Massachusetts Sues NorVergence

November 23, 2004
Yet another state is going after NorVergence, the New Jersey-based telephone company that stands accused of defrauding hundreds of small businesses across the country. Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly is seeking the return of thousands of dollars to Massachusetts small business owners who paid a for services that were never rendered.

NorVergence • Consumer Complaints • Inside NorVergence --- News • FTC Resolves NorVergence's Unfinished Business • FTC Sues Company for Financing NorVergence Scheme • Texas Sues NorVergence Debt Collector • States Settle NorVergence Claims with 10th Leasing Company • FTC Settles NorVergence Case • Norvergence Forfeits $47 Million In FTC Settlement • California Settles with USB Leasing • States Settle with Three Leasing Companies • GE Capital Agrees to NorVergence Settlement • Leasing Companies Release Florida Customers from NorVergence Leases • Massachusetts Sues NorVergence • Illinois Sues NorVergence • FTC Charges NorVergence • Florida Sues 12 Leasing Companies In NorVergence Case • States Open Investigation

In his suit, Reilly alleges that NorVergence misled more than 200 Massachusetts business owners into signing long-term contracts with claims that the company would provide them with discounts on local, long distance, wireless and Internet service. Reilly charges the promises, outlined in contracts that required the businesses to pay $300 - $2300 per month for up to five years, are empty.

"Hard-working small businesses were deceived into signing long-term contracts, costing most of them thousands of dollars, for services they have not received," Reilly said. "This scheme can not be allowed to continue. This lawsuit seeks to free businesses from these contracts and to refund the costs they've already incurred."

Reilly alleges in the lawsuit that NorVergence, now in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings in New Jersey, failed to disclose key facts to small business customers who thought they were getting discounts on phone and Internet service. Instead, these customers received a worthless black box called a "Matrix" but no phone or Internet services.

To make matters worse, NorVergence assigned these customers' contracts to several out-of-state financing companies. In many instances, these assignments were done without the customers' knowledge or consent. Reilly said many NorVergence customers in Massachusetts now find themselves forced to either pay thousands of dollars for services they are not receiving, or else fight the financing companies and risk collection actions and default judgments in other states.

In the lawsuit, Reilly alleges that NorVergence failed to disclose material terms and conditions in its advertisements, rental agreements and related contracts, including a customer obligation to pay regardless of whether the Matrix box worked or NorVergence provided telecommunications and Internet service. The lawsuit also alleges that NorVergence failed to disclose clearly that the customers waived all defenses they may have to the contracts, and that all legal challenges would occur where NorVergence, or the assigned financing company, chose to file suit.

Through its bankruptcy court trustee, Reilly is asking the court to stop NorVergence from enforcing the contracts, to pay consumers back for services not rendered, and to fine NorVergence with penalties and litigation costs. Massachusetts joins a growing group of state Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission in challenging the NorVergence contracts. NorVergence began offering local and long distance voice, data and Internet service in Massachusetts in March 2003.

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.

Share		Follow us on Twitter.

Back to the top |

Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.    The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission.