[Steve615]

DirecTV,Inc. was named in a consumer class action complaint filed today in Los Angeles,CA.
The complaint is alleging unlawful early termination fees.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080917/20080917006213.html?.v=1

 

[rahlquist]

DirecTV,Inc. was named in a consumer class action complaint filed today in Los Angeles,CA.
The complaint is alleging unlawful early termination fees.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080917/20080917006213.html?.v=1

Most unfortunate. I predict the people republic of Kalifornia will also soon have a lawsuit similar to the Time Warner one attacking them for only allowing their own hardware to interact with service.

 

[bruinfever]

"We are proud of Ms. Imburgia and Ms. Mecca for standing up for their rights and look forward to their day in court,”

Those trial lawyers, you gotta love them! Its lawsuits like this that make me have nothing but contempt for lawyers in general. They'll probably end up settling and make us customers have to pay more for the service we receive..Thanks!

 

[Jared701]

looking at that article and having taken contracts I would say it's about a 50/50 case. Honestly I think it's easy enough to find the terms of the contract but then again I asked the CSR about 30 questions before I signed up and checked all terms I could find on directv's website. I didn't see in that article but the way it was written it looks like the plaintiff class will be limited to 'people who have been affected by early termination fees and did not know this was a term in the contract who live in california' not too big of class since it is limited to california exclusively (assuming that from the attorney's comment about california law, but it could be nationwide) IMO directv can't afford to settle this quickly if it is only california citizens or else it will only encourage class action lawsuits from others in the nation as well.

 

[minorthr]

"We are proud of Ms. Imburgia and Ms. Mecca for standing up for their rights and look forward to their day in court,"

Those trial lawyers, you gotta love them! Its lawsuits like this that make me have nothing but contempt for lawyers in general. They'll probably end up settling and make us customers have to pay more for the service we receive..Thanks!

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5

 

[Sirshagg]

Lawyers or ridiculous DirecTV fees - I'm not really sure which side to root for.

 

[webby_s]

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5

Bingo!!!!!!!:nono2:

 

[heisman]

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5

More importantly, the lawsuit will change D*'s entire business model going forward as it pertains to ETF's.

 

[HDTVsportsfan]

More importantly, the lawsuit will change D*'s entire business model going forward as it pertains to ETF's.

I doubt it.

 

[rahlquist]

The sad part is, if indeed they choose to settle look forward to an amended TOS in your mailbox and deposits on hardware etc. While I am no fan of being locked in, I dont thin D*'s 2 year term is excessive, and I dont the the ETF is that bad. Now the charges for unreturned equipment, thats another story altogether. I have over $1200 in fees to look forward to if I dont send my DVRs back if I ever cancel.

 

[rabit ears]

I think termination fees hinder the marketplace and I hope this suit brings D* to the table for a negotiated settlement that brings equity to the transaction.

People should be given a choice between leased and owned equipment and service commitments or no service commitments. As it stands right now, there is only one option and as a subscriber of 14 years this month, I don't like the option.

Every time I call to make a change to my system I have to open with "I'd like to order....., but I don't want it if it's going to extend my commitment or base package." I always get the ID of the CSR and I record the calls. That's a horrible relationship to have with any company.

The trump card for every consumer is the ability to walk away from the transaction. Without that ability, D*s customers are being held for ransom.

Worst case D* will prevail and their actions and attitude toward their customers will become even more outlandish. Best case D* will treat their customers fairly. Probable case, the lawyers get a lot of money and we get a little something.

 

[Jared701]

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5

Just a quick lesson on class action lawsuits. The lawyers do not get a % fee of the agreed settlement/court decision. They get their normal hourly fee taken from it. So no, that would not happen.

 

[Herdfan]

More importantly, the lawsuit will change D*'s entire business model going forward as it pertains to ETF's.

But no matter how iron clad an ETF may be, as long as one person can prove that they were not adequately informed of the terms, there will be an attorney willing to file suit.

Any any of us who have spent a few minutes on the phone with a D* CSR knows that they are liable to tell the customer anything. So until this part of the transaction is fixed, these types of actions will continue.

The good news though is at some point it may actually be more beneficial for D* to properly train CSR's.

 

[DarinC]

The sad part is, if indeed they choose to settle look forward to an amended TOS in your mailbox and deposits on hardware etc.

If the cable industry can survive without service agreements and ETFs, why can't satellite? They've already moved to a lease system, so it's not like they'd be "giving" equipment away.

 

[jimb726]

If the cable industry can survive without service agreements and ETFs, why can't satellite? They've already moved to a lease system, so it's not like they'd be "giving" equipment away.

Have you used any of the cableco dvr's? I would guess its because on any level, any person who has ever used a DVR would most likely not be enaored with the offering, other than perhaps the TiVo one and of course that has had its own issues.

 

[DishCSR]

I think termination fees hinder the marketplace and I hope this suit brings D* to the table for a negotiated settlement that brings equity to the transaction.

People should be given a choice between leased and owned equipment and service commitments or no service commitments. As it stands right now, there is only one option and as a subscriber of 14 years this month, I don't like the option.

Every time I call to make a change to my system I have to open with "I'd like to order....., but I don't want it if it's going to extend my commitment or base package." I always get the ID of the CSR and I record the calls. That's a horrible relationship to have with any company.

The trump card for every consumer is the ability to walk away from the transaction. Without that ability, D*s customers are being held for ransom.

Worst case D* will prevail and their actions and attitude toward their customers will become even more outlandish. Best case D* will treat their customers fairly. Probable case, the lawyers get a lot of money and we get a little something.

there is the choice between owned and leased, committment or no committment, if you don't want a committment you have to pay full price for the equipment which you would own.

 

[DarinC]

Have you used any of the cableco dvr's?

My post had nothing to do with hardware.

 

[jimb726]

My post had nothing to do with hardware.

It has always been my understanding that the reason, or one of the main reasons for ETF, is to offset the cost of the equipment. If you want a 450 dollar piece of equipment for 199 dollars or less then it seems reasonable to me that there should be some type of commitment involved. If you have lower quality equipment then certainly your business model can support not having ETF's. Not sure what else you might have meant then. Not to mention the fact that you even put giving equipment away in parenthesis.

 

[Kheldar]

If the cable industry can survive without service agreements and ETFs, why can't satellite? They've already moved to a lease system, so it's not like they'd be "giving" equipment away.

Several problems with that question:

* Most houses are already wired for cable, but aren't wired properly for a satellite system (splitters hidden in the walls, cable entering the home from the wrong side, etc). In most cases, the cable companies have very little installation costs, and in most circumstances they could get away with the customer picking up the box at the office and doing a self-install. In most cases, this is not the case with satellite.

* Even in areas of new construction, the neighborhoods are usually wired up-front for cable at the expense of the construction companies or homeowners, not at the expense of the cable companies.

* You says they "moved to a lease system", but they "moved" from what? Prior to digital cable, there was no "lease" or "owned" system because no equipment was required for analog cable. This is not a valid comparison.

* In lots of areas, your assertion that the cable companies "can survive without service agreements and ETFs" is just wrong. Comcast's Triple-Play offfer requires a 2-year contract in some areas. Apparently Comcast disagrees with your assertion that they "can survive" without these requirements.

 

[dbronstein]

They will settle. The lawyers will get $50 million and everyone who ever canceled Directv and had to pay a fee will get $5

It will be a $5 voucher for future Directv services.