DirecTV Customers Are Charged Hidden Fees, Calif. Suit Alleges

Satellite television provider DirecTV hides contract term commitments and charges early-termination fees up to $480 without customers' approval when service is terminated or changed, a California class-action lawsuit alleges.

The early-termination fees are excessive and have no correlation to the actual costs the company faces when ending or changing customers' service, the suit says.

Amy Imburgia and Marlene Mecca filed the complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of all current and former DirecTV customers in the state.

The company is the nation's largest provider of digital satellite service, with more than 16 million subscribers.

It has a practice of not informing customers that it imposes term commitments of 18 to 24 months when they sign up for service, the plaintiffs allege.

It then charges an early-termination fee to customers' credit cards or directly to their bank accounts without approval, the suit says.

According to the complaint, DirecTV says details of the terms and fees are located on the back of a form presented to subscribers when the equipment is installed or replaced.

The company says customers agree to the terms and fees when they sign the form the installer gives them, the complaint says.

DirecTV, however, does not permit the installers to alert the customers to the information on the back of the form or explain the contract's terms, the plaintiffs say.

Even if customers were made aware of the "lease addendum" on the back of the form, the information concerning the contract is unclear, the plaintiffs say.

According to the complaint, the document does not say when the term period begins or that it starts over when equipment is replaced.

The addendum also does not explain how the varying termination fees are determined, the suit says.

According to the complaint, DirecTV's failure to disclose the fees and service contract terms violates California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Also, the company enforces unconscionable contract terms that customers never agreed to in violation of the state's unfair-competition law, the plaintiffs say.

Further, the early-termination fee is an "unlawful liquidated damages provision" in violation of the California civil code, the complaint says.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@ThomsonReuters.com.

The plaintiffs are represented by Todd M. Schneider of Schneider, Wallace, Cottrell, Brayton & Konecky in San Francisco.