Talk to a Lawyer 
1-866-981-4800
Cases & Results
Telecom Fraud Lawsuits
Protecting Consumers Against Telecom Fraud

In today's modern world consumers more than ever rely on telecommunications companies to operate and maintain their land-lines, cell phones, internet, cable, and other electronic communications. These companies, however, sometimes attempt to take advantage of consumers, assessing unauthorized charges to their accounts or hidden fees to their bills. Some companies have even used consumers' private information to profit from the sale to marketing companies and others.

Girard Gibbs' attorneys have successfully represented consumers around the country in class action lawsuits against the nations' major telecom companies. If you have a question about one of the cases below or would like to discuss a potential case with one of our telecom fraud attorneys, please complete the form to the right or call us at (866) 981-4800 for a free and confidential consultation.

Why Girard Gibbs?

Girard Gibbs is a national litigation firm representing consumers, investors, employees, and small businesses in cases involving consumer protection, personal injury, securities, antitrust, and employment laws. The firm’s senior partners, Daniel Girard and Eric Gibbs, have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2012 and Northern California Super Lawyers, and have earned AV-Preeminent ratings from Martindale-Hubbell, recognizing them in the highest class of attorneys for professional ethics and legal skills.

Related Cases
Summary

After investigating several consumer complaints, Girard Gibbs filed a class action lawsuit alleging that AT&T entered into agreements with local exchange carriers that allowed AT&T to place unauthorized long distance charges on monthly telephone bills. The lawsuit also contended that AT&T refused to refund the charges unless the customer switched over to AT&T long distance, and alleged this practice violated the Communications Act of 1934.

Girard Gibbs LLP negotiated a class action settlement that provided cash reimbursements to affected telephone customers across the nation. The Honorable David R. Herndon approved the settlement, writing that our consumer attorneys had "conducted the litigation and achieved the settlement with skill, perseverance and diligent advocacy."

Alleged Legal Violation(s)
Read More »
Summary

The lawsuit alleged that C&W assessed PICC charges from customers at a greater rate, than the rates set forth in the tariff. By doing this, the lawsuit contended, C&W violated the Federal Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. 203 (c) of the Federal Communications Act stipulates that, telecommunication carriers may not “charge, demand, collect, or receive a greater or less or different compensation” than the amount specified in the tariff.

On October 27, 2005, United States District Court Judge Edward F. Harrington District of Massachusetts, granted final approval of a $7.7 million settlement. The settlement was used to provide cash reimbursement to class members.

According to the lawsuit, C&W described their methodology for assessing PICC charges from customers in a tariff submitted to the Federal Communication Commission. The tariff stated that C&W would base their monthly rate for PICC charges on the number and type of phone lines (such as residential and business), for which a customer subscribed to C&W long distance.

Alleged Legal Violation(s)
Read More »
Summary

Girard Gibbs filed a class action lawsuit against MCI on behalf of affected customers. The lawsuit alleged that MCI engaged in telecom fraud and unfair billing practices, and that this conduct violated the federal Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996. The court later appointed Girard Gibbs as co-Lead Counsel in the class action lawsuit.

Ultimately, a nationwide settlement was negotiated that proved to be one of the largest-ever telecom class action settlements, valued at $90 million. The cash settlement allowed MCI customers to seek a refund of the alleged overcharges or a flat $75 cash payment.

Alleged Legal Violation(s)
Read More »