Customers sue Frontier over broadband surcharge

The so-called HSI surcharge is not authorized by government agencies

Four customers of Frontier Communications have filed a class action lawsuit against the broadband and digital voice provider over a US$1 to $1.50 mystery charge on their monthly bills.

Frontier customers Clint Rasschaert, Ed Risch, Pam Schiller and Verna Schuna allege that Frontier is illegally taxing them for broadband service, even though state and federal laws prohibit most broadband taxes. The so-called HSI surcharge is not authorized by government agencies, even though Frontier tells customers that all surcharges are required or authorized by the government, said the lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The surcharge "is merely a junk fee that Frontier imposes on customers," Michelle Drake, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, wrote in the complaint. "The fee bears no relationship to any governmentally-imposed fee or regulation, and is nothing other than an effort by Frontier to increase prices above advertised prices under the false and misleading guise of governmental authority."

The surcharge is listed under state taxes and other charges on customers' bills. "Any reasonable customer would believe its a state fee," Drake said.

Drake, from the Nichols Kaster law firm in Minneapolis, said customers shouldn't have to check the sales tax calculations on their bills or know what government charges are acceptable on broadband bills. "This case is the result of a toxic combination of corporate greed and laziness," she said. "We shouldn't need to sue just to get big corporations to truthfully bill their customers."

Some Frontier customers posting comments at DSLreports.com and Stopthecap.com have complained that the HSI surcharge is $1.50 a month on some bills. Frontier has alternatively explained the charge as a federal government charge, a charge for high-speed Internet service and a charge for customers out of contract, according to posters at those sites.

The fee is not included in the advertised price for Frontier broadband service, Drake said. The plaintiffs would be less upset if Frontier simply included the charge in its advertised price, she said.

"They can charge whatever price they want," she said.

Frontier, in a statement, said it wouldn't comment on the allegations in the lawsuit. "We take all litigation claims and customer complaints seriously and will carefully evaluate and respond to the lawsuit at the appropriate time," the company said. "Frontier values its customers and we believe our charges and practices are consistent with applicable state and federal law."

Frontier, based in Stamford, Connecticut, offers broadband, digital voice, and satellite television service. The company has about 3.3 million residential customers, 333,000 business customers, and 1.7 million broadband customers across 27 states, according to its first quarter financial report.

Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant's e-mail address is grant_gross@idg.com.

Tags Verna SchunatelecommunicationlegalU.S. District Court for the District of MinnesotaCivil lawsuitsNichols KasterPam SchillerFrontier CommunicationsbroadbandEd RischClint RasschaertMichelle Drake

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Grant Gross

IDG News Service

Comments

Comments are now closed.

Most Popular Reviews

Follow Us

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Shopping.com

Latest News Articles

Resources

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Latest Jobs

Shopping.com

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?