Class Action Lawsuit Alleges AT&T Bills Business Customers for Disconnected Phone Services

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that AT&T has unlawfully charged business customers during months of non-service after disconnecting older analog telephone infrastructure, and charged them for new digital services under different accounts without notice or consent.

Want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuits that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 11-page lawsuit contends that AT&T, in a supposed effort to modernize its systems and infrastructure, began to retire analog copper telephone lines— still commonly used by older Americans and businesses— with the goal of transitioning to newer, more cost-effective digital and IP-based alternatives. With this, the case says, came the creation of new and modified billing accounts, reduced service conditions, and new payment obligations for customers being charged monthly service fees for service.

However, the complaint alleges that these alterations came “without adequate notice or express, written assent” from affected consumers, who AT&T billed for new accounts automatically.

Related Reading: AT&T Hit with Class Action Over Alleged ‘Bait-and-Switch’ Wireless Service Administrative Fee

The plaintiff, a California-based law firm, claims to have maintained several AT&T business lines and internet services that had apparently experienced delays and disruptions starting in 2020, which were particularly consequential for two of the lines used solely for fire alarm signal transmission and emergency communications. Upon communicating with AT&T in late 2023 and unintentionally learning of the provider’s plan to phase out the preexisting infrastructure, the plaintiff relayed that the business lines were subject to “specific and mandatory local regulatory and code-compliance requirements” as fire alarm signals, the case describes.

AT&T reportedly confirmed that the transition would comply with regulations and minimize service disruptions, yet the class action lawsuit contends that, for the plaintiff, the late-2023 installation only created new problems.

“Defendants did not clearly disclose that they had created a new or separate billing account for the migrated fire-alarm lines,” nor did they ever “…present Plaintiff with a new written service agreement governing the migrated service,” the filing states.

In other words, the suit claims that AT&T created a new billing account after installing the new business telephone line without informing the plaintiff, who reasonably believed that bills would be “consolidated” into preexisting automatic payments for other, separate AT&T services.

By May 2025, the case maintains, the plaintiff’s fire-alarm service was suspended due to several months of unknowingly unpaid bills, which prompted a local fire inspector to order that the business immediately establish a 24-hour fire watch. Moreover, the complaint says that the fire inspector also informed the plaintiff that the digital device installed for fire-alarm signal transmission was not approved for use, in contrast to AT&T’s assurance that it would be.

Months later, to reinstate fire-alarm service and discontinue the ongoing charges for months of non-service, AT&T told the plaintiff to pay the mounting $2,340.56 bill issued on the newly created business account, the complaint outlines.

Related Reading: AT&T Hit with Class Action in California Over Weeks-Long Service Outage

Despite receiving payment, AT&T allegedly did not restore service and had released the service numbers for other providers to claim. As a result, the case relays, the plaintiff business was unable to get its money back, even though it continued to receive bills for the terminated account that noted the existence of the $2,340.56 payment.

“Defendants routinely bill business customers after service suspension or termination, accept payments under the pretense of restoration, and retain those payments even when restoration does not occur,” the case summarizes.

The AT&T non-service billing class action lawsuit looks to cover all consumers with AT&T business telephone lines whose service was suspended, disconnected, or terminated by the provider but who continued to be issued bills for the defunct line during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Check out ClassAction.org’s lawsuit list for the latest open class action lawsuits and investigations.