Comcast business in Washington state should check their bills for neglected charges, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson pronounced in a consumer warning released this week.
Ferguson filed a $100 million lawsuit against Comcast in Aug 2016, accusing the nation’s largest ISP of dubious business in sequence to hook $5 onto their monthly bills for an nonessential Service Protection Plan (SPP). (Comcast has given lifted the price to $6 a month.)
With that lawsuit still pending, Ferguson says his bureau has perceived new complaints.
“Dozens of Comcast business filed complaints with the Attorney General’s Office in the last 6 weeks, claiming that the company’s Service Protection Plan (SPP) seemed on their check when they did not agree to profitable for the service,” the consumer warning says.
When the lawsuit was filed in 2016, Ferguson accused Comcast of “misleading 500,000 Washington consumers and deceiving them into profitable at slightest $73 million in subscription fees over the last 5 years for a near-worthless ‘protection plan’ but disclosing its poignant limitations.”
Comcast pronounced in 2016 that it had “worked with the Attorney General’s bureau to residence every issue they raised, and we done several improvements formed on their input.”
But Ferguson alleges that Comcast may still be dubious business about the SPP. Ferguson amended his lawsuit against Comcast last month “to embody new justification divulgence even some-more false control than formerly alleged.”
Since Washington nice the lawsuit, 74 Comcast business have filed new complaints about the SPP with Ferguson’s office. “Of those, some-more than 50 explain Comcast combined the devise to their criticism but their consent,” the consumer warning says.
While consumer complaints “are not indispensably justification of wrongdoing,” they do “help surprise the Attorney General’s Office about intensity astray or false business practices and concede the bureau [to] know the range of wrong practices,” the warning says.
Ferguson so urged Comcast business to check their bills.
“If you trust you’re being charged for the SPP but your consent, file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office,” the warning said.
Comcast defends service plans
According to Ferguson’s lawsuit, Comcast led business to trust that they indispensable to buy service insurance plans to get services that were actually covered for free by the company’s “Customer Guarantee.” Some business were told that the plans cover work outward their homes, even yet repairs to Comcast apparatus or outward wiring “are already covered [for free] by Comcast’s Customer Guarantee promises,” the lawsuit said.
Comcast told business that the devise covered the cost of all service calls, but “did not reasonably divulge that the devise does not cover repairs to any ‘wall-fished’ wiring—wiring inside a wall—which constitutes the immeasurable infancy of wiring inside homes,” the AG’s bureau pronounced when the lawsuit was filed.
An research of available calls between subscribers and Comcast reps “reveal[ed] that Comcast may have sealed up some-more than half of all SPP subscribers but their consent,” Ferguson’s bureau pronounced last month.
Comcast is fortifying itself against the lawsuit and last month pronounced that it “strongly disagree[s]” with the nice complaint’s new claims.
“The Service Protection Plan gives those consumers who select to squeeze it good value by covering probably all service charges over 99 percent of the time,” Comcast pronounced at the time. The new allegations in the nice censure “are mostly formed on a injured methodology and assumptions,” Comcast said.
We contacted Comcast currently to see if it has any serve criticism and will refurbish this story if we get a response.
UPDATE: Comcast got back to us with this response: “Our Service Protection Plan is a good value. To safeguard the best probable patron experience, we endorse any sale with a full record of the sum around email, content and other electronic means.”