`
`
`
`JAMES REILLY DOLAN
`Acting General Counsel
`
`ROBERT J. QUIGLEY, Cal. Bar No. 302879
`rquigley@ftc.gov
`BARBARA CHUN, Cal. Bar No. 186907
`bchun@ftc.gov
`MILES D. FREEMAN, Cal. Bar No. 299302
`mfreeman@ftc.gov
`Federal Trade Commission
`10990 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90024
`Tel: (310) 824-4300
`Fax: (310) 824-4380
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`[Additional Attorneys for Plaintiffs Listed on Signature Pages]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
` Case No. 2:21-cv-4155
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY
`INJUNCTION, PERMANENT
`INJUNCTION, MONETARY RELIEF
`AND OTHER RELIEF
`
`
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION;
`STATE OF ARIZONA EX REL.
`MARK BRNOVICH, ATTORNEY
`GENERAL; THE PEOPLE OF THE
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE
`OF INDIANA; THE PEOPLE OF THE
`STATE OF MICHIGAN; STATE OF
`NORTH CAROLINA; and STATE OF
`WISCONSIN,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
`CORPORATION, a Delaware
`
` 1
` 2
` 3
` 4
` 5
` 6
` 7
` 8
` 9
` 10
` 11
` 12
` 13
` 14
` 15
` 16
` 17
` 18
` 19
` 20
` 21
` 22
` 23
` 24
` 25
` 26
` 27
` 28
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 2 of 50 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`corporation; FRONTIER
`COMMUNICATIONS PARENT,
`INC., a Delaware corporation;
`FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
`INTERMEDIATE, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company; FRONTIER
`COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS,
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), the Attorneys General of
`
`the States of Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, and the
`People of the State of California, by and through the District Attorneys of Los
`Angeles County and Riverside County (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), for their
`Complaint allege:
`1.
`The FTC brings this action under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15
`U.S.C. § 53(b), which authorizes the FTC to seek, and the Court to order,
`temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief and other relief for
`Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.
`§ 45(a).
`2.
`This action is also brought, in their representative and official
`capacities as provided by state law, by the Attorneys General of Arizona, Indiana,
`Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, and by the People of the State of
`California by and through the District Attorneys of Los Angeles County and
`Riverside County. The Plaintiffs identified in this paragraph are referred to
`collectively as the “Plaintiff States.”
`3.
`The Plaintiff States bring this action pursuant to consumer protection
`and business regulation authority conferred on their Attorneys General, and/or state
`or county agencies or offices by state law, and/or pursuant to parens patriae and/or
`common law authority. As described below, many of these states’ laws authorize
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 3 of 50 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`the Plaintiff States to seek temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief,
`rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid,
`disgorgement of ill-gotten monies, and other equitable relief, to prevent and/or to
`stop ongoing deception or unfair acts or practices caused by Defendants’ state law
`violations. These laws also authorize the Plaintiff States to obtain civil penalties,
`attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.
`4.
`The State of Arizona ex rel. Mark Brnovich, the Attorney General of
`Arizona (the “State of Arizona”), brings this action pursuant to the Arizona
`Consumer Fraud Act, Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 44-1521 to -1534.
`5.
`Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by and through George
`Gascón, District Attorney of Los Angeles County, and Michael A. Hestrin, District
`Attorney of Riverside County, bring this action against Defendants for violation of
`the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
`seq.) and the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code
`§ 17500 et seq.).
`6.
`The Indiana Attorney General brings this action on behalf of the State
`of Indiana for violations of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code
`§ 24-5-0.5, et seq., and is authorized to seek injunctive and statutory relief.
`7.
` Plaintiff Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel brings this action
`on behalf of the People of the State of Michigan for violations of the Michigan
`Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901 et seq.
`8.
`Plaintiff State of North Carolina, acting by and through its Attorney
`General Joshua H. Stein, brings this action in the public interest and pursuant to
`Chapters 75 and 114 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The State of North
`Carolina, by and through the Attorney General, is charged with, inter alia,
`enforcing North Carolina’s Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.G.S.
`§§ 75-1.1, et seq., which is intended to protect members of the public from being
`harmed by unethical and unscrupulous business practices, including deceptive
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 4 of 50 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`statements and conduct, carried out in North Carolina commerce. North Carolina’s
`Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Act authorizes the State of North Carolina to
`seek temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief, rescission or
`reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, disgorgement of
`ill-gotten monies, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and other
`equitable relief for Defendants’ acts or practices in violation of N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1.
`9.
`The Wisconsin Attorney General brings this action on behalf of the
`State of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Attorney General is vested with the authority to
`enforce the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act and is required to furnish
`legal services to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
`Protection to enforce, among other laws, the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
`laws prohibiting unfair billing, unfair trade practices, and deceptive
`telecommunications advertising. Wis. Stats. §§ 100.18(11)(d) and 165.25(4)(ar).
`The Wisconsin Attorney General is permitted to seek permanent injunctive relief
`and restitution to consumers. Wis. Stats. §§ 100.18(11)(d), 100.195(5m)(c),
`100.20(6), and 100.207(6)(b). Wisconsin law also authorizes the Attorney General
`to obtain civil forfeitures, consumer protection surcharges, supplemental
`forfeitures, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. Wis. Stats. §§ 100.207(6)(c),
`100.26, 100.261, 100.263, and 100.264.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal law claims
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337(a), and 1345. This Court has supplemental
`jurisdiction over the subject matter of the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1367.
`11. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2),
`(c)(2), (d), and 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).
`12. Defendants have transacted business within the State of California and
`within the geographical boundaries of this District, including in the Counties of
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 5 of 50 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`Los Angeles and Riverside, at all relevant times to this Complaint. The violations
`of law described herein occurred in, among other locations, the Counties of Los
`Angeles and Riverside, and elsewhere in the State of California.
`PLAINTIFFS
`13. The FTC is an independent agency of the United States Government
`created by the FTC Act, which authorizes the FTC to commence this district court
`civil action by its own attorneys. 15 U.S.C. §§ 41–58. The FTC enforces Section
`5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or
`practices in or affecting commerce.
`14. The State of Arizona is authorized to bring this action pursuant to the
`Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (the “Arizona CFA”), A.R.S. §§ 44-1521 to -1534 to
`obtain injunctive relief to permanently enjoin and prevent the unlawful acts and
`practices alleged in this Complaint, and to obtain other relief, including restitution,
`disgorgement of profits, gains, gross receipts, or other benefits, civil penalties, and
`costs and attorneys’ fees.
`15. The People of the State of California, by and through George Gascón,
`District Attorney of Los Angeles County, and Michael A. Hestrin, District
`Attorney of Riverside County, are authorized to enjoin repeated and persistent
`fraudulent, unlawful, deceptive, and misleading business conduct under the
`California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) and the
`California False Advertising Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.) to obtain
`equitable or other appropriate relief, including restitution, civil penalties, and an
`injunction as may be appropriate.
`16. The Indiana Attorney General on behalf of the State of Indiana is
`authorized to bring this action under Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-4(c), and may obtain
`injunctive relief, consumer restitution, civil penalties, costs and all other just and
`proper relief under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code § 24-5-
`0.5, et seq.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 6 of 50 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`17. The Michigan Attorney General, on behalf of the People of Michigan,
`is authorized to bring this action under Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.905 and
`§ 445.910, and may obtain injunctive relief, actual damages, and other appropriate
`relief under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901
`et seq.
`18. The Attorney General of the State of North Carolina has the power
`and the duty, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 75-9, to investigate the affairs of all
`corporations or persons doing business in the State of North Carolina and, pursuant
`to N.C.G.S. § 75-15, upon his ascertaining that the laws have been violated so as to
`render a corporation liable to prosecution in a civil action, to prosecute such action
`in the name of the State, and to prosecute all officers or agents or employees of
`such corporations, whenever in his opinion the interests of the public require it.
`19. The Wisconsin Attorney General is vested with the authority to
`enforce the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act and is required to furnish
`legal services to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
`Protection to enforce, among other laws, Wisconsin’s Deceptive Trade Practices
`Act, as well as laws prohibiting unfair billing, unfair trade practices, and deceptive
`telecommunications advertising. Wis. Stats. §§ 100.18(11)(d) and 165.25(4)(ar).
`Wisconsin law permits the Wisconsin Attorney General to seek permanent
`injunctive relief and restitution. Wis. Stats. §§ 100.18(11)(d), 100.195(5m)(c),
`100.20(6), and 100.207(6)(b). Wisconsin law also authorizes the Attorney General
`to obtain civil forfeitures, consumer protection surcharges, supplemental
`forfeitures, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. Wis. Stats. §§ 100.207(6)(c),
`100.26, 100.261, 100.263, and 100.264.
`20. To summarize, the Plaintiff States bring this action pursuant to
`consumer protection and business regulation authority conferred on them by the
`following statutes and/or pursuant to parens patriae and/or common law
`authority:
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 7 of 50 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`STATE
`Arizona
`
`California (Through the Los
`Angeles County & Riverside
`County District Attorneys)
`
`Indiana
`
`Michigan
`
`North Carolina
`
`Wisconsin
`
`STATUTORY AUTHORITY
`Ariz. Rev. Statutes §§ 44-1521 to -1534.
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; Cal.
`Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.
`
`
`Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-1 et seq.
`
`Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.905 and 445.910.
`
`N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 et seq.
`
`Wis. Stat. § 165.25(4)(ar); Wis. Stats. §§
`100.18(11)(d), 100.195(5m)(c), 100.20(6), and
`100.207(6)(b); Wis. Stats. §§ 100.207(6)(c),
`100.26, 100.261, 100.263, and 100.264.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`21. Defendant Frontier Communications Corp. is a Delaware corporation
`with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Frontier has transacted
`business in this District and throughout the United States.
`22. On April 14, 2020, Frontier Communications Corp. and
`approximately 100 affiliated entities filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of
`the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., in the United States Bankruptcy
`Court for the Southern District of New York. The Bankruptcy Court ordered the
`joint administration of the related cases under Chapter 11 Case No. 20-22476
`(Jointly Administered) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (the “Bankruptcy Case”). Frontier
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 8 of 50 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`Communications Corp. continued to operate its business as a debtor-in-possession
`during the pendency of the Bankruptcy Case.
`23. On April 30, 2021, Frontier Communications Corp. and its affiliated
`entities filed a notice stating that they satisfied the requirements for their plan of
`reorganization to become effective. Frontier Communications Corp. stated shortly
`before emerging from bankruptcy that it would dissolve and cease to exist as a
`legal entity on or after the effective date. As of May 18, 2021, it was still listed as
`active on the California Secretary of State website and in “good standing” on the
`Delaware Secretary of State website. On April 30, 2021, Frontier Communications
`Corp. emerged as the following reorganized entities: Frontier Communications
`Parent, Inc., Frontier Communications Intermediate, LLC, and Frontier
`Communications Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Reorganized Frontier”).
`24. Defendant Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. is a Delaware
`corporation with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
`25. Defendant Frontier Communications Intermediate, LLC is a Delaware
`limited liability company with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
`26. Defendant Frontier Communications Holdings, LLC is a Delaware
`limited liability company with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
`27.
`In connection with Reorganized Frontier’s emergence from
`bankruptcy, substantially all assets of Frontier Communications Corp. vested in
`Reorganized Frontier.
`28.
`In connection with Frontier Communications Corp.’s bankruptcy
`proceedings and related state and federal regulatory proceedings, Frontier
`Communications Corp. and its affiliated entities represented that Reorganized
`Frontier would substantially continue, and assume responsibility for, the business
`operations performed and overseen by Frontier Communications Corp. in
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 9 of 50 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`California and throughout the United States prior to emergence from bankruptcy.1
`These operations have caused and continue to cause the acts and practices that are
`the subject of this Complaint.2 For ease of discussion, all references to “Frontier”
`in the following paragraphs shall mean Frontier Communications Corp. before
`April 30, 2021, and Reorganized Frontier on and after April 30, 2021, unless
`otherwise noted.
`29. Plaintiffs’ action, including the enforcement of a judgment other than
`a money judgment obtained in this action, is not stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1),
`(2), (3), or (6) because it is an exercise of Plaintiffs’ police or regulatory powers as
`governmental units according to 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4) and, thus, falls within an
`exception to the automatic stay.
`
`COMMERCE
`30. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Frontier has maintained a
`substantial course of trade in or affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in
`Section 4 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 44.
`
`
`1 Reorganized Frontier has not assumed certain obligations of Frontier
`Communications Corp., which are outlined in the plan of reorganization. See Fifth
`Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Frontier Communications Corporation
`and Its Debtor Affiliates Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
`ECF No. 1005-1). However, those limitations are not relevant to the claims at
`issue in this case. See note 2 infra.
`
` The claims asserted in this Complaint were not discharged in the Bankruptcy
`Case. See Fifth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization of Frontier
`Communications Corporation and Its Debtor Affiliates Pursuant to Chapter 11 of
`the Bankruptcy Code, at Article VIII.H (Bankr. ECF No. 1005-1); Findings of
`Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Confirming The Fifth Amended Joint Plan of
`Reorganization of Frontier Communications Corporation and Its Debtor Affiliates
`Pursuant To Chapter 11 of The Bankruptcy Code, ¶ 105 (Bankr. ECF No. 1005).
`Thus, both Frontier Communications Corp. and Reorganized Frontier are proper
`parties.
`
` 2
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 10 of 50 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ BUSINESS ACTIVITIES
`31. Frontier is an Internet service provider (ISP) with more than three
`million current Internet service subscribers across the country.
`32. Frontier provides Internet service principally using two categories of
`technology: digital subscriber line (DSL), which transmits data over copper
`telephone wires, and fiber-optic, which transmits data over thin strands of glass.
`33. Frontier currently provides residential DSL Internet service to
`approximately 1.3 million consumers across 25 states. In addition, since January
`1, 2015, hundreds of thousands of consumers nationwide have discontinued their
`subscriptions to Frontier’s residential DSL Internet service.
`34. Frontier currently provides, and has previously provided, residential
`DSL Internet service to tens or hundreds of thousands of consumers located within
`the geographic boundaries of each of the States of Arizona, California, Indiana,
`Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
`35. Many of Frontier’s DSL subscribers reside in rural areas. According
`to a September 2020 report of the Federal Communications Commission, many
`consumers in the least densely populated regions of the country use DSL service to
`connect to the Internet.
`36. Frontier offers consumers DSL or fiber-optic Internet as a stand-alone
`service, or packaged with other services, including telephone and television.
`Frontier provides Internet service on a month-to-month subscription basis, but
`requires consumers to commit to longer service terms for certain promotions.
`37. Frontier offers consumers multiple tiers of DSL and fiber-optic
`Internet service. These tiers of service correspond to the maximum speed at which
`Frontier represents consumers can download data over Frontier’s network.
`Frontier generally charges consumers higher monthly rates for higher-speed tiers
`of service.
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 11 of 50 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`Frontier’s Marketing and Sale of DSL Internet Service Speed Tiers
`38. Frontier makes Internet speed a prominent selling point for its
`residential DSL service.
`39. According to research commissioned by Frontier, consumers consider
`Internet speed to be one of the most important decisionmaking factors when they
`compare competing ISPs’ offerings and select Internet service for their homes.
`40. Certain activities that consumers commonly perform over the Internet
`require larger transfers of data, including telecommuting, streaming video, gaming,
`and the use of multiple devices on the same connection. At lower download
`speeds, consumers attempting to perform these activities may experience poor
`performance, or they may be unable to perform the activities at all.
`41. Since at least January 1, 2015, Frontier has in numerous instances
`nationally advertised, marketed, offered, and sold residential DSL Internet service
`in tiers corresponding to “speeds” or “max speeds.” Frontier frequently quantifies
`these download speeds in Megabits per second, or “Mbps.”
`42. The Megabit per second is a standard metric many ISPs, including
`Frontier, use to quantify the speed of Internet service. This refers to the rate at
`which millions of “bits,” or units of data, transfer over a connection.
`43. Since at least January 1, 2015, the different DSL Internet speed tiers
`that Frontier has nationally advertised, marketed, offered, and sold have included:
`6 Mbps (called “Max” or “Core” DSL service); 12 Mbps (called “Ultra” DSL
`service); 18 Mbps (called “Plus” DSL service); and 24 or 25 Mbps (called
`“Ultimate” or “Elite” DSL service). Frontier also offers lower-speed (1 or 3 Mbps)
`and higher-speed (45 Mbps or more) tiers of DSL service in certain markets.
`44.
`In some instances, when referencing these speed tiers, Frontier’s
`advertisements have represented that consumers can receive DSL Internet service
`“up to” or “as fast as” a particular speed quantified in Mbps.
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 12 of 50 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`45. Frontier has nationally advertised, marketed, offered, and sold DSL
`Internet in speed tiers using a variety of methods. These include digital display
`advertising; Internet search advertising; and shared and direct mail.
`46. Frontier has directed digital display advertisements for specific DSL
`Internet service speed tiers towards consumers. For example, in 2018, Frontier
`disseminated digital display advertisements for its “Frontier® 18 Mbps High-Speed
`Internet Plus” speed tier, generating millions of advertisement impressions:
`
`Figure A
`47. Frontier’s direct mail advertisements have also represented that
`consumers could receive DSL service at particular speeds quantified in Mbps.
`48. For example, an August 2018 mailer that Frontier distributed to
`hundreds of thousands of households nationwide reads, “$12 for 12 Mbps internet -
`Don’t pay megabucks for megabytes”:
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 13 of 50 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`
`
`Figure B
`49. A number of Frontier’s advertisements, including the one in Figure B
`above, state, in tiny, inconspicuous print separated from the main message of the
`advertisement: “Maximum service speed is not available to all locations and the
`maximum speed for service to your location may be lower than the maximum
`speed in this range. Service speed is not guaranteed and will depend on many
`factors. Your ability to stream may be limited by speeds available in your area.”
`The arrow in Figure B above denotes where this text appears in the advertisement.
`50. When Frontier sends mail to a consumer’s residential address, or
`displays digital advertisements to consumers with residential addresses known to
`Frontier, Frontier has access to information indicating that it is unable to provide
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 14 of 50 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`certain of its DSL Internet speed tiers to some consumers, based on factors such as
`the address’s distance from Frontier’s networking equipment, which Frontier can
`easily compute or estimate for many addresses.
`51.
`In numerous instances, Frontier has sent consumers advertisements
`for DSL Internet service at speed tiers that Frontier could not provide to them.
`52.
`In order to subscribe to Frontier’s Internet service, consumers must
`generally interact with Frontier’s representatives, either over the telephone or using
`a “chat” tool on Frontier’s website. Frontier’s advertisements direct consumers to
`telephone numbers and web addresses to request service.
`53. Frontier has directed its sales representatives to offer consumers a
`menu of available Internet service packages and speed tiers, and to describe the
`download speed associated with each offered tier of service, quantified in Mbps.
`54. Frontier solicits the consumer’s residential address during these
`interactions and at the point of sale. Frontier provides its sales representatives with
`software tools that they use to offer a set of speed tiers to the consumer, based in
`part on the consumer’s address.
`55. During these interactions and at the point of sale—just as at the point
`of sending certain mailers or geo-targeted advertisements—Frontier has access to
`information indicating that it is unable to provide certain of its DSL Internet speed
`tiers to consumers based on their residential addresses.
`56.
`In numerous instances, Frontier or its sales representatives have
`offered consumers, and those consumers have accepted, subscriptions for DSL
`Internet service at speed tiers that Frontier could not provide to those consumers.
`57. After a consumer has accepted one of Frontier’s offers over the phone
`or on Frontier’s website and subscribed to a tier of Internet service, Frontier
`connects that consumer’s home to Frontier’s network. Frontier may establish this
`connection by sending a technician to the consumer’s home. In other instances,
`Frontier instead establishes this connection remotely.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 15 of 50 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`
` 1 1
`
` 2 2
`
` 3 3
`
` 4 4
`
` 5 5
`
` 6 6
`
` 7 7
`
` 8 8
`
` 9 9
`
` 10 10
`
` 11 11
`
` 12 12
`
` 13 13
`
` 14 14
`
` 15 15
`
` 16 16
`
` 17 17
`
` 18 18
`
` 19 19
`
` 20 20
`
` 21 21
`
` 22 22
`
` 23 23
`
` 24 24
`
` 25 25
`
` 26 26
`
` 27 27
`
` 28 28
`
`58.
`In numerous instances, Frontier does not provide consumers with any
`written documentation regarding their DSL Internet service, either at the point of
`sale or when Frontier commences service remotely or through its technicians.
`59. Frontier sends monthly bills to DSL subscribers, either electronically
`or by mail. Frontier bills DSL subscribers based on the service package to which
`they subscribe, including speed tier. Frontier’s bills include a line item for the
`package subscribed to, followed by a dollar amount.
`60.
`In numerous instances, such as when consumers sign up for Internet
`service over the telephone, Frontier’s bills are the first written correspondence
`consumers receive memorializing the Internet service package and speed tier to
`which they subscribed. The billing statements indicate the service package by
`name but do not indicate the corresponding, advertised Internet speed for that
`package.
`Frontier’s Practice of Providing Slower-Than-Purchased DSL Speeds
`61. Since at least January 1, 2015, Frontier has in numerous instances
`advertised, marketed, offered, or sold DSL Internet service at tiers corresponding
`to speeds that Frontier did not, and often could not, provide to consumers.
`62.
`Indeed, network limits imposed by Frontier prevent numerous
`consumers from receiving DSL Internet service at speeds corresponding to the tiers
`of service they pay for.
`63. Frontier imposes one such network limit when Frontier internally
`“provisions,” or limits, the DSL Internet speeds it provides to each home
`connected to its network. A home cannot receive DSL Internet service in excess of
`the speed Frontier provisions to it.
`64. Frontier purports to set its provisioned speeds in part to enforce the
`distinctions between the speed tiers it offers to consumers, and in part to reflect
`what Frontier predicts to be the limits on the speeds Frontier is technically capable
`of providing to a given consumer.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-04155-RGK-MAA Document 1 Filed 05/19/21 Page 16 of 50 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`65. For example, because a DSL signal becomes weaker the further it gets
`from the source of the transmission, the speed that Frontier is capable of providing
`to consumers whose homes are distant from Frontier’s central networking
`equipment is slower. The type of networking equipment Frontier uses to provide
`service to a particular consumer, including the DSL access multiplexer, or
`“DSLAM,” also limits the speed Frontier can provide to that consumer.
`66. Frontier provisions DSL Internet speed at the time it connects a
`consumer’s home for service, whether remotely or via an on-site technician.
`67. Frontier does not, as a general matter, inform its subscribers of their
`provisioned speeds, or provide subscribers with the means to learn their
`provisioned speeds.
`68.
`In numerous instances, Frontier has provisioned consumers for slower
`speeds than the tiers of DSL Internet service to which they are subscribed,
`preventing those consumers from receiving service at speeds corresponding to the
`tier of service they pay for.
`69. Provisioning sets an upper limit on speed, but not a lower bound:
`Even when Frontier provisions a consumer for a particular speed, this does not
`guarantee that the consumer will receive service at that speed.
`70.
`In numerous instances, Frontier has provided consumers DSL Internet
`service at speeds consistently slower than even the provisioned limits set for those
`consumers, preventing these consumers from ever, or for more than de minimis
`durations, receiving the maximum speeds Fr