Customers file deception suit against Cingular

I think Navas will really like this one...

http://www.americasnetwork.com/ameri...id=355321#Top3

Customers file deception suit against Cingular

Jul 7, 2006

Cingular Wireless promised to provide uninterrupted service to AT&T Wireless customers when it acquired that company in
2004, but instead it nickel-and-dimed them and degraded their reception in an effort to persuade them to sign new
contracts, a federal lawsuit said.
An Associated Press report said the lawsuit, which alleged breach of contract and violations of consumer protection
laws, sought class-action status on behalf of the more than 20 million customers AT&T Wireless had at the time of the
merger.
Many paid $18 "transfer" fees to switch to Cingular plans and were required to buy new phones or pay other fees, said
the complaint filed in a District Court in Seattle.
"Everyone who signed an AT&T contract had their service degraded," attorney Mike Withey, quoted by Associated Press,
said.
Atlanta-based Cingular acquired Redmond-based AT&T Wireless Services for $41 billion in October 2004, and promised in
advertisements and news releases that the customers of both companies would see uninterrupted and even improved service
as a result of the "combined network."
Withey argued that instead, Cingular stopped maintaining AT&T Wireless network facilities. In addition to the accounts
of his clients, he cited news articles in which industry analysts said Cingular appeared to be investing little or
nothing in the AT&T Wireless network. That breached the contracts AT&T Wireless had with its customers, he said.
Cingular spokesman Clay Owen said the company had not had a chance to review the lawsuit, the report said.

---

› See More: Customers file deception suit against Cingular

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:35:49 -0700, "RNess"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>I think Navas will really like this one...
>
>http://www.americasnetwork.com/ameri...id=355321#Top3
>
>Customers file deception suit against Cingular
>[SNIP]

More accurately: Lawyers file class action suit against Cingular, hoping
to get large fees at the expense of Cingular customers, because Cingular
will probably settle out of expediency, just as Verizon did with the
silly Bluetooth class action suit.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Yes, maybe.... (settle)

But, there is a hellof alot of difference between a "silly Bluetooth" action
vs a hobbled, piss poor basic cellular service action. One is an accessory
on a phone (non core function) the other is concerning the PRIMARY operation
of the device/service - a frickin' PHONE.

After all they are PHONES 1st and foremost - camera and multi function toy
second. At least to anyone with a brain cell or two...

Yes, Cingular MAY be all that and a bag of chips in some places, but out here in
many parts of the west and in Seattle (where this suit was filed), Cingular
is right there at the bottom of the heap - period.

No denial or spin of yours can change that fact.



"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:35:49 -0700, "RNess"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>I think Navas will really like this one...
>>
>>http://www.americasnetwork.com/ameri...id=355321#Top3
>>
>>Customers file deception suit against Cingular
>>[SNIP]
>
> More accurately: Lawyers file class action suit against Cingular, hoping
> to get large fees at the expense of Cingular customers, because Cingular
> will probably settle out of expediency, just as Verizon did with the
> silly Bluetooth class action suit.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

It's getting traction - others are picking it up...

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6...tag=zdnn.alert

Cingular accused of duping ex-AT&T subscribers
By Anne Broache, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: July 7, 2006, 3:28 PM PT

A class action lawsuit charges that Cingular Wireless, the nation's largest carrier, deceived AT&T Wireless subscribers
into paying extra fees and degraded their service after acquiring that company in 2004.
The 22-page suit (click for PDF),http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/corporate/rp/6540.pdf filed Thursday in U.S. District
Court in Seattle, was brought by two West Coast law firms and the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights, a
California-based advocacy group that said it has fielded numerous complaints related to the suit's allegations.
The complaints center on accusations that Cingular didn't live up to advertising campaigns promising that AT&T Wireless
customers would "continue to enjoy the benefits of their current phones, rate plans and features, without any service
interruption," after Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless.
The suit accuses Cingular of engaging in a "deliberate scheme" to degrade the service of those AT&T subscribers in order
to command "significant additional charges" for improvements such as requiring the purchase of a new Cingular phone,
payment of an $18 transfer fee, or entry into a contract that was "less favorable" than the subscriber's existing AT&T
plan.
One of the seven plaintiffs named in the suit, Christine Aschero, said she was "very happy" until the merger occurred.
"That's when all the trouble began," she said in a statement released by the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer
Rights. "Dropped calls, my phone not ringing, I didn't get voice mails, and my phone would randomly go into 'emergency
mode.'"
Those who chose not to make the switch had to deal with an increased number of dropped calls and poor or nonexistent
reception--or pay a $175 penalty to leave their contracts early, the suit said.
Cingular dismissed the allegations in a statement released Friday afternoon, deeming the suit "completely without
merit."
Joaquin Carbonell, the company's executive vice president and general counsel, said Cingular "has spent nearly $10
billion in integrating and improving its networks in the 21 months since the merger was completed, leading to a
significantly improved customer experience and the fewest dropped calls of any national carrier."
He also issued a warning to the suit's filers, saying the company was separately "considering our options with respect
to the false and misleading statements made to the media by the lawyer that brought this case."
It was unclear exactly which statements Carbonell was referring to. In an Associated Press story published Thursday,
attorney Mike Withey was quoted as saying at a Seattle press conference, "Everyone who signed an AT&T contract had their
service degraded."
The suit covers all AT&T Wireless customers as of Oct. 26, 2004, the date that Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless. It seeks
a jury trial and treble or punitive damages for those covered by the claims.
Earlier this month, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular that had been ordered
in 2004 by the California Public Utilities Commission. The PUC found that the wireless carrier had been signing up more
customers than its network could handle and then forcing them to pay as much as $550 to cancel their service.



"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:35:49 -0700, "RNess"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>I think Navas will really like this one...
>>
>>http://www.americasnetwork.com/ameri...id=355321#Top3
>>
>>Customers file deception suit against Cingular
>>[SNIP]
>
> More accurately: Lawyers file class action suit against Cingular, hoping
> to get large fees at the expense of Cingular customers, because Cingular
> will probably settle out of expediency, just as Verizon did with the
> silly Bluetooth class action suit.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues, and
all customers were free to move to another carrier, which would seem to
seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
YMMV).

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:10:18 -0700, "RNess"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Yes, maybe.... (settle)
>
>But, there is a hellof alot of difference between a "silly Bluetooth" action
>vs a hobbled, piss poor basic cellular service action. One is an accessory
>on a phone (non core function) the other is concerning the PRIMARY operation
>of the device/service - a frickin' PHONE.
>
>After all they are PHONES 1st and foremost - camera and multi function toy
>second. At least to anyone with a brain cell or two...
>
>Yes, Cingular MAY be all that and a bag of chips in some places, but out here in
>many parts of the west and in Seattle (where this suit was filed), Cingular
>is right there at the bottom of the heap - period.
>
>No denial or spin of yours can change that fact.
>
>
>
>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:35:49 -0700, "RNess"
>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>I think Navas will really like this one...
>>>
>>>http://www.americasnetwork.com/ameri...id=355321#Top3
>>>
>>>Customers file deception suit against Cingular
>>>[SNIP]
>>
>> More accurately: Lawyers file class action suit against Cingular, hoping
>> to get large fees at the expense of Cingular customers, because Cingular
>> will probably settle out of expediency, just as Verizon did with the
>> silly Bluetooth class action suit.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:24:07 -0700, "RNess"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>It's getting traction - others are picking it up...
>[SNIP]

Depends on what you consider "traction" -- I think the only real
traction is in the courts, which has yet to be demonstrated.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues,

According to who? The statement is nothing more than unfounded and
unsupported opinion.


> and
> all customers were free to move to another carrier,

only if they are out of contract

> which would seem to
> seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
> YMMV).
>

Which shows how little you know.

Scott wrote:

>> which would seem to
>> seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
>> YMMV).
>>
>
> Which shows how little you know.

Yes, the whole point of the lawsuit is that these are customers that
were _not_ free to move to another carrier. It would be reasonable to
limit the damage awards to AT&T customers that were under contract, and
not free to move, though Cingular did mislead customers that were out of
contract as well, claiming improved coverage if the customer switched
from AT&T TDMA to Cingular GSM, when in fact the coverage was often much
worse.

JN is right (a rare event), the great majority of Cingular customers
experienced no real issues--it was the AT&T customers that experienced
the issues. Enough of them apparently to make the lawsuit seem
worthwhile to these law firms. One thing good about class action
lawsuits is that they are self-limiting--while you always see someone
trying to drum up interest in a class action lawsuit, only the ones that
actually have some merit tend to be filed because the lawyers are very
pragmatic.

A fair settlement might be:

a) refund any transfer fees paid by the subscriber.

b) refund the cost of handsets paid by the subscriber, within reason (a
full refund if the handset from Cingular had roughly the same
capabilities as the AT&T handset, and a partial refund if the subscriber
upgraded to a more fully-featured handset).

c) refund the difference between the AT&T calling plan and the Cingular
calling plan, if the plans had roughly the same number of minutes, or
were the mininum plan available. Thus refund could be limited to the
number of months that the subscriber was under contract.

d) lawyer fees.

Cingular will probably settle, as it would be a big mistake for them to
try to take this thing to trial.

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:20:07 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Yes, the whole point of the lawsuit is that these are customers that
>were _not_ free to move to another carrier.

Actually they were. Anyone that didn't want to migrate was let out of
contract.

>d) lawyer fees.
>
>Cingular will probably settle, as it would be a big mistake for them to
>try to take this thing to trial.

Cingular will probably settle, like almost all companies, because it's
dumb to play Russian Roulette when a settlement is comparatively cheap..

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues,

[Insert any defective product issue] did not affect most people, but
that did not dilute the seriousness of the issue.

> all customers were free to move to another carrier

Free to move? Yes.

Free as in not having to enjoy the same rate plan or
another commitment. No.

> which would seem to
> seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
> YMMV).

At least you're starting to differentiate your opinion and reality.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...tml?source=rss

New customers sue Cingular
AT&T users say service worsened after merger
By CANDACE HECKMAN
P-I REPORTER
When AT&T Wireless and Cingular merged almost two years ago, AT&T customers were promised a seamless transition and
upgraded service from what had become the nation's largest cell phone company.
But almost immediately, calls started dropping and customers began getting network busy signals.

When they called to complain, customers were told that they had to sign a new multiyear contract with Cingular, paying
$18 here, another $18 there. They also faced a fee for terminating their AT&T contracts -- as much as $175.
New phones were no longer available. Signals got worse. And worse.
Now, some of those customers are accusing the new merged carrier of conspiring to steadily degrade the old AT&T network
in order to induce customers to sign on to Cingular instead.
A lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Seattle is seeking class-action status on behalf of 20 million
current and former AT&T Wireless customers, alleging breach of contract and claiming that consumers and federal
regulators were misled when they were told before the merger that the new company would treat its old customers fairly.
Officials at Cingular had not had time to examine the federal complaint and could not comment Thursday, said Anne
Marshall, a company spokeswoman in Redmond.
But, Marshall said, since the merger, Cingular has been spending billions of dollars to upgrade and integrate the two
systems' networks.
Cingular, based in Atlanta, acquired Redmond-based AT&T Wireless for $41 billion in October 2004. About a month after
the deal closed, said Amy Frerker, a 28-year-old Seattle architect, she started noticing fewer signal bars on her phone.
Her calls were getting dropped, as many as four or five a day.

"I didn't even know what a dropped call was at that point," she said about her previous AT&T service.
When she called customer service, representatives told her that work was being done on local cell towers and that the
problems would be temporary.
"But they weren't temporary," she said.
For the next year and a half, Frerker spent hours on the phone with AT&T/Cingular, asking the company to terminate her
contract or fix her service. At one point, she also needed a new phone. Each time, she was advised to switch to
Cingular, buy a new phone on eBay or pay an early termination fee.
Finally, last week, a supervisor at Cingular gave in to her request and terminated the service free of charge.
"For the most part," she said, "I was just really angry."
Frerker is one of seven plaintiffs named in the federal complaint. After reading about the lawsuit online, several
former and current AT&T subscribers contacted the Seattle P-I wanting to join the lawsuit.
"Every time I tried to speak with the company's representatives, they tried to convince me to switch over," said J.D.
Kritser, an AT&T customer in Seattle. "However, they always insisted that I would have to have a new contract that
locked me in again for another period.
"I would also have to get a new number. If not for that, I might have switched. The service was deplorable, but I did
not want to get rid of my old number, which was resident in another state."
Cingular spent $6.5 billion nationwide upgrading and integrating the networks in 2005 and is projected to spend more
this year, Cingular's Marshall said.
"One of the reasons Cingular acquired AT&T Wireless was to better serve consumers --and we're doing just that," Marshall
said. "We also offer a 30-day trial period for service and equipment nationwide -- which is twice as long as what's
offered by most of our competitors. It's a testament to the confidence we have in our service."
One of the obstacles Cingular faced with AT&T Wireless was the transition from an older cellular network called TDMA to
a newer, more globally integrated system called GSM.
Cingular uses GSM. But AT&T customers are currently in limbo between the two systems. One of the accusations made in the
lawsuit is that Cingular was purposely degrading AT&T's older network on the assumption that it will become obsolete.
"The company has not made an effort to hide the fact that they want people to move over to Cingular," said Harvey
Rosenfield, a lawyer with California-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which is representing consumers
in the lawsuit.
The foundation began receiving specific complaints about network problems almost immediately after the merger and has
been investigating individual consumer complaints for about nine months, Rosenfield said.
Clay Owen, another Cingular representative, said Thursday that Cingular will shut down its TDMA network in about two
years. "However, plans are already under way to find ways to transition these customers," he said. "But please be
assured that this is being planned carefully, and there are no plans to shut down the TDMA network in the near future."
The company has faced other legal challenges as a result of the merger and its rapid growth.
Last week, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for signing up customers too
fast and for imposing cancellation fees without an adequate trial period to test the network. California regulators
accused the company of knowingly signing up more customers than its network could handle.
California also ordered Cingular to refund up to $10 million to customers, some of whom paid hundreds of dollars to
cancel their contracts.
Because the plaintiffs in the latest lawsuit contend that Cingular breached its contracts with customers, lawyers
believe that some consumers could be owed hundreds of dollars for having been forced to pay to get out or to continue
with sub-par service.
"Cingular misrepresented to AT&T Wireless customers that they would enjoy the benefits of their current phones, rate
plans and features, without any service interruption," according to the lawsuit. "Consequently, while Cingular is
profiting from prior AT&T Wireless customers who have 'transferred,' existing AT&T Wireless subscribers who have not
'transferred' to Cingular have suffered, and continue to suffer."
PHONING IT IN
Consumers facing wireless service problems can complain to the Federal Communications Commission online at
www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html, or by calling 888-225-5322.
The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is taking complaints about the AT&T/Cingular experience at
www.consumerwatchdog.org.
Consumers Union hosts a Web site focused on problems with wireless companies: www.hearusnow.org.
AT&T Wireless customers interested in more information regarding the lawsuit can contact lawyers at the Seattle-based
firm Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Withey Coluccio at 206-448-1777.



"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues, and
> all customers were free to move to another carrier, which would seem to
> seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
> YMMV).
>
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:10:18 -0700, "RNess"
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>Yes, maybe.... (settle)
>>
>>But, there is a hellof alot of difference between a "silly Bluetooth" action
>>vs a hobbled, piss poor basic cellular service action. One is an accessory
>>on a phone (non core function) the other is concerning the PRIMARY operation
>>of the device/service - a frickin' PHONE.
>>
>>After all they are PHONES 1st and foremost - camera and multi function toy
>>second. At least to anyone with a brain cell or two...
>>
>>Yes, Cingular MAY be all that and a bag of chips in some places, but out here in
>>many parts of the west and in Seattle (where this suit was filed), Cingular
>>is right there at the bottom of the heap - period.
>>
>>No denial or spin of yours can change that fact.
>>
>>
>>
>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 15:35:49 -0700, "RNess"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>I think Navas will really like this one...
>>>>
>>>>http://www.americasnetwork.com/ameri...id=355321#Top3
>>>>
>>>>Customers file deception suit against Cingular
>>>>[SNIP]
>>>
>>> More accurately: Lawyers file class action suit against Cingular, hoping
>>> to get large fees at the expense of Cingular customers, because Cingular
>>> will probably settle out of expediency, just as Verizon did with the
>>> silly Bluetooth class action suit.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
>>> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>
>>
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:20:07 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>>Yes, the whole point of the lawsuit is that these are customers that
>>were _not_ free to move to another carrier.
>
> Actually they were. Anyone that didn't want to migrate was let out of
> contract.

NO!!! They also faced a fee for terminating their AT&T contracts -- as much as $175.

And I quote:
For the next year and a half, Frerker spent hours on the phone with AT&T/Cingular, asking the company to terminate her
contract or fix her service. At one point, she also needed a new phone. Each time, she was advised to switch to
Cingular, buy a new phone on eBay or pay an early termination fee.



Oh, and I let this one slide....

Last week, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for signing up customers too
fast and for imposing cancellation fees without an adequate trial period to test the network. California regulators
accused the company of knowingly signing up more customers than its network could handle.

California also ordered Cingular to refund up to $10 million to customers, some of whom paid hundreds of dollars to
cancel their contracts.



Sure sound like they were free to move???? NOT!!! The above judgement proves that.


>
>>d) lawyer fees.
>>
>>Cingular will probably settle, as it would be a big mistake for them to
>>try to take this thing to trial.
>
> Cingular will probably settle, like almost all companies, because it's
> dumb to play Russian Roulette when a settlement is comparatively cheap..
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

DecaturTxCowboy wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues,
>
> [Insert any defective product issue] did not affect most people, but
> that did not dilute the seriousness of the issue.

Fortunately, it isn't necessary for the "great majority" of users of a
product or service to have issues in order to get relief, it just takes
a sizable minority.

>> all customers were free to move to another carrier
>
> Free to move? Yes.

But not free to move for free. That's one of the major points of the
lawsuit, the AT&T subscribers were being held to their contracts, being
forced to change to a less capable network, having to pay both transfer
fees and for new handsets, and having to get a new contract.

>> which would seem to
>> seriously undermine any legitimate cause of action (IMHO at least --
>> YMMV).
>
> At least you're starting to differentiate your opinion and reality.

LOL, it's a start!

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> The great majority of Cingular customers experienced no real issues, and
> all customers were free to move to another carrier

on the contrary, they were *not* free to move to another carrier,
which is the basis for the lawsuit; the one you defended apparently
without researching it.

RNess wrote:
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 18:20:07 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
>> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> Yes, the whole point of the lawsuit is that these are customers that
>>> were _not_ free to move to another carrier.
>> Actually they were. Anyone that didn't want to migrate was let out of
>> contract.
>
> NO!!! They also faced a fee for terminating their AT&T contracts -- as much as $175.

Navas is well aware that AT&T customers were not being let out of their
contracts without an ETF. They weren't being forced to move to Cingular,
but they were strong-armed in many cases, with false claims of better
coverage. I know that my mom was "encouraged" to change to Cingular GSM,
and ended up with a phone that she couldn't use at my house in Silicon
Valley, or my sister's house in a suburb of Atlanta. When her contract
expired, she went with T-Mobile prepaid, and now she gets equally poor
coverage for a lot less money.

You have to realize, that most cellular subscribers are not familiar
with the intricacies of the different network technologies, and can be
convinced by a Cingular salesperson, or a Cingular dealer's salesperson,
that they should switch phones or switch networks. Someone with a
TDMA/AMPS phone that switched to GSM, would definitely have noticed a
big decrease in coverage, especially in the time-frame covered by the
lawsuit.

> Last week, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million fine against Cingular for signing up customers too
> fast and for imposing cancellation fees without an adequate trial period to test the network. California regulators
> accused the company of knowingly signing up more customers than its network could handle.

I had Cingular back then. They had some very good rate plans, and were
signing up a lot of new customers. "Network busy, please try later" was
a common problem at peak times.