by Monica Chamness
Staff Writer
AT&T’s cable subscribers have become so incensed by incorrect billing, poor service and failure to fulfill contracted obligations, that they have filed a class action against the telecommunications giant. Norwood “Woody” Wilner of Spohrer, Wilner, Maxwell & Matthews has agreed to take the case on behalf of the consumers. Daily Record staff writer Monica Chamness met with Wilner last week to discuss the case.
Question: Why did you choose to take the case?
Answer: This firm — and myself — have been involved in consumer issues for many years. Of course, we were involved in the tobacco suit. This case is not life and death but it represents the lack of balance of power between consumers and big corporations. It’s a perfect example of consumers being powerless to fight. That has always interested me.
Q: What is the main point of contention?
A: These conglomerates act like it’s their way or the highway. Lots of people have told us that AT&T’s service is terrible and it is getting worse. And if they don’t pay their bills, it would go to collections. Unless you like being put on hold, it’s not a pleasant thing to deal with. I got some cryptic bill, and in it, the convertor box they’re charging for is digital. I can’t tell if the box is digital. I went back through my records of when it was installed and found out it’s not digital. It’s only $2, but multiplied by the number of people charged that who are not getting the service, it adds up. It’s the principle of the thing. That’s not a way to conduct business — to think they can let things slip by.
Q: Is AT&T the next big tobacco?
A: I’m not claiming that people are dying. I don’t want to be guilty of making that parable. But in both cases they have been ignoring the welfare of their customers. There is a parallel. They need to be customer-oriented. That’s why they’re in business. They need to make a profit, too, but they have to make a profit through proper service.
Q: How did this happen and how could it have been avoided?
A: AT&T got us into this mess. AT&T agreed to do a service. City Council did a credible job of crafting performance requirements and they were clear about it. The problem was when AT&T was bought in, they couldn’t honor the contract. Maybe they had too much debt or whatever but they deliberately decided not to honor the contract.
Q: Is using another provider a viable option?
A: Factually, no one is going to compete. Once a company is established, they have a monopoly. Whenever you give a monopoly to a private corporation, you better be vigilant. The only choice consumers have if they want information — and I consider television and the Internet to be information — is through AT&T or a satellite dish. I’m not an expert on dishes but I know lots of people can’t have them because of the view. We shouldn’t make people have to buy a dish. There is an element of public trust here. Somebody strung cable over these public easements. They [the company] couldn’t exist without using public infrastructure.
Q: Why is television such a hot issue?
A: Information is important to people. People don’t have to have television. They don’t have to have paved roads either but that’s part of modern life.
Q: Who else is on the case?
A: The whole firm is working on it. Stephanie Hartley is my partner. Outside the firm, Eric Block is co-counsel. Across the country, we are discussing this with a lot of other law firms and comparing notes. It seems we’ve all been having the same experiences. Maybe others will be involved depending on what happens, but Jacksonville is the worst of the worst.
Q: How widespread is the problem?
A: This is not a local phenomenon. We’ve had inquiries from all over the country. We have associates working on this in Georgia, California, Illinois, Boston and almost all the major markets. Jacksonville is an example of how bad it can get. We’re seeing a pattern and practice that they’ve willfully disregarded contracts.
Q: Why is it so pronounced here?
A: I think they consider Jacksonville not worthy of their attention. Maybe they think this is a second-rate city and the people aren’t smart enough to know better. This case is a model of corporate inattention.
Q: Does the average person have any recourse in the matter?
A: Individuals have very little. They can refuse to pay but they [AT&T] could sue. When they call to complain, it takes hours and they don’t get any satisfaction. Nothing is done about it. They can call the City Council but there are limits to what they can do and that’s a difficult process. The reason a class action is appropriate is because it’s the only thing that is speaking directly for the subscribers and they’re all affected the same way. That’s all we can do.
Q: What legal alternatives does the City have?
A: I wouldn’t try to advise the City. I think they have their own counsel. The mayor said he is resisting a rate hike and City Council is questioning the renewal of the contract. The City may file for breach of contract. There is also the issue of criminal liability we’re discussing with [Florida] Attorney General Robert Butterworth’s office.
Q: What tactic will you take?
A: Our strategy is to ask AT&T to produce their real records — not just the ones that have been made public so far — behind the customer overcharges, to get the personnel questioned and let the facts speak for themselves. Let’s open them up to the sunshine and let the people decide if AT&T’s treatment of them has been correct. The first thing we’re doing is getting documentation, questioning AT&T personnel and getting records.
Q: What are you up against?
A: I have suspicions that a lot of stuff is going on under the table. I believe an audit was conducted that shows they were in violation of the franchise agreement and that they fired that auditor to conceal it. I expect to find out in discovery. I also suspect that the compliance numbers they’ve reported have been knowingly manipulated. My suspicion is that the numbers are not the same as those used internally. If that evidence comes out in pretrial proceedings, then the company has serious legal problems. They are already subject to criminal penalties.
Q: What result are you aiming for?
A: We seek monetary damages for the class and injunctive relief. In addition, we will seek rebates. We’re going to ask that they be told to do it right and rebate customers for past services they didn’t give. I would like them to recognize their responsibilities and come forward voluntarily to resolve the situation.
Q: Will they offer a solution?
A: This case goes back five years. There’s at least a five-year statute of limitations. Those numbers should give them the motivation to do the right thing. I always take people at their very best. If AT&T called tomorrow and said they want to work it out, I would take them at face value. Anyone can reform. Like any other corporation, I’m sure they have both the best and the worst internally. AT&T knows what went on. We can do this the hard way or the easy way. If they will publicly discuss it and provide compensation to the class, we’ll see eye to eye. This is the perfect time for AT&T to come clean. I’m publicly calling on them to ‘fess up. If they do that, we’ll be able to work out the case. I would just like to see the people in Jacksonville happy with it.