Posted on 02/25/2008 2:48:48 PM PST by Las Vegas Dave
Washington, D.C. (February 24, 2008) -- A law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against DIRECTV charging the satcaster with failing to tell customers they must eventually return their receivers -- even if they paid hundreds of dollars for them at retail.
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Los Angeles by the Chicago-based Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP, also includes CE retailer Best Buy.
The law firm says the companies have not "adequately disclosed" that a customer can not keep his DIRECTV receiver even after paying for it. At BestBuy.com, the satcaster's receivers now range in price from $69 to $199, but DIRECTV has charged more for them since March 2006 when the leasing program began.
DIRECTV spokesman Robert Mercer told TVPredictions.com on Friday that "DIRECTV disputes (the) allegations regarding its lease program and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. We do not believe (the) claims have merit."
Mercer would not comment specifically on the allegations in the lawsuit.
DIRECTV considers the set-top purchase a "lease," for which it can also charge additional monthly lease fees, which have ranged from $4.99 to $10.
Like the lease agreement for an automobile, the DIRECTV lease requires the customer to return the receiver when the agreement expires, which is when the customer cancels service. (DIRECTV will provide an overnight delivery box and postage label for the receiver's return, but will not refund the original purchase price of the receiver.)
The satcaster's lease program begin on March 1, 2006, meaning any receiver purchased on or after that date must be returned.
"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of consumers nationwide, further alleging that consumers instead believe that they own the receivers they purchase from DIRECTV or its retailers, like Best Buy and Circuit City. Only later, according to the suit, do they discover that they must pay lease fees, and return their receivers if they cancel their DIRECTV subscription," Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP said in a statement.
The lawsuit includes both High-Definition and standard-def receivers.
Mark J. Tamblyn, a partner in Wexler Toriseva Wallace's Sacramento office, said "consumers should be fully advised that their purchases of DIRECTV receivers come with strings. They should not have to discover after paying hundreds of dollars for a receiver that their purchase is more like a rental, requiring continuous payments."
The lawsuit seeks recovery of all lease fees paid, and a judgment declaring that DIRECTV lease is invalid.
The case, filed in Los Angeles, is Case No. CV08-00906 ABC (PJWx).
DIRECTV's web site states that "receivers are at all times property of DIRECTV and must be returned upon cancellation of service or additional fees may apply." However, at the web site and in retail agreements, the return policy is not prominently featured.
Who do you sue for the lame premium channels?
Interesting if it proves out. I have DTV and I was unaware of this. I used to INSTALL DTV, too.
I checked into DIRECTV for upgrading to HD. Had been a customer for years. Sure, just give us $200 per box, and we’ll charge you an additional lease fee on top of that. Verizon FIOS GAVE us the boxes, only charged a lease fee, similar rates.
Any guesses who I went with?
More and more of what you purchase you don’t own anymore. Can’t remember the last time I purchased software and got more than just a license to use it.
well not exactly accurate given the adhesion contract of the package. There are additional consumer protection laws and case law that precludes that onerous “you own nothing” implicaiton of the software box or you ability to move it with your computer upgrades. If the law was really on microsoft’s sife, for example, they would not need all that crippleware they put in their OS to prevent/hinder owner upgrades.
really? I tried to return a receiver and they wanted no part of it. Of course it wasn’t HD. I wonder if the fine print has it as a prepaid lease as opposed to a purchase. Besides, there isn’t much you can do with the receiver without a subscription. All this suit will do is 1) make the lawyers richer 2) make the cost of the service higher, now that the lawyers’ vig is built into the price. I wonder if a Johnny Edwards administration would simply fund the lawyers through a 1040 rakeoff? Might be cheaper in the end.
But if I had purchased a receiver in a box at Best Buy I would assume I owned the reciever.
FIOS is far better as well. Unfortunately they don’t offer TV service in my area.
Some VOOM boxes can be found on Ebay, mine are in the basement waiting for their eventual demise...
Thats a Best Buy rip off, not a Direct TV ripoff. Not that Direct TV is perfect.
Guess it depends on who you talk to. I called DirecTV to upgrade an HD box to an HD DVR and they not only did the upgrade free of charge they took $10 per month off my bill for a year because I pay my bill on time. I can't say anything negative about my experience with them and they carry more HD channels than any other provider.
I had the same problem with Dish Network. They did at least send prepaid boxes for their return though.
if it was me, whatever they got back would be in charred pieces...
BTW I have never heard of VOOM.
An interesting problem has arose in North Carolina where as part of the Offer to Purchase and Contract defines the dish AND the RECEIVER as Real Property (Fixtures) not Personal Property and is (suppose to be) sold with the house. The dish is obvious since it is typically "bolted" to the property but the receiver is similar to a radio or portable TV and people tend to take it with them automatically.
Another incentive to get DTV subscribers would be to only charge the $5/month/reciever for the 1st year of service only. That would be enough to cover the cost of them, and not soak the subscriber into paying for them over and over.
Why does the NFL deal exclusively with these a’holes on the most profitable package on the face of the earth?
I have DishNetwork and do not pay any kind of lease for my 2 TV receiver. I also do do not have a 12 or 18 or 24 month obligation for service and never had from day one.
Same for us. They didn’t want them back (non-HD) and several years ago.
Democrats really are brain damaged, liberalism is indeed a mental problem.. Direct TV is just bleeding the people like democrats do..
Ah, another case of millions for the lawyers and $25 for me.
I was thinking the same thing. There would be a curious sound of rattling and loose parts inside each rec. they got back from me.
I was a faithful customer of DirecTV for 5 years. I paid my bill on time and even had some extra for Starz and a TIVO. In November of 2005, my wife called to cancel since we had sold our home in Wisconsin and were moving to Las Vegas.
Two years later we were notified by a collections agency that we owed DirecTV about $280. When I called DirecTV I found out that they had turned on our service starting in July 2006 and we were billed for 6 months of service. Bills were sent to our former Wisconsin address and phone calls were made to our former Wisconsin phone number. My three receivers had been in a box in the attic the entire time.
I pointed this out to them twice by phone and three times by letter. They still think I owe them this money and are now threatening to ruin my credit rating. By the way, the receivers have to call DirecTV monthly to get new codes and determine what channels we are eligible for. DirecTV could check their computer records and confirm that my receivers never called in and therefore we never accessed their services. They were told this and refuse to do so.
Thus my tagline.
yup, musta had a shipping accident... 8^)
How are you liking it so far?
CA....
Where are you located?
I have Verizon landline phone service and hi-speed internet but there is no TV service.
Same here. Is it Florida or what seems to be the hold up?
Does Brighthouse have a strong lobbyist in Tallahassee or something?
“Same here. Is it Florida or what seems to be the hold up?”
Its being implemented in a neighborhood by neighborhood approach. I have fios internet and phone but not tv at my current home. Of course its in a new development so its in a lower populate area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.