AT&T Tower Upgrade Left Customer Without Service for Weeks, Class Action Alleges

AT&T violated California statutes by falsely advertising the reliability, coverage and speed of its phone and internet services, while billing for services not provided, alleged a class action (docket 2:23-cv-09979), removed Monday from California Superior Court to U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Klein, a Riverside County, California, resident, chose AT&T as his wireless carrier based on advertising boasting “superior coverage and speed,” said the complaint. In August 2022, Klein’s mobile phone was “out of service for multiple weeks,” it said. Klein works from home and needed reliable service to ensure he could communicate by telephone, he said. During that period, he was unable to contact family, friends, business establishments and emergency services due to the outage, the complaint said.

When Klein visited an AT&T store, he was told every subscriber within his geographic area was experiencing the same outage due to a tower upgrade, the complaint said. Representatives couldn’t tell Klein when his service would be restored, and he was “left on hold” when he tried to get information from the customer service department, it said.

AT&T never informed Klein about the outage and billed him during the time he was without service, the complaint said. The plaintiff would not have chosen AT&T as his provider if he had known he could possibly be without service “for such an extended period of time.” Klein “felt deceived” because he had contracted with the carrier “for this exact purpose.”

As a result of AT&T’s inability to resolve the issue, Klein canceled his service and switched to another provider, the complaint said. AT&T charged Klein for one month of service on his final bill and refused to refund him for the amount that was overpaid, it said. AT&T continued to send Klein statements indicating a negative balance of $92.03, but it refused to refund him that amount, “which should never have been billed to begin with,” the complaint said. "After months of refusal," AT&T attempted to refund Klein by sending him a debit card, “subject to many conditions and fees, and without interest,” the complaint said. Klein refused the “inadequate refund as it would not make him whole” and was “not an acceptable or fair refund practice,” the plaintiff said.

Klein was “significantly upset” by AT&T’s “misrepresentations and omissions regarding its services,” the complaint said. He alleges such business practices were part of a “common scheme to mislead consumers and incentivize them to do business” with the company. Klein “materially changed his position in reliance on Defendant’s representations and was harmed thereby,” it said. AT&T “benefited from falsely advertising and representing its services” and benefited “on the loss” to Klein, while providing "nothing of benefit” to him in exchange, it said.

Klein claims violation of California’s False Advertising and Consumer Legal Remedies acts and Unfair Competition Law, said the complaint. He seeks actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and injunctive relief, it said. AT&T didn't comment Wednesday.