Complain about a product or service

Class Action Lawsuit Against DirecTV Can Proceed

Customers sue over unpermitted "termination fees"

July 15, 2009

DirecTV • Billing Problems • Installation • Maintenance • Rebates • Sales Practices • Billing for "Adult" Shows • About those "Adult" Bills ... --- News • Class Action Says DirecTV Forces Consumers to Pay for Fraudulent Accounts • Washington Sues DIRECTV For 'Unconscionable' Sales Practices • DirecTV Takes Disputed Fees Out of Customer Accounts, Suit Charges • Major League Baseball, Cable Operators Reach Agreement • Major League Baseball Extends TV Deadline • Senators Object to DirecTV Deal that Shuts Out Baseball Fans • DirecTV Settles Do Not Call Charges • DirecTV Telemarketers To Pay $75,000 Penalty • Fired DirecTV Contractors Say They Refused To Lie To Customers • Outbreak of DirecTV Porn Charges Hits Philadelphia • DirecTV Fined $5 Million for Do-Not-Call Violations • DirecTV Will Reform Ad Practices, Pay Millions in Refunds • DirecTV Abandons Satellite Internet Plans

A class action lawsuit alleging that DirecTV imposes early "termination fees" of up to $480 on customers who cancel the service--often charging the customer's bank account or credit card directly without their permission--has been cleared to proceed by a California Superior Court judge.

The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in September 2008 by Los Angeles resident Kathy Grenier, claims that when Grenier cancelled her DirecTV contract due to a malfunctioning receiver, she was hit with a $240 termination fee, withdrawn directly from her checking account. Grenier's suit was later consolidated with another suit brought by fellow California residents Amy Imburgia and Marlene Mecca.

That suit, Imburgia, et. al, v. DirecTV, Inc., alleges that DirecTV failed to disclose that it had mandatory contract "terms of service," and that cancelling the service ahead of time would incur termination fees. DirecTV, much like cell phone companies, would also use instances of replacing equipment or making changes to the service to automatically extend the customer's contract. The suit alleges that the practices were not disclosed to customers beforehand.

"This is a major step forward in our mission to obtain justice for California consumers cheated by DirecTV," said Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield, who, along with Litigation Director Pamela Pressley, is one of the attorneys in the case.

"California consumers who continue to have their bank accounts plundered without their consent by DIRECTV deserve their day in court, and the court's recent ruling will allow the plaintiffs to move forward with uncovering and exposing the extent of DirecTV's deceptive practices," said Ms. Pressley.

According to Consumer Watchdog, DirecTV had requested that the California case be stayed while federal cases against DirecTV, filed in both California and other states, were considered. Under the tactic of preemption, companies will often prefer to fight battles on the federal level in order to block stronger state laws from taking effect.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |