Motion made to halt DirecTV from automatically deducting/charging ETF

[Ken S]

Consumers who are being charged an "early cancellation penalty" by satellite television company DIRECTV asked the Los Angeles Superior Court to block the company from automatically removing the fees from customers' bank accounts or charging their credit card accounts without their prior knowledge and written consent until the lawsuit is resolved.

Link: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-22-2009/0005098820&EDATE=

[BattleZone]

The vast majority of customers will be found to have signed an agreement that allows DirecTV to do what they're doing.

[Upstream]

The vast majority of customers will be found to have signed an agreement that allows DirecTV to do what they're doing.

The agreement allows DirecTV to charge a debit or credit card in accordance with applicable law for amounts due.

So I guess the suit is claiming that the charges are not in accordance with law, or they are not for amounts due (i.e., they are erroneous or fraudulent charges).

[compnurd]

The vast majority of customers will be found to have signed an agreement that allows DirecTV to do what they're doing.

cough BS cough

[Zellio]

The vast majority of customers will be found to have signed an agreement that allows DirecTV to do what they're doing.

Yes, and contracts mean nothing if they are against the law. No matter how you guys feel about your Directv, a judge will matter more.

[tcusta00]

Yes, and contracts mean nothing if they are against the law. No matter how you guys feel about your Directv, a judge will matter more.

Which law is that?

Please refrain from the "your DirecTV" rhetoric. It contributes nothing to the conversation.

[Stuart Sweet]

I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Contract law seems to be pretty firm in this regard but there's always room to reinterpret.

[veryoldschool]

I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Contract law seems to be pretty firm in this regard but there's always room to reinterpret.
"Historically" California has been fairly consumer friendly in regards to issues like this.
I have more "protection" getting my car fixed than going to my dentist. :eek2:

[raoul5788]

Perhaps if there is a lot of evidence of Directv incorrectly extending commitments, then charging those people an etf, there will be changes made. As far as those who are properly charged, I don't see any changes for them, unless is it under the umbrella of my first point.

[wildbill129]

Which law is that?

California Consumer Protection law. Read the motion, the plaintiff has good points.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/DirecTVSuitMotion.pdf

[Shades228]

Perhaps if there is a lot of evidence of Directv incorrectly extending commitments, then charging those people an etf, there will be changes made. As far as those who are properly charged, I don't see any changes for them, unless is it under the umbrella of my first point.

This is where I would see any lawsuit having any merit is if they can prove that the agreements were wrong and then charged in error. Other than that it will be interesting but at the most it may take a new notification matter.

[rudeney]

Key points of the suit:

DirecTV "engages in an oppressive, unfair practice of pilfering personal account information from unsuspecting customers," and "DIRECTV also fails to inform customers that it will be withdrawing the funds directly from its customers' bank accounts and/or directly charging their credit cards. DIRECTV does not obtain express or implied authority to use personal information to charge the early cancellation penalty." I assume that means they gather credit card and bank account information for the purpose of being able to charge the ETF's, yet they don't disclose that they will use the information for that purpose.

"DirecTV fails to disclose this penalty...to existing customers who replace their equipment." This seems to me like they are leveraging the situations where a commitment was improperly extended due to defective receivers being replaced.

I hate class action suits, but this may be what it takes to get D* to fix the problems we all know they have with incorrectly updated and miscommunicated commitment dates.

[TBlazer07]

DishNetwork leases as well don't they?

Are they doing the same thing as DirecTV with incorrect extensions etc etc?

[harsh]

The issue isn't commitment extensions or disputed failure to return charges. The issue is whether or not a service can extract money from your account that you haven't specifically authorized.

Those that use autopay need to put a sock in it. Signing up for autopay was a choice they made and it is designed to pay the bill in full on a timely basis regardless of the amount of the bill or the subscribers ability to pay.

Those that do not subscribe to autopay have every right to be angry. When it comes to bills that are paid by method other than autopay, paying the bill is your authorization and not paying a bill or a portion of the bill is your denial of any such authorization for the provider to get their hands on your money.

The idea of "you didn't give me enough so I'm going to take the rest" is likely to face a very tough challenge.

[Zellio]

Which law is that?

Please refrain from the "your DirecTV" rhetoric. It contributes nothing to the conversation.

As soon as the pro directv spins stop too, unless you want to only listen to whoever says good about Directv?

[Shades228]

As soon as the pro directv spins stop too, unless you want to only listen to whoever says good about Directv?

The agreement is not against the law. Now this ruling may set a precedence but there is not a law about this. I would suggest you go read the Dish vs Tivo thread and read about what words mean in legalise rather than what they mean to you and me. You're trying to say somethin that is completely wrong not an opinion.

[tcusta00]

As soon as the pro directv spins stop too, unless you want to only listen to whoever says good about Directv?

What are you talking about? Are you viewing this thread through your triclops goggles or something? :confused:

[Tom Robertson]

Ok please let this thread discuss the motion, the legal actions, and the policy; not each other.

Thanks,
Tom

[joe diamond]

As an installer I have an impression (without exact numbers) of most customers concentrating on how to work the remote. The customer copy of the agreement went in the trash with the boxes. The signed originals were turned in and filed somewhere. Bet even the second copy that was sent with the first bill got trashed.

Joe

[rudeney]

As an installer I have an impression (without exact numbers) of most customers concentrating on how to work the remote. The customer copy of the agreement went in the trash with the boxes. The signed originals were turned in and filed somewhere. Bet even the second copy that was sent with the first bill got trashed.

You are assuming that every customer gets a copy of that agreement. I never have. The papers that my installers have had me sign are just simple forms stating that they performed the work. They have never left anything other than a single half-page form with their 800 number to call if I have problems. I've had online billing from D* for about 10 years, so I get nothing from them in the mail (well, except about once a week I get a mailer telling me how I need to switch from cable).

I'm not saying that I'm not bound to the terms, just that I've never had to sign an agreement or been given a copy in writing.

[compnurd]

You are assuming that every customer gets a copy of that agreement. I never have. The papers that my installers have had me sign are just simple forms stating that they performed the work. They have never left anything other than a single half-page form with their 800 number to call if I have problems. I've had online billing from D* for about 10 years, so I get nothing from them in the mail (well, except about once a week I get a mailer telling me how I need to switch from cable).

I'm not saying that I'm not bound to the terms, just that I've never had to sign an agreement or been given a copy in writing.

Ditto on BOTH of my installs

[photostudent]

Directv certainly has a right to be reinbursed for expensive leased equipment that is not returned as well as labor intensive installations. However I think service providers requiring open access to you bank account is a slippery slope. Who will be next? Doctors? Auto mechanics? From the posts on this forum, Directv seems to have a history of documentation issues with contract extensions. Perhaps banks should require a maximum withdrawel amount be clear when these recurring debits are set up?

[jpl]

From a technical perspective, the lawsuit has no standing, in my opinion. When you sign for service, you agree to the terms. Whether a user actually reads what he signs or not, to me, is largely irrelevent. When you sign, you are saying that you accept the terms of service. If the terms of service state that you will be charged and ETF, and how said fees will be extracted, then I'm not really sure what legal standing the plaintiffs have.

All that being said, there is a standard of reasonableness that gets applied to all contracts. Otherwise it's way too easy to bury all sorts of nefarious things in the fine-print 'what... I didn't agree to give you my car if I cancelled service...' 'yes, you did... it's right there in paragraph 32, subparagraph f, in subsection 17.82...' So courts do look at whether the terms as spelled out in the contract are reasonable - what a reasonable person would anticipate would be covered in such a contract. Agreeing to give up your car (to continue my silly example) because you cancel TV service is beyond ridiculous, and therefore such a contrract wouldn't hold water, legally.

So, it seems to me the question for this comes down to one thing: is the method by which DirecTV extracts ETF payments 'reasonable'. Are the contract terms what a reasonable person would expect to be there? To me, the answer is 'yes'. But the case isn't for me to decide, and I don't know the particulars of this lawsuit.

[JoeTheDragon]

Directv certainly has a right to be reinbursed for expensive leased equipment that is not returned as well as labor intensive installations. However I think service providers requiring open access to you bank account is a slippery slope. Who will be next? Doctors? Auto mechanics? From the posts on this forum, Directv seems to have a history of documentation issues with contract extensions. Perhaps banks should require a maximum withdrawel amount be clear when these recurring debits are set up?

direct deposit is a other one where they can also directly take your cash back without any ok from you. That is why I don't like auto bill pay.

There need to be new banking law where you can set limits and the bank has to call you about stuff that goes over them.

[harsh]

If the terms of service state that you will be charged and ETF, and how said fees will be extracted, then I'm not really sure what legal standing the plaintiffs have.I don't subscribe to the theory that anyone is empowered to "extract" a payment.

How it works is that they bill you and if you don't pay, they cut back or discontinue your programming. The Payments (Section 2) portion says that you declaring the bill paid doesn't change the fact that you owe the money but it doesn't say that they can summarily debit your credit card or bank account.

[MIMOTech]

The problem with extending contracts every time one buys a new piece of equipment or change service is that it is a ploy to keep you connected and thus paying them and getting more money when you leave. Like as if you are being punished for being a customer. This practice is so wide spread amongst the TV and telephone providers that there needs to be further changes in consumer law at the national level. I do think that if you are a good customer that there needs to be some trust on the part of the service provider. One way to show trust is to stop extending contracts for those that prove to be reliable customers. This could be that after 3 years of being a regular customer, no more extended contracts would be issued for new services or equipment. All this contract stuff came about due to people hopping from one service to another. I can understand from a business point of view that this costs money, but after a customer has proved their loyalty then that practice must end. I can see that for the first few years to stop the hopping but not continuously. I have been a good directv customer since 1995, and I expect to be treated with respect and trust at this point. It is time for them to change their policies toward customers.

P

[harsh]

MIMOTech and others:

This thread isn't about commitments.

It isn't even really about ETFs.

It is about whether or not DIRECTV should be permitted to plunder what they think they are owed from your bank account if you otherwise indicate that you don't want to pay it.

[kgm32]

The vast majority of customers will be found to have signed an agreement that allows DirecTV to do what they're doing.

Everyone should write DirecTV and ask for a copy of the signed agreement. I have done so and they have failed to provide a copy. They say I signed mine when the equipment was installed but I have all the paper work left by the installer but no signed lease agreement and have no recollection of signing one. If I did sign it and just don't recall then shame on me. But I am usually fairly good at keeping this type of paper work.

[rudeney]

MIMOTech and others:

This thread isn't about commitments.

It isn't even really about ETFs.



But it is. You need to read the complaint. The issue is strictly about D* drafting ETF's based on commitments that may have been erroneously extended and without the knowledge of the customer.

[cariera]

MIMOTech and others:

This thread isn't about commitments.

It isn't even really about ETFs.

It is about whether or not DIRECTV should be permitted to plunder what they think they are owed from your bank account if you otherwise indicate that you don't want to pay it.

Harsh with all due respect, this thread and lawsuit is more about incorrect commitments and ETFs, than anything else. If you read the customer agreement:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P400042

Specifically section 5 (e):

"(e) Payment Upon Cancellation. You acknowledge that you have provided your credit or debit card account information to us. You understand that you will incur fees and charges as a result of your receipt and use of Service and/or Receiving Equipment, and may incur early cancellation fees and/or equipment non-return fees (as specified in any lease, programming or other service commitment agreement you entered into in connection with obtaining Receiving Equipment). By giving us your credit or debit card account information, you authorize us to apply this method of payment, in accordance with applicable law, to satisfy any and all amounts due upon cancellation"

Directv is well within it's right to charge a credit or debit card if it is legal to due so under that state's law. The customer has given permission through the acceptance of the TOS, whether or not anything has been signed.

IMO the problem that Directv runs into is when erroneous commitments are added to the account and not corrected prior to someone's card being charged. And unless they can correct that or prove to a judge's satisfaction that it will not happen, they could be in trouble in California when trying to continue this method of collection.

[Upstream]

Directv is well within it's right to charge a credit or debit card if it is legal to due so under that state's law.


The motion for injunction claims that the way DirecTV charges a credit or debit card is a direct violation of Federal law, so it would be illegal in every state.

[raoul5788]

Harsh with all due respect, this thread and lawsuit is more about incorrect commitments and ETFs, than anything else. If you read the customer agreement:

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=P400042

Specifically section 5 (e):

"(e) Payment Upon Cancellation. You acknowledge that you have provided your credit or debit card account information to us. You understand that you will incur fees and charges as a result of your receipt and use of Service and/or Receiving Equipment, and may incur early cancellation fees and/or equipment non-return fees (as specified in any lease, programming or other service commitment agreement you entered into in connection with obtaining Receiving Equipment). By giving us your credit or debit card account information, you authorize us to apply this method of payment, in accordance with applicable law, to satisfy any and all amounts due upon cancellation"

Directv is well within it's right to charge a credit or debit card if it is legal to due so under that state's law. The customer has given permission through the acceptance of the TOS, whether or not anything has been signed.

IMO the problem that Directv runs into is when erroneous commitments are added to the account and not corrected prior to someone's card being charged. And unless they can correct that or prove to a judge's satisfaction that it will not happen, they could be in trouble in California when trying to continue this method of collection.

That's exactly what I said in post #9. You just said it a lot better than I can!

[jpl]

I don't subscribe to the theory that anyone is empowered to "extract" a payment.

How it works is that they bill you and if you don't pay, they cut back or discontinue your programming. The Payments (Section 2) portion says that you declaring the bill paid doesn't change the fact that you owe the money but it doesn't say that they can summarily debit your credit card or bank account.

The method of payment of an ETF is covered under the contract. That makes it relevant to this case. If DirecTV didn't say anything about pulling money directly from your account to cover an ETF that would be one thing. But they state in their contract that you are authorizing them to do just what they're doing. Whether you subscribe to it or not in no way minimizes the obligation that the customer has in signing that contract.

To me, like I said before, the ONLY determining factor in this case is the standard of reasonableness of having that in the contract to begin with. If the courts rule that it's not a reasonable thing to have, then it'll go away entirely. But until that happens, DirecTV has the full right to do what they're doing. Someone may not like it, but there's nothing coercive going on here. A customer knowingly agrees to the terms of service. Just because he later finds those terms inconvenient in no way eliminates his obligation from upholding his part of that contract. Don't like it? Don't do business with them.

[gfrang]

I don't believe that they only shoud made to halt from automatically deducting/charging ETF,i feel that they should be brought up on criminal charges for theft.

If you buy something at a store and pay whit a credit card and you find out that the store keeps charging you for things you didn't buy then what would you call it?

[cariera]

If you buy something at a store and pay whit a credit card and you find out that the store keeps charging you for things you didn't buy then what would you call it?

In this case you are "buying" the privilege of having Directv service for 24 months. If you fail to keep that service for the full time then you really haven't paid for the item you "bought" and Directv charges you the remaining balance. :)

and, raoul788, I in no way attempted to minimize your post, but it irks me to no end when people complain that they didn't read or get or know about something like a commitment, that they shouldn't be held accountable for it.

Ignorance is not a defense, it is an excuse.:)

[iamqnow]

Not currently having an issue, but when D* continually can"t resolve an service problem, why should the customer suffer? If they can't provide adequate service, are they not violating an agreement. Why is this a one way street?

[gfrang]

In this case you are "buying" the privilege of having Directv service for 24 months. If you fail to keep that service for the full time then you really haven't paid for the item you "bought" and Directv charges you the remaining balance. :)

and, raoul788, I in no way attempted to minimize your post, but it irks me to no end when people complain that they didn't read or get or know about something like a commitment, that they shouldn't be held accountable for it.

Ignorance is not a defense, it is an excuse.:)

Well in my case i had a receiver replaced and was told that i would have no commitment and it states so in their policy.

So if and when i leave and they charge my card whit the remaining balance because i ended whit a commitment i have only one word for it stealing.But i know i will have a hard time finding a DA to go along whit it.

[cariera]

Well in my case i had a receiver replaced and was told that i would have no commitment and it states so in their policy.

So if and when i leave and they charge my card whit the remaining balance because i ended whit a commitment i have only one word for it stealing.But i know i will have a hard time finding a DA to go along whit it.

So if and when you leave, make sure there is no commitment on your account. It seems a simple resolution. Now, if you replaced an owned, not leased, receiver without having the protection plan you may indeed have a commitment. So you can prevent this "theft" by being vigilant.

And I believe the word you are looking for is, with.:)

[rudeney]

Not currently having an issue, but when D* continually can"t resolve an service problem, why should the customer suffer? If they can't provide adequate service, are they not violating an agreement. Why is this a one way street?


Because the company has all the money to pay the lawyers to write those one-sided agreements. f you don't like it, your choices are "don't buy" or "buy, get poor service, then arbitrate".

Capitalism is based on the consumers voting with their dollars. In the old days, we bought our goods and services from local vendors, and there were many of them to choose from. In modern times, consumers have fewer and fewer choices and the recession is whittling that down even more.

While having cable or satellite TV is not a necessity, it is something that most people have and use. Given that most of us only have a choice between three companies (D*, E* and one CATV provider), there is really not much competition. All they have to do to is claim to be slightly better or slightly less expensive than the others. Even when we do have the promise of other providers (i.e. FIOS and Uverse), they are still large mega-corporations with no incentive to do anything but take money from consumers by promising to be slightly better or slightly less expensive.

[gfrang]

So if and when you leave, make sure there is no commitment on your account. It seems a simple resolution. Now, if you replaced an owned, not leased, receiver without having the protection plan you may indeed have a commitment. So you can prevent this "theft" by being vigilant.

And I believe the word you are looking for is, with.:)

Replaced a leased receiver without pp but was also told no commitment,but in all fairness to directtv i found out this when i called looking for a deal, but it PO'S me because when i called to get the receiver replaced i was told their would be no commitment.

[TigersFanJJ]

In this case you are "buying" the privilege of having Directv service for 24 months. If you fail to keep that service for the full time then you really haven't paid for the item you "bought" and Directv charges you the remaining balance. :)

and, raoul788, I in no way attempted to minimize your post, but it irks me to no end when people complain that they didn't read or get or know about something like a commitment, that they shouldn't be held accountable for it.

Ignorance is not a defense, it is an excuse.:)

You may feel that it is a privilege to have Directv, but it is not. Directv is just like any other legitimate service out there. You pay for the service and you'll get it. Nothing special or out of the ordinary about it.

I.M.H.O., "ignorance is not a defense, it is an excuse" shouldn't be a shield for any company that often doesn't supply the contract or TOS until after they consider the customer "locked in" to their commitment. Also, giving someone a web address to a copy of the TOS shouldn't be an acceptable way of providing the TOS to the customer, either. There are still plenty of people out there that do not have internet access.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the contract and for people to hold up their side of the agreement. However, the contract isn't something that Directv (or anyone, for that matter) should be able to hide behind when are practicing a bad (and possibly illegal) policy.

[jpl]

You may feel that it is a privilege to have Directv, but it is not. Directv is just like any other legitimate service out there. You pay for the service and you'll get it. Nothing special or out of the ordinary about it.

I.M.H.O., "ignorance is not a defense, it is an excuse" shouldn't be a shield for any company that often doesn't supply the contract or TOS until after they consider the customer "locked in" to their commitment. Also, giving someone a web address to a copy of the TOS shouldn't be an acceptable way of providing the TOS to the customer, either. There are still plenty of people out there that do not have internet access.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the contract and for people to hold up their side of the agreement. However, the contract isn't something that Directv (or anyone, for that matter) should be able to hide behind when are practicing a bad (and possibly illegal) policy.

If DirecTV was hiding the terms of service from their customers, or not adequately disclosing them, then that's one thing. But that doesn't appear to be what's alleged here. I don't see anything in there to indicate that the plaintiffs weren't given correct notification of the TOS. It sounds like they're trying to make the case that having such a term is in itself illegal. I think that's a real stretch. If I sign up I select a method of payment. If I leave before my contract is up, I'm liable for the ETF. The method of paying that ETF is the same as the method you choose to pay your bills. When I left DirecTV, the ETF was on the final bill. I'm at a loss as to why the ETF should be 'special' with regard to how you pay what you owe to the company.

If DirecTV was hiding their TOS from their customers, or if they played games in trying to hide what those terms mean, then I'd be in agreement with you. But I don't see where that's alleged here. Besides, when I signed up for service, and when I later got a new receiver, thereby renewing my contract, I was given a contract to actually sign. The TOS was presented to me at the point of sale. It wasn't just given to me on line. I'm not sure where that notion fits into all of this.

[rudeney]

The terms of service are that you owe ETF's if you cancel before your commitment term has expired. If you have done nothing that should extend your commitment term and cancel after your commitment should have expired, you do not expect any ETF's to be billed, yet D* can "make mistakes" and "incorrectly extend" your commitment, and then they will automatically draft those erroneous ETF"s from your account. Unfortunately, to get the money back you have to make many phone calls and go through a lo of red tap, then wait weeks to get a credit.

If this were a rare occurrence, then I'd say the complaint has little merit, but it does not seem to be. Based on the number of posts here, it seems that D* has flaws in their procedures and systems that make it very easy, possibly "too easy" to erroneously extend commitments and then not make the customer aware of that until hundred of dollars are drafted from their accounts.

[Upstream]

If DirecTV was hiding the terms of service from their customers, or not adequately disclosing them, then that's one thing. But that doesn't appear to be what's alleged here.

Actually that is one of the things alleged in the case. The plaintiffs are claiming that DirecTV did not adequately disclose the terms of service before the commitment was established.

The plaintiffs are also alleging that DirecTV is extending commitments and applying early termination fees without the customer's consent or knowledge, even if the customer has previously read and agreed to the terms of service (i.e., there is nothing in DirecTV's terms of service which indicates how and when commitments are re-established or extended).

Also, the plaintiffs are alleging that DirecTV is withdrawing funds from the customers bank accounts before letting the customer know how much will be withdrawn and before giving the customers a chance to challenge the legitimacy of the charge. The plaintiffs are claiming that this is a direct violation of federal law.

[raoul5788]

In this case you are "buying" the privilege of having Directv service for 24 months. If you fail to keep that service for the full time then you really haven't paid for the item you "bought" and Directv charges you the remaining balance. :)

and, raoul788, I in no way attempted to minimize your post, but it irks me to no end when people complain that they didn't read or get or know about something like a commitment, that they shouldn't be held accountable for it.

Ignorance is not a defense, it is an excuse.:)

You aren't in any way. I think you missed my point, however. If a commitment is INCORRECTLY extended, then the etf may be improperly imposed. That's where I have an issue with Directv., not with someone that simply says "I didn't know I couldn't leave after 14 months, so I shouldn't have to pay the etf".

[jpl]

Actually that is one of the things alleged in the case. The plaintiffs are claiming that DirecTV did not adequately disclose the terms of service before the commitment was established.

The plaintiffs are also alleging that DirecTV is extending commitments and applying early termination fees without the customer's consent or knowledge, even if the customer has previously read and agreed to the terms of service (i.e., there is nothing in DirecTV's terms of service which indicates how and when commitments are re-established or extended).

Also, the plaintiffs are alleging that DirecTV is withdrawing funds from the customers bank accounts before letting the customer know how much will be withdrawn and before giving the customers a chance to challenge the legitimacy of the charge. The plaintiffs are claiming that this is a direct violation of federal law.

Then I stand corrected. I didn't see all that in the allegation. I guess I have a problem with the notion that a company shouldn't be able to extract an ETF through an automatic payment, even if they don't tell you ahead of time the amount. Not to give these companies a pass, and yes they make mistakes, but the customer is ultimately responsible for paying the bill, and for the amount of the bill. For example, say your credit card bill doesn't get to you on time... or at all. Let's say the post office messed up and lost your bill. Are you still responsible for paying that bill on time? Yes, you are. The payment of the bill is your responsibility - even if you don't get the bill on time. And in all honesty, with the current state of communication technology there is simply no excuse for not knowing when a bill is due, how much is due, and how it will be paid. When I was set to leave DirecTV the first thing I did was call them to ask if I was still on contract and what my ETF was.

If they are erroneously extending contracts, that's one thing - at that point the plaintiffs probably have a case, if they can demonstrate that that's what actually happened. As for hiding the TOS... sorry, but I don't fly with that one. Again, understanding those terms is YOUR responsibility. If they don't give them to you expressly, why are you signing the contract? Or if you ask and they say 'well, you can find them on the website' then it's up to you to say 'well, I don't have access to the internet, can I get a hard-copy?' If they say 'no', then you say 'sorry... goodbye... we won't be doing business today.'

I feel for consumers who are legitimately targeted by underhanded companies - those types of claims are legitimate. I guess it just bugs me that consumers believe that they have no responsibility when they put their name to paper. And, again, if they don't give you a paper to sign, then why the hell are you agreeing to service?

[cariera]

You aren't in any way. I think you missed my point, however. If a commitment is INCORRECTLY extended, then the etf may be improperly imposed. That's where I have an issue with Directv., not with someone that simply says "I didn't know I couldn't leave after 14 months, so I shouldn't have to pay the etf".

I agree with you about the incorrect extension of the commitment, read the last part of my original post. I think that we are on the same page here.:)

[timmmaaayyy2003]

If this were a rare occurrence, then I'd say the complaint has little merit, but it does not seem to be. Based on the number of posts here, it seems that D* has flaws in their procedures and systems that make it very easy, possibly "too easy" to erroneously extend commitments and then not make the customer aware of that until hundred of dollars are drafted from their accounts.

And consider what a small fraction of DTV customers there are in this forum. To have as many complaints here of erroneous commitment extensions as we do here, imagine what the real number of times it's happening must be.:eek2:

[dsw2112]

One of the biggest questions a lawyer will pose here is whether ALL D* customers are physically signing this paperwork. The next question is can D* produce copies of the signed agreements if challenged.

I'm guessing if D* cannot produce the agreement with a customer signature then that might get them in some hot water in a legal case. I'm really surprised D* doesn't do a better job with these issues as this is the type of thing that can turn into a class action suit.

[rudeney]

And consider what a small fraction of DTV customers there are in this forum. To have as many complaints here of erroneous commitment extensions as we do here, imagine what the real number of times it's happening must be.:eek2:

On top of that, there are all the subscribers who have had their commitments erroneously extended and don't (yet) know it!

[ThomasM]

Anyone who follows the discussions on this system know that ADDING a LEASED receiver to a DirecTV account or REPLACING an OWNED receiver with a LEASED receiver resets the 2 year commitment. So does accepting the "movers connection" offer. It is well documented.

The problem (also often discussed on this system) is unauthorized commitment extensions when replacing a defective leased receiver (with or without the protection plan) and other mysterious commitment extensions that are NOT documented or authorized by the subscriber. Often, they are only discovered when the service is disconnected (or an attempt is made to disconnect the service).

THIS is what should be addressed, not people moaning about being charged an ETF after agreeing to a commitment and getting an ADDITIONAL leased receiver within the previous 2 year time frame.

[rudeney]

The problem (also often discussed on this system) is unauthorized commitment extensions when replacing a defective leased receiver (with or without the protection plan) and other mysterious commitment extensions that are NOT documented or authorized by the subscriber. Often, they are only discovered when the service is disconnected (or an attempt is made to disconnect the service).

THIS is what should be addressed

I don't believe anyone would argue against collecting ETF's from customers who truly owe them, but given the discrepancies and errors in commitment dates and the fact that D* can't even seem to correct an erroneous commitment date, this complaint has merit. The injunction will give customers time to research and dispute the charges instead of D* just taking the money.

[tbpb3]

Good luck trying to get anything out of my account. They keep saying that the recession is over.I dont see it

[kgm32]

Anyone who follows the discussions on this system know that ADDING a LEASED receiver to a DirecTV account or REPLACING an OWNED receiver with a LEASED receiver resets the 2 year commitment. So does accepting the "movers connection" offer. It is well documented.

The problem (also often discussed on this system) is unauthorized commitment extensions when replacing a defective leased receiver (with or without the protection plan) and other mysterious commitment extensions that are NOT documented or authorized by the subscriber. Often, they are only discovered when the service is disconnected (or an attempt is made to disconnect the service).

THIS is what should be addressed, not people moaning about being charged an ETF after agreeing to a commitment and getting an ADDITIONAL leased receiver within the previous 2 year time frame.

But there is a problem with the fact that people do find out that they will be charged an EFT for swapping out a reciever. Directv does not do as good of a job making this fact known as they pretend and not everyone follows the discussion on this topic on this system.

So this is a problem too as I question Directv practices in all areas of agreement extensions. Why?

The simple fact that they do not provide all customers with a signed document stating your commitment starts xx/xx/xxxx and ends xx/xx/xxxx and is $$.$$ per month leads to problems. My lease agreement on my car say this as does my cell phone contract. But with Directv, you call up say "I want a new reciever", they send out an installer who hooks it up and who may but often does not provide a lease agreement to the customer (I never got one). They rely on a letter sent after the fact as their proof of agreement. Those like myself that have online billing probably think its just junk mail and throw it out and even if they do read it, by that time its too late they are already locked in with no way out.

[oldfantom]

On top of that, there are all the subscribers who have had their commitments erroneously extended and don't (yet) know it!

I have no idea if I am still under commitment. I know more about my AT&T cell service and when it is up than I do D*. But that is because they start pestering me to buy a new phone every two years.

I think the most important point about any of this discussion is that the suit is in california. I would put real money down that this goes in the favor of the consumer just knowing that fact. Not a whole lot of real money, but real money none the less.

[harsh]

So does accepting the "movers connection" offer.While I think I recall that the Mover's Connection documentation used to make reference to the idea that a commitment was involved, the current Mover's Connection T&C's make no mention of a commitment extension.

Are they leaving it up to installers to tell the customers about these extensions or are they just doing it and not telling anyone?

[wildbill129]

While I think I recall that the Mover's Connection documentation used to make reference to the idea that a commitment was involved, the current Mover's Connection T&C's make no mention of a commitment extension.

Are they leaving it up to installers to tell the customers about these extensions or are they just doing it and not telling anyone?

When I moved last December into my new house I used the mover's connection. I never signed anything. I got no documentation indicating I was agreeing to another two year commitment. It's not a big deal to me cause I added another HD DVR in June, so I know full well I have an additional two year commitment. (BTW, they told me about the commitment when I ordered my new DVR + I knew it would trigger one anyway)

It would be nice if the commitment date was shown on the bill or on the account online.

[Shades228]

While I think I recall that the Mover's Connection documentation used to make reference to the idea that a commitment was involved, the current Mover's Connection T&C's make no mention of a commitment extension.

Are they leaving it up to installers to tell the customers about these extensions or are they just doing it and not telling anyone?

There is not an agreement with the movers order. The only agreements come from activated equipment on the account. This has been changed since 12/07.

They're leaving it up to the lease agreement and the CSR's who place the order if someone orders more equipment with it.

Order a movers and do not add any new equipment there will not be an agreement.

[scrybigtv]

On top of that, there are all the subscribers who have had their commitments erroneously extended and don't (yet) know it!

That's a very good point. The evidence would, in fact, suggest that it is DirecTV's policy to do just that – extend the programming commitment whenever a subscriber replaces a dead (leased) receiver. I know it happened to me, and unless DBSTalk is overrun with compulsive liars, it has happened to many, many others as well.

And what's even more sobering is the realization that I would have never known of the extension had I not taken it on myself to ask.

[The Merg]

That's a very good point. The evidence would, in fact, suggest that it is DirecTV's policy to do just that – extend the programming commitment whenever a subscriber replaces a dead (leased) receiver. I know it happened to me, and unless DBSTalk is overrun with compulsive liars, it has happened to many, many others as well.

And what's even more sobering is the realization that I would have never known of the extension had I not taken it on myself to ask.

I don't know if there is evidence that it is DirecTV's policy to extend commitments for replacing a defective receiver. I think the is and has been that DirecTV's system has defects in it that easily allow a replacement receiver to create a commitment or that the CSR's are not being trained effectively in what the policy is. Obviously there are CSR's that know that a replacement receiver does not trigger a commitment, so I don't think it is a policy issue. It's a policy implementation issue or a system issue.

- Merg

[wildbill129]

I don't know if there is evidence that it is DirecTV's policy to extend commitments for replacing a defective receiver. I think the is and has been that DirecTV's system has defects in it that easily allow a replacement receiver to create a commitment or that the CSR's are not being trained effectively in what the policy is. Obviously there are CSR's that know that a replacement receiver does not trigger a commitment, so I don't think it is a policy issue. It's a policy implementation issue or a system issue.

- Merg

So here is my question, we know there is this system/policy issue. DirecTV knows there is an issue. It's been widely publicized. Why don't they fix it? It seems to me while the software or system issue is being fixed, they could train all the CSR's to recognize the improperly applied commitment and give them the authority to fix it when customers call in. That's not being done because some people are having to go through mulitple levels of CSR's to get it corrected.

[JackDW001]

First of all, I do not allow autopay on any service. For times when I need to give account information, I have a second checking account with a debit card in which I keep very little money (less then $200) specifically for this use. If someone attempted to extract some unknown fee from this account it would not be there. If I know ahead of time that I owed additional money for a fee (such as a ETF), then I will make sure the money is available in the account. I used to travel a lot for work and this is the account I used. If someone stole the debit card they would not get much. Just a suggestion for anyone who want to limit their exposure to unapproved withdrawals.

At this time, I am on Cable. Used E* in the past and loved it. I am considering going back to Satallite and perfer D* this time, but I WILL NOT sign up with D* with the type of commitments they are requiring. How many other potential customers are they losing because of the these policies. At least with E*, I can pay extra and not have these committments, or at least smaller committments.

[scrybigtv]

I don't know if there is evidence that it is DirecTV's policy to extend commitments for replacing a defective receiver. I think the is and has been that DirecTV's system has defects in it that easily allow a replacement receiver to create a commitment or that the CSR's are not being trained effectively in what the policy is. Obviously there are CSR's that know that a replacement receiver does not trigger a commitment, so I don't think it is a policy issue. It's a policy implementation issue or a system issue.

- Merg

Merg: Let me clarify my point. I'm not saying these extensions are, without equivocation, a policy of D*. I'm saying there's evidence, in the form of dozens of testimonials on this very message board, to at least suggest that possibility.

When all is said and done, it really doesn't matter whether the extensions are triggered by company policy or a systemic failure. The effect on the customer is the same in either case.

[jpl]

At this time, I am on Cable. Used E* in the past and loved it. I am considering going back to Satallite and perfer D* this time, but I WILL NOT sign up with D* with the type of commitments they are requiring. How many other potential customers are they losing because of the these policies.

I have to agree with this. If I had to do it over again, given the current commitments that DirecTV requires, I don't know if I would have signed up. Granted, I'm no longer a DirecTV customer. But if Verizon folded up FiOS tomorrow, I don't know if I'd go back to DirecTV specifically because I think their ETFs are ridiculous.

[TBlazer07]

They probably don't fix it because most people don't check (because they aren't aware of it). I guess they figure "if we can collect from 80% of them we are ahead of the game so why change anything." :grin:

I'm anxiously awaiting a message HERE from someone who DirecTV says that they "noted their account that there should NOT have been an extended commitment" even though they erroneously added one to cancel and see what happens.

Why do you think they don't list it in the web accounts or in your bills? I'm sure that would be an easy item to add. A lot more people would see it and call to complain. Out of sight out of mind. :)





So here is my question, we know there is this system/policy issue. DirecTV knows there is an issue. It's been widely publicized. Why don't they fix it? It seems to me while the software or system issue is being fixed, they could train all the CSR's to recognize the improperly applied commitment and give them the authority to fix it when customers call in. That's not being done because some people are having to go through mulitple levels of CSR's to get it corrected.

[The Merg]

Merg: Let me clarify my point. I'm not saying these extensions are, without equivocation, a policy of D*. I'm saying there's evidence, in the form of dozens of testimonials on this very message board, to at least suggest that possibility.

When all is said and done, it really doesn't matter whether the extensions are triggered by company policy or a systemic failure. The effect on the customer is the same in either case.

Since I've gotten specific responses from CSR's on what the policy is (check out the DirecTV Commitments (http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=119756) thread), I would say the issue is not policy, but more of a systemic failure (either procedural, training, or technological).

That said, I do agree that the effect on the customer is the same and that it needs to be rectified.

- Merg

[Upstream]

I'm anxiously awaiting a message HERE from someone who DirecTV says that they "noted their account that there should NOT have been an extended commitment" even though they erroneously added one to cancel and see what happens.

DirecTV erroneously extended my commitment (after replacing a defective receiver under the protection plan). After several phone calls trying to get them to correct the error, they put a note on my account indicating the correct commitment date. I also had them send me an email, so I had written confirmation of the correct commitment date.

When I went to cancel DirecTV, the note on my account mysteriously disappeared, and they tried to charge me a several hundred dollar ETF. Fortunately I had the email confirmation. It still took a couple of weeks and many follow-up emails to get the ETF waived.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1900026#post1900026

[TBlazer07]

It's good you saved the email or you'd be SOL. I can't imagine how many people are going to be in for a huge surprise when they need to cancel.

I got lucky last year as the OOP actually REMOVED my committment but it seems they will no longer do that. I guess they are getting too many complaints and can't handle the volume. :)


DirecTV erroneously extended my commitment (after replacing a defective receiver under the protection plan). After several phone calls trying to get them to correct the error, they put a note on my account indicating the correct commitment date. I also had them send me an email, so I had written confirmation of the correct commitment date.

When I went to cancel DirecTV, the note on my account mysteriously disappeared, and they tried to charge me a several hundred dollar ETF. Fortunately I had the email confirmation. It still took a couple of weeks and many follow-up emails to get the ETF waived.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1900026#post1900026

[dreadlk]

The vast majority of customers will be found to have signed an agreement that allows DirecTV to do what they're doing.


I signed no agreement, every thing was done on the phone and the installer only had me sign a paper saying that I was satisfied with the installation.

[dreadlk]

. How many other potential customers are they losing because of the these policies. At least with E*, I can pay extra and not have these committments, or at least smaller committments.

A lot of people right now will not get themselves into a 2 year contract because they feel uncertain about the future.

[wingrider01]

I don't believe that they only shoud made to halt from automatically deducting/charging ETF,i feel that they should be brought up on criminal charges for theft.

If you buy something at a store and pay whit a credit card and you find out that the store keeps charging you for things you didn't buy then what would you call it?

For aphysical retail store theft, for this situation - upholding the electronic contract that you agreed to when you accepted the terms of service via electronic agreement or physical signature. Electronic agreement and signatures are a legal method of closing a deal and agreeing to things.

[wingrider01]

I signed no agreement, every thing was done on the phone and the installer only had me sign a paper saying that I was satisfied with the installation.

paper had 2 sides, read the back

[gfrang]

For aphysical retail store theft, for this situation - upholding the electronic contract that you agreed to when you accepted the terms of service via electronic agreement or physical signature. Electronic agreement and signatures are a legal method of closing a deal and agreeing to things.

Noting you stated applies here people were never told,signed or
agreed to any commitment or even a electronic agreement.

[rudeney]

I signed no agreement, every thing was done on the phone and the installer only had me sign a paper saying that I was satisfied with the installation.

paper had 2 sides, read the back

And you are assuming everyone signed the same form. I know I didn't. The form I signed was a single page, half-sheet that Bruister used. It simply stated that the tech completed the install and had no D*-specific language on it. I've never physically signed an agreement with D*, although I have verbally agreed to a two-year commitment when adding new receivers. That verbal agreement is enough to bind me to pay ETF's should I cancel early. However, if I had not verbally agreed, say when having a defective receiver replaced, and then my commitment was extended, I'd be angry and would certainly dispute any ETF's charged to my AMEX card.

[wingrider01]

Noting you stated applies here people were never told,signed or
agreed to any commitment or even a electronic agreement.

You agreed to the contract when you ordered the service and it was installed

[wingrider01]

And you are assuming everyone signed the same form. I know I didn't. The form I signed was a single page, half-sheet that Bruister used. It simply stated that the tech completed the install and had no D*-specific language on it. I've never physically signed an agreement with D*, although I have verbally agreed to a two-year commitment when adding new receivers. That verbal agreement is enough to bind me to pay ETF's should I cancel early. However, if I had not verbally agreed, say when having a defective receiver replaced, and then my commitment was extended, I'd be angry and would certainly dispute any ETF's charged to my AMEX card.

Guess it was a fluke then that every copy I have from any service work that wsa completed was the same 2 page form, embedded in the text of the "quality control" was the agreement.

Again it is really a mute point since you agreed to the terms of the contract when you ordered the service and accepted the installation.

[kgm32]

paper had 2 sides, read the back

Looking at the back of mine. Pink empty page. Front says nothing about an extension. Just that I am happy with my installation and that I kept my old box because I owned it.

[gfrang]

You agreed to the contract when you ordered the service and it was installed

Oh yea 10 years ago, just what does it got to with it now?
If you want to find out why don't you read my earlier posts on this tread.

[harsh]

You agreed to the contract when you ordered the service and it was installedI'm pretty sure the term "contract" doesn't appear anywhere in the documentation.

[TBoneit]

To me the bottom line is that D* could have avoided a big mess if they clearly communicated that there is a ETF when someone calls to cancel. As well as if they communicated the exact amount of the ETF and the due date on it and that failure to pay would cause a negative on their credit report.

True some would have run out out and closed their bank accounts and credit cards. A Small minority IMHO.

In court D* is going to look like a loan collector (Shark) the way they proceed to get their money.

Sooner or later the bad will they are creating will come back to bite them with customer acquisitions.

[BattleZone]

And you are assuming everyone signed the same form. I know I didn't. The form I signed was a single page, half-sheet that Bruister used. It simply stated that the tech completed the install and had no D*-specific language on it. I've never physically signed an agreement with D*, although I have verbally agreed to a two-year commitment when adding new receivers. That verbal agreement is enough to bind me to pay ETF's should I cancel early. However, if I had not verbally agreed, say when having a defective receiver replaced, and then my commitment was extended, I'd be angry and would certainly dispute any ETF's charged to my AMEX card.

It *is* possible that what you describe happened; I know that techs have failed to get the agreement signed before. Normally, the HSP won't pay if there's no contract signed, but sometimes one slips through.

If you challenge DirecTV to come up with your signed agreement, and they can't, then they'd probably let you out of it.

[harsh]

To me the bottom line is that D* could have avoided a big mess if they clearly communicated that there is a ETF when someone calls to cancel.I think people should be prepared for an ETF because it is unequivocally documented in the Equipment Lease Addendum.

The two real problems are:

1. That they are extending the commitments without sufficient notice or consistency.
2. That they are "extracting" the money.

As an aside, I noticed today that the commitment for new customers is 24 months regardless of the type of equipment installed:PROGRAMMING TERM.

For a new DIRECTV customer, The programming package(s) must be maintained for a period of not less than twenty-four (24) consecutive months. For a current DIRECTV customer, the programming package(s) must be maintained for a period of not less than (a) twelve (12) consecutive months for accounts with only standard receiver(s), or (b) twenty-four (24) consecutive months for accounts with advanced product(s)/receiver(s) (DVR, HD, or HD DVR, including additional DIRECTV receiver(s)).

[rudeney]

Guess it was a fluke then that every copy I have from any service work that wsa completed was the same 2 page form, embedded in the text of the "quality control" was the agreement.

No, it was not a fluke; it's just that your install technician used a different form than mine. It seems that from information posted on DBSTalk through the years, different contractors (including D*-employed techs) did use different forms.

[csgo]

You agreed to the contract when you ordered the service and it was installed

Yes, and according to that contract DirecTV can decide to eliminate any or all channels and charge you whatever they want.

So if DirecTV decides they're only going to offer the Oxygen channel and charge $1000 per month for it you're OK with that? Don't forget they can draft your bank account and/or charge it to your credit card if they want. You can't cancel because DirecTV decided to extend your contract for another 2 years because of the programming changes.

All of the above is within the agreement. I bet you would change your opinion if that happened.

Luckily this is the USA and such agreements are not usually upheld in the courts. It takes a few brave souls to fight the battle so the rest of us can be treated legally. That's sort of our history... a few are willing fight so the rest can bitch about it.

[rudeney]

It *is* possible that what you describe happened; I know that techs have failed to get the agreement signed before. Normally, the HSP won't pay if there's no contract signed, but sometimes one slips through.

If you challenge DirecTV to come up with your signed agreement, and they can't, then they'd probably let you out of it.

I sort of did that once. A few years back when they raised rates, I called to complain. I threatened to cancel, and the CSR said I would have to pay ETF's. I asked to be sent a copy of the signed contract and I would gladly do that. After being put on hold for a few minutes, the CSR came back and cited a date in my account where I had verbally agreed to a two-year extension, and that the ETF's would be enforced. I then countered with the fact that my verbal agreement was only to maintain service the service I have, not to allow for any price increases. Again, I was put on hold, and the CSR came back to inform me that I would be given credits to offset the price increase.

I know I've said this several times, I believe that if D* would just change their business model to mirror what cell phone providers do, it would make things much easier for all involved. They should explain to the customer that a discount on equipment or installation comes with a commitment extension, just like when I get a new cell phone with Verizon for $100 off retail price. Clearly spell-out the terms and give the customer easy (online or on the paper bill) access to the commitment expiration date, just like Verizon does for me. Also, give customers who are out of a commitment a specific discount on new equipment in return for a commitment extension, again, just as Verizon does. It's simple, it puts everything out in the open for all the see, and it might even get customers to add equipment and extend commitments more easily than making them play CSR roulette for discounts.

Yes, and according to that contract DirecTV can decide to eliminate any or all channels and charge you whatever they want.

So if DirecTV decides they're only going to offer the Oxygen channel and charge $1000 per month for it you're OK with that? Don't forget they can draft your bank account and/or charge it to your credit card if they want. You can't cancel because DirecTV decided to extend your contract for another 2 years because of the programming changes.

All of the above is within the agreement. I bet you would change your opinion if that happened.

Luckily this is the USA and such agreements are not usually upheld in the courts. It takes a few brave souls to fight the battle so the rest of us can be treated legally. That's sort of our history... a few are willing fight so the rest can bitch about it.

Of course we all know that hypothetical situation is extreme and ridiculous. Regardless, something more realistic could happen, such as the loss of a satellite. While they do have some excess capacity usable for a backup, it would still be a huge problem and some channels would be lost. This could be especially troublesome if it affected the spot beams used for locals. In this case, I would expect D* to compensate customers in some fashion. If not, then I do not see a court upholding ETF's if D* was unable to maintain a significant portion of services.

Like you said, these one-sided contracts of adhesion are often struck down by the courts. I do believe a court would uphold ETF's when properly communicated and charged, though. It just makes sense that D* be compensated for delivering reduced-price equipment and services in return for a guarantee of payment from the customer.

[wingrider01]

Oh yea 10 years ago, just what does it got to with it now?
If you want to find out why don't you read my earlier posts on this tread.

When you order service you agree to a contract. Currently I believe they require a credit card as collatoral to complete the agreement, the end user gives them the number and they agree to the terms by completing the order.

This will probably end in another crass action suite, which means 10 years form now they will still be argueing it and the end user loses again.

[csgo]

When you order service you agree to a contract. Currently I believe they require a credit card as collatoral to complete the agreement, the end user gives them the number and they agree to the terms by completing the order.

This will probably end in another crass action suite, which means 10 years form now they will still be argueing it and the end user loses again.

If there was a valid contract then DirecTV should be able to provide it as evidence to the court. From what I read DirecTV has been unable to provide this evidence to date. If only one party believes there's a contract, and no evidence exists, then there is no contract.

End users lose again? I don't see how. I can only see good coming out of such actions. None of us know what the ultimate outcome will be, but hopefully there will be clarification for consumers at the very least.

I suspect the court will force DirecTV to pro-rate any early termination fees, and drafting of bank accounts or charging credit cards will be prohibited, but that's just my guess.

[gfrang]

When you order service you agree to a contract. Currently I believe they require a credit card as collatoral to complete the agreement, the end user gives them the number and they agree to the terms by completing the order.

This will probably end in another crass action suite, which means 10 years form now they will still be argueing it and the end user loses again.

That was 10 years ago whatever commitment i had is now long gone.What gets me is when a receiver goes bad they reset the commitment even though there policy states differently.

The last time i had my dvr replaced they told me their would be no commitment and when the installer replaced it he told me the same thing, i checked the work order that he gave me to sign front and back and found no mention of a commitment.

[wingrider01]

If there was a valid contract then DirecTV should be able to provide it as evidence to the court. From what I read DirecTV has been unable to provide this evidence to date. If only one party believes there's a contract, and no evidence exists, then there is no contract.

End users lose again? I don't see how. I can only see good coming out of such actions. None of us know what the ultimate outcome will be, but hopefully there will be clarification for consumers at the very least.

I suspect the court will force DirecTV to pro-rate any early termination fees, and drafting of bank accounts or charging credit cards will be prohibited, but that's just my guess.

Doubt it since they already pro-rate the ETF and and have been for years , add ot the fact you give them permission to auto-deduct. Sorry there is only one winner in a crass action suit, and not the end user

[dodge boy]

Doubt it since they already pro-rate the ETF and and have been for years , add ot the fact you give them permission to auto-deduct. Sorry there is only one winner in a crass action suit, and not the end user

Sure the end users are winners, if successfull, it will cahnge the behavior of the offending company and we all will benefit.

Obviously you've never seen Erin Brockovich.

[harsh]

Some background:(e) Payment Upon Cancellation. You acknowledge that you have provided your credit or debit card account information to us. You understand that you will incur fees and charges as a result of your receipt and use of Service and/or Receiving Equipment, and may incur early cancellation fees and/or equipment non-return fees (as specified in any lease, programming or other service commitment agreement you entered into in connection with obtaining Receiving Equipment). By giving us your credit or debit card account information, you authorize us to apply this method of payment, in accordance with applicable law, to satisfy any and all amounts due upon cancellation. You further acknowledge that you are required to maintain current credit or debit card information with us and agree to notify us whenever there is a change in such information, such as a change in the card number or the expiration date.The word "contract" appears only once in either of the agreements in the title of section 4 of the Customer Agreement: 4. CHANGES IN CONTRACT TERMS

We reserve the right to change the terms and conditions on which we offer Service. If we make any such changes, we will send you a copy of your new Customer Agreement containing its effective date. You always have the right to cancel your Service, in whole or in part, at any time, and you may do so if you do not accept any such changed terms or conditions. See Sections 5(b), (d) and (e) below. If you elect not to cancel your Service after receiving a new Customer Agreement, your continued receipt of Service constitutes acceptance of the changed terms and conditions. If you notify us that you do not accept such terms and conditions, then we may cancel your Service as provided in Section 5, as we cannot offer Service to different customers on different terms, among other reasons.They've been very careful to use the terms "agreement" and "commitment" except in the heading of this section.

[ehilbert1]

If I cancel before my contract is up I know I will have to pay those fees. I get that and have no problem with it. I really don't have a problem with them charging my credit card for those fees. What I do have a problem with is D* extending my contract without me knowing it. Some of us pay for the PP and when a reciever is repalced they go right ahead and extend our contracts without saying a word. So if we do cancel we're pretty much screwed. To me thats bad business and I don't see how anyone can defend that. I enjoy D* and have no intention of leaving, but the fact and yes I said "FACT" they extend peoples contracts without their knowlege is wrong. It's happening a lot and then when people cancel they have their cards and bank accounts charged that fee. It's wrong and not fair and I hope this case makes D* change the way they do things.

[JackDW001]

They've been very careful to use the terms "agreement" and "commitment" except in the heading of this section.

In Section 4 (CHANGES IN CONTRACT TERMS), it states that if you contact D* and do not accept the changes, "we (as in D*) may cancel your service". In this case you (as in the customer) did not cancel the service and any damage that D* encountered (as in future payments against the contract) is due to their own (D*) decisions. I don't think there is any way that D* could even expect to collect any ETF in this case. If they elect to pursue it, then they would be opening up themselves to a suit since they are the ones who failed to fulfill the contract.