`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 38 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`Daniel M. Hattis (SBN 232141)
`Paul Karl Lukacs (SBN 197007)
`HATTIS & LUKACS
`11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120
`Bellevue, WA 98005
`Telephone: (425) 233-8650
`Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
`Email: dan@hattislaw.com
`Email: pkl@hattislaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff David Massaro
`and the Proposed Classes
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`DAVID MASSARO,
`For Himself,
`As A Private Attorney General, and/or
`On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS
`PARENT, INC., and
`FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS OF
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. 5:22-cv-01222
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`(1) VIOLATION OF CAL. CIVIL
`CODE § 1750;
`(2) VIOLATION OF CAL.
`BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS
`CODE § 17500;
`(3) VIOLATION OF CAL.
`BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS
`CODE § 17200
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff DAVID MASSARO, individually, as a private attorney general, and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated, alleges as follows, on personal knowledge and investigation of
`his counsel, against Defendant Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. and Frontier
`Communications of America, Inc.:
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`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 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 38 Page ID #:2
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
`1.
`This case challenges a deceptive pricing scheme perpetrated by Frontier
`Communications Parent, Inc. and Frontier Communications of America, Inc., and their
`predecessors in interest (collectively, “Frontier”) against their internet, phone, and television
`service customers. For years, Frontier has prominently advertised its service plans at
`particular, flat monthly rates that were locked in for a promotional period or term contract,
`without disclosing or including additional service charges for each of its services—an
`“Internet Infrastructure Surcharge” for internet service; a “VoIP Administrative Fee” for
`phone service; and a “Broadcast TV Surcharge” and a “Regional Sports Fee” (now combined
`into the “Sports/Broadcast TV Fee”) for television service.
`2.
`The Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, VoIP Administrative Fee, and
`Sports/Broadcast TV Fee are not taxes or government fees. Rather, they are all disguised
`double-charges for Frontier’s services. These service charges are set by and entirely in the
`control of Frontier, and are utilized by Frontier solely to line its own pockets.
`3.
`Frontier has utilized the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, VoIP Administrative
`Fee, and Sports/Broadcast TV Fee to: (1) charge more per month for the services themselves
`without having to advertise the higher prices; and (2) as a way to covertly increase
`customers’ rates, even during their promised fixed-rate promotional period or term contract.
`4.
`Through this fraudulent scheme Frontier has extracted from its California
`subscribers hundreds of millions of dollars in the past several years in Internet Infrastructure
`Surcharge payments, VoIP Administrative Fee payments, and Sports/Broadcast TV Fee
`payments.
`5.
`Plaintiff David Massaro, by this action, seeks a public injunction for the benefit
`of the general public to enjoin Frontier’s unlawful advertising scheme as alleged herein.
`6.
`Plaintiff further seeks, on behalf of himself and a class and subclasses of
`similarly situated California consumers, restitution, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
`declaratory relief such that Frontier’s practices alleged herein are declared as unlawful under
`California law. Plaintiff also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 38 Page ID #:3
`
`II. THE PARTIES
`7.
`Plaintiff David Massaro is a citizen and resident of San Bernardino County,
`California.
`8.
`Defendant Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., is a corporation chartered
`under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
`9.
`Defendant Frontier Communications of America, Inc., is a corporation chartered
`under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
`10. Defendants Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., and Frontier
`Communications of America, Inc., together with their predecessors in interest, are
`collectively referred to herein as “Frontier.”
`11. Without formal discovery, Plaintiff is unable to determine what other
`subsidiaries of Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., or other entities and/or their
`predecessors in interest also engaged or assisted with the unlawful conduct pleaded herein.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to allege additional defendant parties
`after identifying them in discovery.
`III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`12. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
`this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)—i.e., Class Action Fairness Act
`jurisdiction —because the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million
`(exclusive of interest and costs) and is a class action in which any member of a class of
`plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any defendant.
`13. Personal Jurisdiction. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Frontier
`because, without limitation: (1) Frontier has purposely availed itself of the privileges of
`conducting business activities in California; (2) Frontier currently maintains systematic and
`continuous business contacts with California including marketing, selling, and issuing its
`services to Plaintiff and other California consumers; and (3) Frontier has entered into
`contracts with Plaintiff and other California consumers to provide its services. Frontier has
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 38 Page ID #:4
`
`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
`
`sufficient minimum contacts with California to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this
`Court permissible.
`14. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because Plaintiff Massaro resides
`in this District; many of the acts and transactions giving rise to this action occurred in this
`District; Frontier is authorized to conduct business in this District, has intentionally availed
`itself of the laws and markets within this District through distribution and sale of its services
`in this District, does substantial business in this District, and is subject to personal
`jurisdiction in this District.
`IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`15. Frontier provides internet, phone, and television services to over 3 million
`customers nationwide, including nearly 1 million customers in California. Frontier offers its
`services individually and as part of “bundled” service plans (e.g., where a customer
`subscribes to multiple services).
`16. At all relevant times, Frontier has aggressively advertised its service plans
`through pervasive marketing directed at the consuming public in California. This marketing
`has included television, radio, and online advertisements, as well as Frontier’s own website.
`17. Throughout all of these channels, Frontier has for years prominently advertised
`its service plans at particular, flat monthly prices that were locked in for a promotional period
`or term contract of 12 months or longer, without disclosing or including additional service
`charges for each service—an “Internet Infrastructure Surcharge” for internet service; a “VoIP
`Administrative Fee” for phone service; and a “Broadcast TV Surcharge” and “Regional
`Sports Fee” (now combined into the “Sports/Broadcast TV Fee”) for television service.
`Internet Infrastructure Surcharge. In November 2017, Frontier began
`18.
`padding all of its internet subscribers’ bills with a newly invented $1.99 monthly charge it
`called the “Internet Infrastructure Surcharge.” Frontier did not include the Internet
`Infrastructure Surcharge in the advertised and quoted prices for its internet service plans, and
`Frontier hid the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge in the customer bill in the “Taxes and Other
`Charges” section where it was lumped together with taxes and government fees. Frontier did
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 5 of 38 Page ID #:5
`
`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
`
`not define or explain the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge anywhere in the bill. In October
`2018, Frontier increased the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge by $2.00—from $1.99 to $3.99
`per month. In February 2021, Frontier increased the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge by
`another $3.00—from $3.99 to $6.99 per month.
`19. VoIP Administrative Fee. For several years, Frontier has been padding all of
`its phone subscribers’ bills with an invented monthly charge it calls the “VoIP Administrative
`Fee.” In May 2019, the VoIP Administrative Fee was $3.99 per month. Frontier did not
`include the VoIP Administrative Fee in the advertised and quoted prices for its phone service
`plans. Frontier provided no definition or explanation of the VoIP Administrative Fee in its
`monthly bills. In March 2021, Frontier increased the VoIP Administrative Fee by $2.00—
`from $3.99 to $5.99 per month. A year later, in March 2022, Frontier increased the VoIP
`Administrative Fee by another $1.00—from $5.99 to $6.99 per month. Frontier increased the
`VoIP Administrative Fee on all of its phone subscribers, even during a subscriber’s fixed-
`price promotional period or term contract.
`20. Broadcast TV Surcharge and Regional Sports Fee (now “Sports/Broadcast
`TV Fee”). For several years, Frontier has been padding all of its television subscribers’ bills
`with an invented monthly charge it called the “Broadcast TV Surcharge.” In May 2019, the
`Broadcast TV Surcharge was $5.49 per month. During this time Frontier also was padding
`most of its television subscribers’ bills with another invented monthly charge it called the
`“Regional Sports Fee.” In June 2020, the Regional Sports Fee was approximately $6.00.
`Frontier did not include the Broadcast TV Surcharge or the Regional Sports Fee in the
`advertised and quoted prices for its television service plans. Frontier hid the Broadcast TV
`Surcharge in the customer bill in the “Taxes and Other Charges” section where it was lumped
`together with taxes and government fees. Frontier did not define or explain the Broadcast TV
`Surcharge or the Regional Sports Fee anywhere on the bill. In late 2020, Frontier combined
`the Broadcast TV Surcharge and the Regional Sports Fee into a single $11.49 charge called
`the “Sports/Broadcast TV Fee.” The Sports/Broadcast TV Fee was added to all television
`subscribers’ bills, even if a subscriber had previously only been charged the Broadcast TV
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 6 of 38 Page ID #:6
`
`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
`
`Surcharge and even if the subscriber was currently in a fixed-price promotional period. In
`March 2021, Frontier increased the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee by $3.50—from $11.49 to
`$14.99. In March 2022, Frontier increased the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee again by $2.00—
`from $14.99 to $16.99. This Complaint will use the term “Sports/Broadcast TV Fee” to
`collectively refer to the Broadcast TV Surcharge, the Regional Sports Fee, and the
`Sports/Broadcast TV Fee.
`21. Frontier has utilized the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, the VoIP
`Administrative Fee, and the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee to: (1) charge more per month for the
`services themselves without having to advertise the higher prices; and (2) as a way to
`covertly increase customers’ rates, even during their promised fixed-rate promotional period
`or term contract.
`22. Through this fraudulent scheme Frontier has extracted hundreds of millions of
`dollars from its California subscribers (and billions more from its other subscribers
`nationwide) in the past several years in Internet Infrastructure Surcharge payments, VoIP
`Administrative Fee payments, and Sports/Broadcast TV Fee payments.
`23. Notably, Frontier’s deceptive fees and false advertising practices have been
`investigated by state prosecutors in response to complaints from consumers.
`24. For example, in 2020, after receiving hundreds of complaints from consumers,
`the Washington State Attorney General investigated Frontier and found that Frontier:
`• “fail[ed] to adequately disclose taxes and fees during sales of cable, internet,
`and telephone services”;
`• “fail[ed] to adequately disclose its Internet Infrastructure Surcharge fee in
`advertising”; and
`• “Misle[d] consumers by implying that the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge
`and other fees are mandatory and/or government-related fees.”
`Assurance of Discontinuance at 4.1 As part of a settlement with the Washington State
`
`The Assurance of Discontinuance can be found at: https://agportal-
`1
`s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/2020_07_07Fronti
`erAOD.pdf. A July 8, 2020, press release from the Washington Attorney General discussing
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 7 of 38 Page ID #:7
`
`Attorney General, Frontier was prohibited from charging the Internet Infrastructure
`Surcharge to any Washington consumer ever again and was forced to pay $900,000 to the
`State of Washington. Id. at 7, 14. Notably, Frontier then exited the state of Washington by
`selling all of its Washington customers and assets to Ziply Fiber, a Washington-based
`regional broadband provider.
`
`
`
`Frontier Made False and Misleading Statements About the Prices of Its
`Service Plans When Customers Signed Up.
`25. On its website, Frontier explicitly advertised and represented to consumers like
`Plaintiff that the advertised prices for its service plans included all of the monthly service
`charges, and that the monthly rate would be fixed during the specified promotional period or
`term contract. Frontier did not disclose or adequately disclose the existence or the amount of
`the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, VoIP Administrative Fee, or Sports/Broadcast TV Fee
`(let alone their true nature or basis) prior to or at the time customers signed up for service.
`Additionally, Frontier did not disclose or adequately disclose the fact that it could and would
`increase the monthly price during the customer’s locked-in rate period or contract by simply
`increasing one or more of these hidden and disguised service charges.
`26. Frontier engaged in the same misrepresentations and nondisclosures with
`consumers who signed up for Frontier’s service plans over the phone, via internet chat, or at
`one of Frontier’s brick-and-mortar stores. Frontier’s sales and customer service agents quoted
`the same flat monthly prices as in Frontier’s public advertising, and as a matter of policy
`never disclosed the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, VoIP Administrative Fee, or
`Sports/Broadcast TV Fee, or the fact that Frontier could and would increase the monthly
`price during the customer’s locked-in rate period by increasing these hidden service charges.
`
`
`
`its investigation of Frontier and the Assurance of Discontinuance can be found at:
`https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-frontier-northwest-will-pay-
`900000-over-hidden-fees-misrepresentation.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 8 of 38 Page ID #:8
`
`
`Frontier Continued to Deceive Customers After They Signed Up.
`27. Frontier continued to deceive customers about the additional service charges and
`the true monthly price of the services, even after the customers had signed up and were
`paying for the services.
`28. After customers signed up for service, Frontier would send them misleading and
`deceptive order confirmation emails regarding the services they ordered.
`29. For example, below is a screenshot of the order confirmation email Plaintiff
`Massaro received on May 15, 2019:
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 9 of 38 Page ID #:9
`
`Order Confirmation Email Sent to Plaintiff Massaro (May 15, 2019)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 10 of 38 Page ID #:10
`
`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
`
`30. The order confirmation email listed a monthly service plan price of $79.99 plus
`$10 for the Epix and Starz/Encore channels, plus equipment charges, plus a $9.99
`“Equipment Delivery and Handling Fee,” plus what appeared to be various legitimate taxes
`and federal, state and local government-related fees under the heading “Estimated Taxes and
`Other Charges.”
`31. Noticeably missing from the order confirmation email were the mandatory
`Internet Infrastructure Surcharge and Broadcast TV Surcharge which Frontier would impose
`on each bill. Frontier did not list either charge in the order summary. Instead, Frontier hid the
`dollar amount of these extra costs under other line items which a reasonable consumer would
`assume were taxes or government-related charges. Frontier hid the existence of the monthly
`Internet Infrastructure Surcharge (which began at the rate of $3.99 on Plaintiff’s first bill) by
`covertly subsuming that dollar amount into the $7.63 “State Taxes and Other Charges” line
`item in the “Estimated Taxes and Other Charges” section. Frontier hid the existence of the
`monthly Broadcast TV Surcharge (which began at the rate of $5.49 on Plaintiff’s first bill) by
`covertly subsuming that dollar amount into the $10.27 “Video” line item in the “Estimated
`Taxes and Other Charges” section.
`32. Frontier disguised the VoIP Administrative Fee as a tax or government-related
`charge by likewise listing it in the “Estimated Taxes and Other Charges” section, rather than
`in the services section of the order confirmation. Further, if a consumer then searched for and
`found the VoIP Administrative Fee on Frontier’s website, the consumer would be presented
`with false and misleading representations that the Fee was a government pass-through
`charge—including Frontier’s statement that the VoIP Administrative Fee is “an
`administrative fee to recover some of the government and other fees that we incur for VoIP
`service” (emphasis added).2
`33. After the service was installed and the customer was already committed to his or
`her service, the customer would receive his or her monthly billing statement. But, far from
`
`See https://frontier.com/helpcenter/categories/billing/read-and-pay-my-bill/understand-
`2
`my-bill-residential/bill-sections/taxes-and-surcharges (last accessed 7/4/2022).
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 11 of 38 Page ID #:11
`
`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
`
`constituting even a belated disclosure, the monthly billing statements served to further
`Frontier’s scheme and deception.
`34. For example, Frontier disguised the Network Infrastructure Charge by listing it
`as something separate from the internet service, even though it is in fact an invented
`mandatory double-charge for the same internet service quoted in the service plan price.
`Frontier buried the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge in the bill at the end of a long list of
`taxes and nearly a half-dozen legitimate government surcharges, such as the CA State 911
`VOIP Surcharge and Teleconnect Fund Surcharge.
`35. Likewise, Frontier disguised the Broadcast TV Surcharge, the Regional Sports
`Fee, and the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee by listing them as something separate from the service
`package price. The charges were misleadingly grouped under “Taxes and Other Charges”
`together with legitimate government-related fees such as (e.g., in Plaintiff’s bills) the FCC
`Regulatory Recovery Fee, the Yucaipa Franchise Fee, and the Yucaipa PEG Fee.
`36. Frontier similarly disguised the VoIP Administrative Fee by listing it as
`something separate from the service package price.
`37. Frontier provided no definition or explanation of any of these disguised service
`charges in its monthly bills. Thus, even if a customer noticed the Internet Infrastructure
`Surcharge, the VoIP Administrative Fee, or the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee, the customer
`would reasonably assume that they were legitimate government taxes or fees outside of
`Frontier’s control.
`
` The Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, the VoIP Administrative Fee, and
`the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee Are Double-Charges for Service.
`38. Deep within Frontier’s website—where, by design, it is unlikely to be viewed by
`consumers, and certainly not before they purchase their service plans—Frontier admits that
`the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, the VoIP Administrative Fee, and the Sports/Broadcast
`TV Fee are all double-charges for its services. These buried admissions reinforce the fact that
`these undisclosed charges should have been included in the advertised monthly price for the
`services because they are basic costs of providing the services themselves. A reasonable
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 12 of 38 Page ID #:12
`
`consumer would expect the advertised price for these services to include all costs necessary
`to provide said services.
`39. The Internet Infrastructure Surcharge is a double-charge for internet
`service. Frontier had a specific “Internet Infrastructure Surcharge” webpage deep in its
`website where Frontier admitted that the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge was simply a
`double-charge for internet service. Under the question, “What is the Internet Infrastructure
`Surcharge?” Frontier admitted that the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge is a “Frontier-
`assessed surcharge, not a government surcharge.” Frontier further stated that the Internet
`Infrastructure Surcharge is to cover costs associated with the customer’s “continued access to
`high speed Internet service.” Assuming this is true, customers would reasonably expect the
`cost of “access to high speed Internet service” to be included in the basic monthly rate
`Frontier charged for that same internet service. After all, the most fundamental part of
`offering a service is actually providing the customer “access” to said service. Providing
`access to the service cannot be an extra charge on top of the advertised price for the service
`itself.
`
`40. The VoIP Administrative Fee is a double-charge for phone service. As an
`initial matter and for clarification, all phone service provided by Frontier to its customers is
`via VoIP technology (voice over internet protocol).
`41. Frontier has a page on its website titled “Bill Increase Information,” where
`Frontier admits that the VoIP Administrative Fee is a double-charge for phone service,
`stating: “This fee covers part of the rising costs of providing VoIP (voice over internet
`protocol). This is a Frontier fee, not a government fee.”3
`42. Assuming this is true, customers would reasonably expect the cost of “providing
`VoIP” to be included in the basic monthly rate Frontier charges for the VoIP phone service.
`After all, the most fundamental part of offering a service is actually “providing” it to the
`
`The “Bill Increase Information” page can be found at:
`3
`https://frontier.com/resources/fee-changes.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 13 of 38 Page ID #:13
`
`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
`
`customer. Providing the phone service cannot be an extra charge on top of the advertised
`price for the service itself.
`43. The Sports/Broadcast TV Fee, Broadcast TV Surcharge, and Regional
`Sports Fee are double-charges for television service. On the same “Bill Increase
`Information” page, Frontier likewise admits that the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee is a double-
`charge for providing television service, stating: “This fee covers the rising costs of supplying
`local channels and sports networks. This is a Frontier fee, not a government fee.” Again,
`customers would reasonably expect the cost of supplying television channels to be included
`in the basic monthly rate Frontier advertises for the television service itself.
` Customers Cannot Cancel Without Penalty.
`44.
`If customers realize that they are being double-charged for the services they
`ordered after they receive their monthly bill, they cannot simply back out of the deal without
`penalty or cost, even if they notice one or more of the disguised additional service charges on
`their very first bill.
`45. First, most customers, including Plaintiff David Massaro, were required to pay
`one-time charges on sign-up, such as installation or setup fees. In Mr. Massaro’s case, he was
`required to pay a $9.99 “Equipment Delivery and Handling Fee.” These initial one-time
`charges are non-refundable.
`46. Second, most customers, including Plaintiff, signed up for a term contract that
`was subject to an early termination fee (“ETF”) of up to $400. Frontier’s General Residential
`Service Terms and Conditions has a “Time-Period Term Arrangements” section which states:
`“If you do not fulfill your commitment for the minimum term (or, if renewed, the renewal
`term), as agreed at the time you ordered service, you will be liable for and agree to pay to
`Frontier the applicable early termination fee (‘ETF’).”4 Thus, even if a customer discovered
`the hidden double-charges on his or her very first bill, the customer needed to keep
`subscribing and paying those double-charges at least for the remainder of the term contract to
`
`See https://frontier.com/~/media/corporate/terms/general-terms-residential.ashx?la=en
`4
`(last accessed July 4, 2022).
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 14 of 38 Page ID #:14
`
`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
`
`avoid paying an ETF.
`47. Third, Frontier charges a $9.99 one-time additional cancellation fee to cancel
`broadband service, which Frontier euphemistically calls a “broadband processing fee,” even
`if the customer is not currently in a term contract.
`48. Fourth, Frontier does not pro-rate cancellations. Customers must pay for the cost
`of the entire month even if they cancel on the very first day of the service month.5
`49. Fifth, Frontier typically requires customers to rent equipment to use exclusively
`with Frontier’s services, such as modems, wireless routers, and digital cable converter boxes.
`50. Sixth, Frontier does not offer any sort of “money back guarantee” if a customer
`wishes to cancel his or her service right after it starts. Thus, there is no circumstance in which
`a customer can obtain a full (or even partial) refund if he or she discovers the hidden double-
`charges and wishes to cancel the services.
`51. Frontier’s initial one-time non-refundable charges, term contracts with early
`termination fees of up to $400, additional $9.99 cancellation fee, refusal to provide a full (or
`even partial) refund even if a customer cancels on the very first day service starts, and refusal
`to pro-rate cancellations, are designed by Frontier to penalize and deter customers from
`cancelling after signing up. Frontier’s policies are deliberately and knowingly designed by
`Frontier to lock customers in if and when they deduce that they are being charged more per
`month than advertised for Frontier’s services.
`52. Because Frontier typically increased the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge, the
`VoIP Administrative Fee, and the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee by relatively small amounts
`($1.00 to $3.00) each time in proportion to Frontier’s total monthly charges, Frontier knew
`that its customers were unlikely to notice the increased charges on the total price of their
`monthly bills. Given that legitimate taxes and other government-related charges can already
`vary from month to month, Frontier knows that its customers reasonably expect small
`
`The General Residential Service Terms and Conditions states: “your termination of
`5
`Service may be effective on the last day of your Frontier billing cycle for all applicable
`Services, and you are responsible for all charges incurred through the date of termination.
`Installation or setup fees paid at the initiation of the Service, if any, are not refundable.”
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 15 of 38 Page ID #:15
`
`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
`
`changes in the total amount billed each month. Frontier knows that its customers would not
`be readily able to tell that Frontier increased the service price via these disguised service
`charges by merely comparing the total amount billed in a particular month to the total amount
`billed in the prior month or months.
`53. Frontier also intentionally hid increases to the Internet Infrastructure Surcharge,
`the VoIP Administrative Fee, and the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee by providing no disclosure or
`explanation whatsoever anywhere on the first bill containing the price increase, other than
`listing the increased service charges themselves. Even a customer who read the entire bill
`would have zero notice that Frontier had increased one or more of the service charges or
`know whether or why his or her new monthly bill was higher than the prior month’s total.
`54. And, even if customers noticed that Frontier imposed or increased the Internet
`Infrastructure Surcharge, VoIP Administrative Fee, or the Sports/Broadcast TV Fee (and
`learned that these charges were in fact disguised double-charges for the services), they would
`still have to pay penalties at that point if they wanted to cancel their Frontier services.
`Frontier drafted its contractual terms regarding cancellation fees and the like so that there are
`no exceptions, meaning these cancellation fees and similar costs would apply no matter how
`high Frontier chose to unilaterally increase these service charges.
`55.
`In any event, Frontier should have included the amounts of the Internet
`Infrastructure Surcharge, VoIP Administrative Fee, and Sports/Broadcast TV Fee as part of
`the advertised monthly price for its services. Failing to do so, in and of itself, constitutes an
`unfair and deceptive practice that is actionable under the claims pleaded herein. Frontier has
`used the charges to extract from its customers more than Frontier advertised for its services,
`and has used the charges as levers to covertly and improperly raise service rates on its
`existing customers, even during promised fixed-rate promotional periods or term contracts.
`PLAINTIFF’S FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`56. Plaintiff David Massaro is, and at all relevant times has been, a citizen and
`resident of San Bernardino County, California.
`57.
`In late April 2019, Mr. Massaro visited the Frontier website to learn about
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:22-cv-01222 Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 16 of 38 Page ID #:16
`
`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
`
`Frontier’s internet, phone, and television service plans for his residence in Yucaipa,
`California.
`58. After browsing Frontier’s service