Skip to main content

6.3 Million Dollars Obtained for Former AT&T Wireless Customers Who Were Subject to Data Throttling

The Federal Trade Commission is sending partial refunds to consumers totaling nearly $6.3 million stemming from the FTC’s lawsuit against AT&T Mobility LLC for misleading customers about its unlimited data plans.

Image

The FTC’s $60 million settlement with AT&T, announced in 2019, resolved allegations that the wireless provider failed to adequately disclose to its unlimited data plan customers that, if they reach a certain amount of data use in a given billing cycle, AT&T would reduce—or “throttle”—their data speeds to the point that many common mobile phone applications, such as web browsing and video streaming, became difficult or nearly impossible to use. In 2020, as a result of the settlement, the company gave a bill credit to current AT&T customers and sent refund checks to former customers, which resulted in $52 million returned to consumers.

The latest refunds are going to consumers who had not yet received a refund and filed a valid claim with the FTC.

The FTC is sending 212,893 checks and 54,841 PayPal payments. Recipients should cash their checks within 90 days, as indicated on the check. Consumers who receive a PayPal payment should redeem their payment within 30 days.

Popular posts from this blog

More Than $5 Million in Refunds to Consumers Harmed by Bogus Credit Repair Scheme

  The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $5 million in refunds to consumers harmed by a deceptive credit card debt relief scheme known as ACRO Services. The FTC filed a lawsuit  in November 2022  against ACRO Services, which operated under multiple names such as American Consumer Rights Organization, Consumer Protection Resources, Reliance Solutions, Thacker & Associates, and Tri Star Consumer Group. The complaint charged the company and its owners with running a deceptive telemarketing operation that made numerous phony debt relief promises to consumers, including that they could greatly reduce or eliminate consumers’ credit card debt in 12 to 18 months. They charged consumers thousands of dollars in unlawful upfront enrollment fees and told them it was part of the debt that will be eliminated as part of the program. Consumers were also charged monthly fees ranging from $20-$35 for “credit monitoring” services. The individual defendants agreed to a se...
Read more

Williams-Sonoma Will Pay Record $3.17 Million Civil Penalty for Deceptive use of Made in the USA

  Home products company Williams-Sonoma will be required to pay a record civil penalty of $3.175 million for violating a 2020 Federal Trade Commission order requiring the retailer to tell the truth about whether the products it sells are Made in USA. In a  complaint   filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, the agency charges that Williams-Sonoma listed multiple products for sale as being “Made in USA” when in fact they were made in China and other countries. The company  has agreed to a settlement   that requires them to pay the civil penalty, which is the largest ever in a Made in USA case. “Williams-Sonoma claimed its products were made in the United States even though they were made in China,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “Williams-Sonoma’s deception misled consumers and harmed honest American businesses. Today’s record-setting civil penalty makes clear that firms committing Made-in-USA fraud will not get a free pass.”...
Read more

Adobe used hidden fee to trap people into paying for subscription plans

Maybe you want to try out a product for a little while before you make a long-term decision. So, you sign up for a monthly subscription plan. Everything is fine until you want to cancel and it turns out to be a yearly subscription with monthly payments. Surprise! That’s what the FTC says happened to people who signed up for monthly subscriptions with Adobe. When people signed up on Adobe’s website for access to its software, the FTC says Adobe pre-selected the option for its “annual paid monthly” plan that put subscribers on the hook for a whole year of payments, paid in monthly increments — a fact that Adobe failed to explain or properly disclose. The lawsuit says Adobe used similar tactics when people signed up for a free trial and didn’t cancel before the trial ended. Adobe automatically placed them on the “annual paid monthly” plan without making it clear they were entering a one-year contract. When people tried to cancel before the year was up, they had to pay a hefty early te...
Read more