to proceed.
Class members have until October 29, 2022 by which to file a claim form online or by mail. If you do nothing, you will receive no payment from the deal and give up the right to sue AT&T over allegations made in the litigation.
According to the official website, valid claimants will receive payments of around $20 each. These payments will be issued after the deal is approved and after any appeals are resolved. A final hearing on the settlement is slated for November 3, 2022.
Don’t miss out on settlement news like this. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
June 10, 2022 – AT&T Agrees to $14M Settlement
AT&T has agreed to pay $14 million to settle the claims detailed on this page.
The proposed settlement, which was submitted to the court on May 10, aims to cover California residents with an AT&T post-paid wireless service plan through a consumer or individual responsibility user account who were charged an administrative fee on their account anytime between June 20, 2015 and the date the settlement receives preliminary approval.
Payment amounts for those covered by the deal will depend on how many people file claims, but the plaintiffs’ counsel estimates that each payment will be between $15 and $29, according to a May 10 motion asking the court to approve the settlement.
Current AT&T customers who file a valid claim will receive their payment in the form of a credit to their account, and former customers who file a valid claim will receive a check in the mail.
If the settlement is approved, those covered by the deal should look out for an email notice from the settlement administrator with more information on the deal and how to submit a claim. The email will come from a sender named “AT&T Class Action Settlement Administrator” and the subject line will read “Notice of AT&T / Vianu Class Action Settlement.”
AT&T customers who have not opted out of receiving text messages from the company will also receive a notice via text with a link to the official settlement website, ATTVianuClassActionSettlement.com, which was not yet live at the time this update was posted.
Postcard notices will also be sent via mail to individuals who could not be contacted through email or text.
A preliminary approval hearing has been scheduled for June 16, 2022.
Don’t miss out on settlement news like this. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Two California consumers have put their names on a proposed class action wherein they allege AT&T has pulled a “bait-and-switch” scheme on wireless service customers.
The 37-page case claims that though AT&T advertises flat monthly rates for post-paid wireless service plans, the carrier instead charges higher monthly rates than those customers agreed to pay upon signing up. AT&T, the suit says, “covertly increases the actual price” by padding customers’ monthly wireless bills with an $1.99-per-line “administrative fee” on top of what they pay for cell service. This fee, the case argues, is not disclosed to customers when they sign up with AT&T nor after the fact.
“The so-called Administrative Fee is not, in fact, a bona fide administrative fee,” the lawsuit asserts, “but rather is simply a means for AT&T to charge more per month for the service itself without having to advertise the higher prices.”
Proposed class members only come to find out about AT&T’s administrative fee once they receive their first billing statement, the suit adds. Further, the plaintiffs allege AT&T “deliberately hides” the fee by intentionally burying it in language that makes it likely that customers will overlook it and that misleadingly suggests that the fee “is akin to a tax or another standard government pass-through fee.” At the end of the day, the case says, this additional fee is merely a method for AT&T to advertise and promise lower rates than customers actually have to pay.
As the lawsuit tells it, consumers can find out more about AT&T’s administrative fee by digging deep within the carrier’s website, where a purported description of the charge lives. Moreover, the lawsuit claims that the description not only amounts to an inadequate disclosure of the fee, but serves to further AT&T’s alleged scheme in that it suggests the administrative fee is tied to costs associated with wireless phone services.
The case states that AT&T began imposing the administrative fee on customers back in 2013, when the charge was $0.61 per month per line. Customers who signed up prior to that year and reasonably expected to pay the defendant’s advertised monthly rates were not informed of the fee, meaning it’s not out of the realm of possibility that they learned of the fee’s existence months or years after they signed up with AT&T, according to the suit. AT&T has reportedly raised its administrative fee three times since it was first introduced, including twice in three months during 2018, the lawsuit reads.
Potentially included in the class are consumers in California who currently or formerly subscribed to a post-paid AT&T wireless service plan from AT&T Mobility LLC and were charged what the company labeled an “administrative fee.”
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.