When consumers cancel Charter’s Spectrum Internet Total service, Charter immediately discontinues the service but bills for a full month, alleged a Jan. 3 California Superior Court fraud class action that Charter removed Friday (docket 2:23-cv-01821) to U.S. District Court for Western California in Los Angeles. “Charter is reaping substantial ill-gotten profits at the expense of consumers,” alleged plaintiff Erica Steinberg, a Los Angeles County resident. “Further exacerbating its unlawful conduct,” Charter “purposely hides its illegitimate cancellation policy from consumers,” said her complaint. Even if Charter disclosed its cancellation terms, its practices “would still violate” the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, plus the California Civil Code’s Section 1723, “which codifies California's unlawful refund policies,” it said. Steinberg and members of the proposed class bought Charter's services they otherwise wouldn’t have bought “and are therefore entitled to restitution of monies in an amount to be determined at trial,” it said. She also alleges Charter violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. Charter doesn’t waive, and expressly preserves, “all objections, defenses, and exceptions authorized by law,” said its notice of removal.

Alston & Bird counsel for T-Mobile filed notice Monday with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (docket MDL 3073) of three more related cases stemming from the carrier’s Jan. 19 disclosure of the data breach in which bad actors gained access to the account information of 37 million current postpaid and prepaid customers (see 2301250045). The additions bring to 15 the number of cases the JPML will consider for transfer and pretrial consolidation under a single district judge, with the Western District of Washington and the Western District of Missouri front-runners as a likely transferee venue. The three cases are: (1) Lopez v. T-Mobile (1:23-cv-01263), removed March 1 to U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago; (2) Polhill v. T-Mobile (1:23-cv-00489) filed Feb. 1 in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta; and (3) Smith v. T-Mobile (2:23-cv-00188) filed Feb. 8 in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle. Responses are due March 16 at the JPML on the motion to transfer the cases to the Seattle court. The parties in virtually all the related cases have asked their courts to stay their proceedings, pending the JPML's action to transfer and consolidate.

The DOJ and Consumer Telcom agreed to a settle a Communications Act fraud lawsuit involving CTI’s “unlawful practices” of changing consumers’ telephone service provider without their knowledge or permission. Under the settlement's terms, CTI will designate within 30 days of the effective date a compliance officer responsible for developing, implementing and administering a plan that complies with the consent judgment (docket 2:23-cv-00161) and communications laws. The company will maintain a compliance manual and training program for employees and report any noncompliance with specified sections of the Communications Act, including truth-in-billing regulations, to the FCC, it said. The company must file compliance reports within six, 12, 18, 24 and 38 months of the effective date. It has 90 days to implement and comply with complaint-handling procedures and must forward all complaint-related documents to the FCC within 30 days of receipt. CTI will cease all outbound telemarketing activity and refund each complainant up to $100, unless it can provide proof of prior refund, said the settlement. Payment of the $53,320 judgment will constitute final settlement, it said.

James Cecchi of Carella Byrne, newly appointed as plaintiffs’ lead interim counsel in the multidistrict litigation stemming from Samsung’s data breach, proposes a “coherent” leadership structure “that will prosecute this MDL efficiently and effectively,” he wrote U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn for New Jersey in Camden in a letter Friday (docket 1:23-md-03055). The proposed structure includes an 11-member executive committee composed of lawyers with “extensive experience in complex class action matters, including data breach and privacy cases, and each proposed candidate is prepared to devote their personal time and resources necessary to prosecute this action,” said Cecchi. The proposed structure “harnesses the talents of lawyers from all across the country including California, New York, Washington and, of course, New Jersey,” he said. “Every lawyer that has filed a case included in this MDL has consented to our proposal,” he said. The leadership team has already begun “the substantive work of moving the case forward,” including drafting a consolidated complaint and “beginning the process of negotiating necessary pre-trial orders,” he said. “As in all MDL cases, not every lawyer who has filed a case or entered an appearance” is proposed to be appointed to the executive committee, said Cecchi. “This is only natural. A structure that is too large often becomes unworkable, resulting in duplication and waste. That said, every committee chair is prepared to work with all lawyers in this MDL who wish to be included and who have the necessary skill sets to add value to plaintiffs’ teams.” An initial case management conference is planned for April 6 at 10 a.m. EDT.

Seven defendants who pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal E-rate program, designed to provide information technology to underprivileged schools, were sentenced for their conspiracy to commit wire fraud, said Damian Williams, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York Tuesday. The Rockland County, New York, defendants created “elaborate schemes” with “complete disregard” for the intended use of the funds -- to provide technology for economically disadvantaged children to further their education, it said. Educational institutions are supposed to use an open bidding process to select vendors for the program and can employ a consultant, if the consultant is independent of vendors competing for equipment and services. Defendants in the case who identified as independent consultants working for the schools in truth worked for and were paid by other defendants who controlled vendor companies, and they awarded E-rate contracts to companies owned by several defendants, DOJ said. The schools at issue in the case never received millions of dollars’ worth of IT products and services the defendants billed the program for, and in some cases, the defendants requested hundreds of thousands of dollars of “sophisticated technology that served no real purpose for the student population,” it said. A day care center serving toddlers requested over $700,000, nearly $500,000 of which was ultimately funded for videoconferencing and distance learning, a sophisticated 23-line telecommunications system and high-speed internet for companies controlled by certain defendants, DOJ said. In other instances, the schools received requested equipment and services but defendants “materially overbilled” the E-rate program “to enrich themselves,” it said. Certain schools and their officials received various “improper” benefits, including a percentage of funds obtained by E-rate, such as cell phones for school employees’ personal use, plus alarm systems and security equipment. In total, defendants were ordered to forfeit $3.77 million and pay restitution in the same amount.

Roomster demands a trial by jury on all the fraud claims brought against it by the FTC and five states to thwart its alleged proliferation of fake positive reviews online, said the company’s filing Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-07389) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York. Roomster’s motions for dismissal, to stay discovery and for a protective order were denied last month on grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act doesn't shield Roomster from its alleged violations of federal and state consumer protection laws (see 2302030034).

LastPass and its parent GoTo Technologies, with the consent of plaintiff Debt Cleanse Group Legal Services, seek a stay of all deadlines in their proceeding until U.S. District Judge Patti Saris for Massachusetts in Boston decides whether to consolidate the seven substantially similar class actions and appoint interim class counsel in the first-filed case, said their memorandum Monday (docket 1:22-cv-12047) in support of the stay. All the cases stem from an August data breach in which the plaintiffs allege their personally identifiable information was exposed to hackers (see 2302080046). Thursday is the deadline for LastPass and GoTo to file their answer to the first-filed complaint, and Saris scheduled a March 24 virtual hearing on the motion to consolidate. A limited stay is “appropriate” because it will “conserve judicial resources and provide for the efficient administration of these cases, which are all in their early stages,” said the memorandum. If consolidation is granted for all or some of the seven cases, the combined plaintiffs “may file an amended consolidated class action complaint, which would moot their current pleadings,” it said. A stay “will not disrupt other case deadlines as no initial scheduling conferences have been held, discovery has not begun, and no other case deadlines have been established,” it said.

A 12th class action arising from the T-Mobile data breach is related to the 11 cases already pending before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, said a notice filed Thursday (case MDL No. 3073) by Thomas Loeser of Hagens Berman, who represents the six plaintiffs in the action. Bailey v. T-Mobile, filed Feb. 16 in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle (docket 2:23-cv-00211), “shares common questions of fact and law, and is premised on some of the same core issues as the other actions pending” before the panel, said Loeser. Responses are due Thursday on the Feb. 8 motion from the plaintiffs in the 11 class actions to transfer the cases to the Seattle district court and consolidate them under a single judge (see 2302200001). Pro se plaintiff Stephen Hart of New Castle, Indiana, filed a Feb. 21 motion for an unspecified deadline extension while he tries to retain Keller Rohrback to represent him.

DirecTV and the defendants it alleges are impersonating DirecTV telemarketers and making off with consumers’ money estimate that jury selection and a five-day trial in the case should begin by Feb. 20, they said in a joint preliminary report and proposed scheduling order Thursday (docket 6:22-cv-00423) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Tyler. The defendants deny all the allegations, said the report. The parties contemplate needing about eight months, through Oct. 20, to do discovery, it said. It’s “likely” DirecTV will need to do discovery with entities outside the U.S. “If discovery is stymied it could take longer to complete,” said the report. DirecTV landed authorization Feb. 15 from a magistrate judge to effect service of process of its fraud complaint on defendant Motasim Billah via Facebook and LinkedIn because he's believed to be living in Lahore, Pakistan, with an exact address unknown (see 2302160055). Based on the number of parties sued and third-parties involved, DirecTV requests that it be permitted 20 depositions during discovery, said the report. The parties “are open to mediation” before a magistrate judge “after limited discovery,” it said. They discussed a settlement, “but have not reached agreement on any material terms,” it said.

Google’s claims of charging speeds for the Pixel 6 smartphone are “misleading,” alleged Brooklyn plaintiff Esther Klang in a Feb. 17 fraud class action (docket 1:23-cv-01316) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn. The company failed to disclose that its claim of a phone charging speed of 50% in about 30 minutes requires buying its $25 30-watt USB-C charger based on the USB Power Delivery protocol, said the complaint. Even where the need for the 30-watt charger is disclosed, the maximum power obtained by the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro is just 22 watts, with an average of 13 watts over a full cycle, the complaint said, citing an independent test report this month in Android Authority. The promise of 50% charging in 30 minutes would lead a smartphone user to believe the product can fully charge in an hour, the complaint said, but the testing revealed the time to charge the phone’s battery from near empty to full “takes over two hours.” A consumer wouldn’t expect that a new type of charger, sold for $25, “will only save them 10 minutes,” especially with “fast charging” claims, the complaint said. False and misleading representations of the Pixel 6’s charging capability mean the $549 Pixel 6 “is sold at a premium,” it said. The plaintiff claims violation of the New York General Business Law, multiple states’ consumer fraud acts, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks monetary, statutory, and/or punitive damages and interest, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and expert fees.