Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now


Suit Against DirecTV To Be Heard In Calif. Court

El Segundo, Calif. – A California Superior Court judge Wednesday gave
the green light for a class-action lawsuit to proceed against satellite-TV
operator DirecTV for allegedly imposing early termination fees of up to $480 on
customers who cancel their service before the end of their contract periods.

The lawsuit accuses DirecTV
of not clearly disclosing upfront its cancellation terms and fees, alleging
that the company would even go as far as charging a customer’s bank account or credit card for the fees directly without the consumer’s

The complaint, which was originally filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court in September 2008 by Los Angeles
resident Kathy Grenier, alleges Grenier’s checking account was dunned $240
without her permission after she canceled her DirecTV contract due to faulty
equipment issues.

Grenier’s suit was later joined with similar claims by California residents Amy
Imburgia and Marlene Mecca.

The Imburgia
case alleges DirecTV
failed to disclose upfront its mandatory “terms
of service,” regarding the early cancellation fees, and the company would
switch out or update equipment to automatically extend the contract length.

“This is a major step forward in our mission to obtain
justice for California
consumers cheated by DirecTV,” stated Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey
Rosenfield, who is one of the attorneys bringing the case to court.

“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,” Pamela Pressley, litigation director, said in a
statement posted on the Consumer
Watchdog web site

Consumer Watchdog said the state case had been delayed while DirecTV
sought a stay while similar federal cases against DirecTV, filed in both California and other
states, were considered. Attorneys for the state case argued successfully that
the federal cases had already been delayed by DirecTV and there was no reason
for the state court to defer to the federal court at this juncture.

In a statement on the case, DirecTV said it “is already defending
against these baseless allegations in federal district court. While this copycat
lawsuit was filed later and will be proceeding concurrently with the federal
litigation, neither of the lawsuits has any merit.

“We believe our early cancellation fees are lawful, fair and
reasonable and all relevant terms and conditions of our customer agreements are
carefully disclosed to each customer, including the customer’s option to accept
discounted or free equipment and an installation offer in exchange for their
agreement to remain a customer for a period of time (24 months). Early
cancellation fees are a common practice in the telecommunications industry,
like providers of cellphone service, for example.

“If the customer
chooses instead not to keep that commitment, there is a pro-rated cancellation
fee. Customers are also informed that they’re required to provide us with a
credit or debit card when they activate their service and they agree that the
credit card will be used for any unpaid balance when they disconnect the