The Southern District of New York is home to the latest in a string of fraud class actions filed throughout the U.S. in which plaintiffs have alleged that SiriusXM falsely advertises its monthly music plans at lower prices than it actually charges. SiriusXM’s 21.4% “U.S. music royalty fee scheme” has been the source of all of SiriusXM’s profits for the past several years, alleged Bonnie Wilson’s class action Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-04843) in Manhattan. Once consumers “have been lured to sign up,” SiriusXM prevents them from learning about its scheme “by never thereafter sending them monthly or ongoing billing notices or invoices,” said the Bath, New York, resident’s complaint. All the while, SiriusXM “silently and automatically renews their subscriptions month after month and year after year,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha for Central California in Los Angeles has reviewed defendant T-Mobile’s notice of removal of plaintiff Esperanza Rendon’s fraud complaint and “is presently unable to conclude” that his court has subject-matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, said the judge’s signed order Monday (docket 2:24-cv-01666). In particular, “and without limitation,” the court finds that the allegations in the notice of removal don’t demonstrate “by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million,” said the order. The judge ordered the parties, by Aug. 8, to show cause why the case shouldn’t be remanded to state court where it originated “for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy does not exceed the jurisdictional threshold,” it said. Failure to timely respond to the order will result in the remand of the case “without further warning,” it said. Rendon is suing T-Mobile to challenge the “regulatory programs & telco recovery fee” it charges on its monthly invoices (see 2406170035). She also alleges that when she purchased additional phones from T-Mobile, she was charged for “add-on” device protection plans without her knowledge or consent.

SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it charges by embedding its subscribers’ monthly bills with an inconspicuous 21.4% “U.S. music royalty fee,” alleged four Oregon residents in an Unlawful Trade Practices Act class action Friday (docket 3:24-cv-00955) in U.S. District Court for Oregon in Portland. Kara Kirkpatrick and Gillian Maxfield of Portland, Anna DeMarco of Marcola and Cody Michael of Salem filed the suit. SiriusXM intentionally doesn’t disclose the fee to its subscribers, nor does it mention the fee in its advertising, “including in the fine print,” said the complaint. Once consumers have been lured to sign up, SiriusXM “prevents them from learning about its scheme by never thereafter sending them monthly or ongoing billing notices or invoices,” it said. All the while, SiriusXM “silently and automatically renews their subscriptions month after month and year after year,” it said. The complaint is the latest of several filed throughout the U.S. challenging SiriusXM’s pricing practices, including at least one case, Stevenson et al v. SiriusXM (docket 23-4018), that has reached the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2312080023).

U.S. District Judge John Chun for Western Washington in Seattle ordered that a 10-day bench trial will begin June 9 on the FTC’s allegations that Amazon for years has knowingly duped millions of consumers into unknowingly enrolling in its Amazon Prime service, said a clerk’s minute order Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00932). The FTC alleges that Amazon used manipulative, coercive or deceptive user-interface “dark patterns” to trick consumers into enrolling in automatically renewing Prime subscriptions. Jan. 10 is the deadline for completing discovery in the case, said the order. The FTC’s original complaint, which the agency amended Sept. 20 to add new defendants and details (see 2309200069), was filed a year ago.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court's mediation program scheduled a dial-in telephone assessment conference for June 20 in Lisa Bodenburg’s appeal to reverse the dismissal of her fraud complaint against Apple, said the circuit mediator’s order Tuesday (docket 24-3335). Bodenburg alleges that Apple shortchanges iCloud+ subscribers by providing them with 5 GB less of cloud storage each month than it advertises (see 2406040003).

Project Management Resource Group’s (PMRG) termination of Bluewave involving fiber repair work in Guam was “wrongful,” alleged a May 1 breach of contract complaint (docket 2:24-cv-00532) removed Thursday from 20th Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida, to U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Fort Myers. Bluewave and PMRG entered into a subcontract June 15, 2023, under which Bluewave was to perform disaster recovery work in Guam, said the complaint. PMRG was the general contractor that contracted with the tower owner, Docomo Pacific; PMRG subcontracted to Bluewave via the tower and fiber contracts, it said. Contract terms stipulated that Bluewave would send two tower riggers and two tower foremen to take pictures of cell towers and help with initial site investigation on a time and materials basis, it said. The crews arrived June 22 and began to perform work immediately, with the work completed on Aug. 25, the complaint said. On Aug. 3, the parties entered into a fiber subcontract calling for Bluewave to provide 10 aerial fiber linemen, also for repair work in Guam, said the complaint. The Bluewave crews began to arrive Aug. 13, 2023; on Aug. 22, PMRG sent notice of termination to Bluewave. The fiber subcontract termination was a wrongful termination, and Bluewave is suing for nonpayment of work performed, it said. The plaintiff supplied labor, services and materials “beyond the agreed upon scope of work” for the project at the request of PMRG, and the defendant agreed to make payment, alleged the complaint. PMRG has been “unjustly enriched” by Bluewave’s provision of services without providing payment, it said. Bluewave demands judgment for damages against PMRG with pre- and post-judgment interest; project costs; consequential damages, including lost profits and overhead under both contracts, plus contracts Bluewave was prevented from performing work on “as the result of PMRG’s wrongful termination."

Verizon and debt collector McCarthy, Burgess & Wolff (MB&W) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when they acted in a “false, deceptive, misleading and unfair manner” to collect a $708 debt, alleged plaintiff Albert Tran’s complaint Wednesday (docket 2:24-cv-02446) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Tran transferred the wireless services for his existing cellphones from AT&T to Verizon in April 2023 to take advantage of Verizon’s promotional offer for a free phone, said the complaint. During the activation process, a Verizon employee created an additional account in the Philadelphia resident’s name without his knowledge or consent, it said. The carrier then began “erroneously engaging in collection activities” for that additional account, it said. Verizon “further amplified” its collection activities by engaging MB&W to send Tran dunning emails to collect the debt, it said. The activities were all done by Verizon and MB&W in an attempt to collect the debt “with the intent to annoy, abuse and harass” Tran, said the complaint. Verizon and MB&W knew or should have known that their actions violated the two federal statutes, it said. Both could have taken the steps necessary to bring their agents’ actions within compliance, “but neglected to do so and failed to adequately review those actions to ensure compliance with said laws,” it said.

At issue in plaintiff-appellant Lisa Bodenburg’s appeal against Apple is language in Apple's “governing contract” for its iCloud+ service, which provides that all Apple device owners automatically are provided 5 GB of iCloud storage free of charge, said Bodenburg’s mediation questionnaire Monday (docket 24-3555) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court (see 2405280007). Bodenburg’s appeal seeks to reverse the district court’s May 8 order granting Apple’s motion to dismiss her complaint with prejudice. Apple’s iCloud+ contract goes on to provide that additional storage is available for purchase, said the questionnaire. Bodenburg “therefore straightforwardly interpreted that contractual promise” to mean that Bodenburg, who purchased a paid iCloud+ subscription, would obtain the additional storage of that paid subscription tier in addition to the 5 GB of free storage that she, like all Apple device owners, was already being provided for free, it said. “Apple, on the other hand, interprets the agreement to mean that the paid subscription tier storage is the full extent of the storage provided” to a paying iCloud+ subscriber, it said. Apple “therefore admitted” that the paid storage is not accumulative to the 5 GB of free storage Bodenburg already had, said the questionnaire. “Given her interpretation of the plain words” of the iCloud+ contract and Apple's admission, Bodenburg alleges all putative class members were “shortchanged 5 GB of cloud storage” when they purchased an iCloud+ subscription, it said.

AT&T continued to send monthly wireless phone bills to a customer who never received a cellular phone promised to him by the carrier, alleged pro se plaintiff Charles Landwer, a Maricopa County, Arizona, resident, who filed suit (docket 2:24-cv-01290) Thursday vs. AT&T, accounts receivable management firm Mrs BPO and debt collection firm I.C. System in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. Landwer received a solicitation during which he was offered a free phone, "several months" of free service and enrollment in the Lifeline program, alleged the complaint. He agreed to set up an account with AT&T to “keep in touch with doctors and arrange medical appointments,” it said. Landwer never received the phone, never made a cellular phone call, and never turned on the phone purportedly sent to him by AT&T, but the carrier continued to bill him monthly, even after he explained that he didn’t receive the phone, it said. AT&T hired Mrs BPO to collect the delinquent debt, and the defendant immediately posted negative information to the credit bureaus regarding Landwer, the complaint said. Landwer's application for an assisted living facility room was denied because of a delinquent credit account reported by Mrs BPO, it said. In checking credit reports in July 2023, Landwer found that Mrs BPO was reporting “inaccurate information” regarding his AT&T account; he discovered last month that Mrs BPO reported Landwer’s account with AT&T is in collection with an unpaid balance of over $380, it said. After sending letters to AT&T regarding the errant account reporting in February and March, the plaintiff didn’t receive a reply. Though he did not believe he owed AT&T anything, in April Landwer called the AT&T accounts receivable department and paid the $383.22 “allegedly owed” so that he could settle the matter “and get back to his medical treatments.” Several weeks later, I.C. System called Landwer and asked him to pay the outstanding debt to AT&T that he had paid the prior month, it said. I.C. System was “trying to collect a debt that the Plaintiff didn’t legally owe and that the Plaintiff had already paid,” the complaint said. Landwer claims against AT&T violations of the Fair Debit Collection Practices and Fair Credit Reporting (FCRA) acts; and he claims violation of the FCRA vs. MRS BPO and I.C. System. He seeks actual damages proven at trial or statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation; punitive damages vs. all defendants; and legal costs.

GameStop misleads consumers by marketing videogames as new even though their original packaging was opened, an April 19 fraud class action alleged (docket 3:24-cv-01417). The class action was removed Friday to U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois from St. Clair County Circuit Court. Plaintiff Christopher Odle, of St. Clair County, Illinois, shopped for videogames at St. Clair County GameStop locations on Sept. 9, 2021, and Dec. 13, 2022, to buy games for an Xbox One and Nintendo Switch, both CD- or DVD-style discs, the complaint said. Odle purchased new videogames, the complaint said, but the game packages he chose didn’t contain a disc with the game software, it alleged. Odle told a sales associate that he wanted new versions of the games. The associate told Odle that the games “were represented as new,” the complaint said. The games cost $50-$60, “generally the accepted price for a ‘new’ version" of the games he selected, it said. It is "well-known" in the videogame industry and resale market that a game sealed in original packaging is worth more than an one that was opened, the complaint said. GameStop is aware of this and prices new games higher than pre-owned versions, the class action alleged. However, GameStop limits or prohibits putting unopened videogames on the sales floor due to theft concerns, so discs are kept behind the sales counter, the class action said. As a result, “almost every 'new’ game that GameStop sells has actually been opened,” the complaint said. “GameStop effectuates this policy despite the fact that GameStop's return policy draws a distinction between opened and unopened games,” and the retailer is “aware that unopened games in the original manufacturers sealed packaging are worth more in the video game market than opened games,” it said. “Despite this knowledge, GameStop charges its customers a premium price for games that GameStop itself has opened,” and it “markets these games as new,” it said. Customers who buy games sold as new, when those games have been opened, are buying “a product that is not worth the premium price they are paying for it, comes with less return options and is worth less on the resale market,” the complaint said. Odle asserts violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices acts. He seeks for himself and the class actual and punitive damages, an injunction against further violations, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. GameStop didn't comment Monday.