Long distance charges
Complaint
Jack Hogle
Country: United States
Three months ago I signed up for basic residential phone service with AT&T. My first bill had a $7.14 charge from ILD Telecommunications for directory assistance. I have never used or even heard of this company nor have I used any directory assistance. My second bill had 185 long distance charges on it and a bill totaling $96.40. I have never made any long distance calls from this phone. I use my cell phone and Skype for my long distance calls. I spoke with two representatives from AT&T who both put a $97.00 claim on my account. The second representative named "June" said that she had opened the history of my number and found that these charges are identical to ones that were unpaid by the previous people who had this number and that she was forwarding this on to another department. I never heard anything else and after two follow up calls, I was told not to worry. This month, my third bill had a total of 239 long distance charges and another cramming charge from a company called travelersvmail.com for $12.95. I have never used this service or heard of them either! I did get AT&T to remove long distance from my line. I never even asked for long distance in the first place -- especially not at .33/minute! They also put another claim on my account for the amount of $109.63. One woman that I spoke to yesterday named, "Erin" left me a message on my answering machine telling me that I would have to pay these outlandish charges that now total $225.38. My bill should only be $6.40. I feel that hey are bullying me into paying this bill when it is obvious that something is going on. I have never had such horrible service anywhere.
Comments
This may have originally been a "billing accident" due to failure by the prior owners to cancell accounts tied to their phone number when they ended service, but once ILD has been notified of the fact that you are the new owner of this number and never authorized any such services or charges, if they continue to bill or attempt to collect, then they and the company they are billing for are engaged in "cramming", essentially telecommunications billing fraud, and you should treat it as such.
ILD Telecommunications is a billing aggregator. They accept billing information from various other companies who claim phone customers have agreed to be billed, and pass them on to the phone company to be included in phone bills. There are a number of consumer complaints about companies they have handled billing for claiming charges are fraudulent. This practice is known as "cramming", and is a common form of telecom billing fraud.
Here is an FTC action against 800 Connect and ILD, who assisted by handling the billing, for a little scam they were running, charging phone customers for misdialed 800 numbers by taking out 800 numbers close to those of several large companies.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/02/800connect.shtm
"For Release: February 4, 2003
Companies to Pay $735,000 for Allegedly Charging Consumers Who Misdialed Toll-free Numbers
...
According to the FTC's complaint, 800 Connect, based in Sarasota, allegedly sold information services to consumers who incorrectly dialed toll-free numbers for various legitimate companies, including Federal Express and Sovereign Bank. Consumers reached 800 Connect, which answered lines associated with telephone numbers that were close, but not identical to the other companies' toll-free lines. The FTC alleged that a pre-recorded message informed consumers that they could still receive the correct number. Consumers had three options. They could: 1) "press one, now" for the correct number, with no disclosure that the defendants would bill the line subscriber either $1.99 or $2.99; 2) wait to "press one," continue listening to the pre-recorded message, and eventually be informed about the $1.99 or $2.99 charge (they could then hang up, allegedly before charges were incurred); or 3) neither "press one" nor hang up after hearing the cost disclosure, in which case they received the correct number and were billed the $1.99 or $2.99 per call.
Charges for 800 Connect's services typically appeared on the line subscriber's phone bill on a separate page titled "ILD Teleservices, Inc." The subscriber's local phone company inserted the page into their telephone bill, with the charges usually identified as being on behalf of "800 Connect" or "Call Connect."
..."
See other complaints against ILD Telecommunications, here:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell_phones/ild.html
Contact ATT and ask how to report this as billing fraud. Send such notification IN WRITING, to ATT's fraud department. Do NOT pay any disputed part of your phone bill. In addition, file complaints with FTC, your state AG, and FCC (as a cramming dispute). Be sure to file these complaints IN WRITING and promptly, to establish that the charges have been disputed in a timely manner. Keep copies of all communications.
Also ask ATT how to block all third party charges. They should be able to do this, preventing future slamming or cramming.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/oklahoma-city-ok/TQGRQ50463R0KKC0J
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/2007/nr120507_CP.asp
"DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SETTLES LAWSUIT AGAINST FLORIDA BILLING COMPANY, ILD TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Lawsuit Alleges Improper Billing Of Telephone Customers On Behalf of Radical Persson, Inc., a California Corporation, And Its Owner, Lars Persson.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
December 5, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON - The Wisconsin Department of Justice has settled a consumer protection lawsuit against a Florida-based billing aggregator, ILD Telecommunications, Inc., for its role in placing charges on the telephone bills of Wisconsin businesses for services that the State alleges either were not authorized or that were obtained through deceptive telemarketing practices by Radical Persson, Inc., a California corporation
..."
Acive investigation by the Florida Attorney General against ILD for "cramming". http://myfloridalegal.com/__85256309005085AB. ... Highlight=0,ild
ILD is located in Florida. If you are having any problems with fraudulent charges put on your phone bills by ILD, you should also contact the Florida Attorney General.
The Florida Attorney General has an effective economic crimes unit, and has reached settlements not only with cramming billing aggregators, but with phone companies such as ATT and Verizon, who claimed they had no responsibility for the fraudulent charges showing up on their customers' bills.
Settlement with ATT Mobility.
http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsrel ... 52573FE004E6338
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILD_Teleservices
CERB is a trade organization supposedly set up by its members to reduce occurrances of "cramming".
http://www.cerb.org/
"Recognizing the opportunity to assist with the critical effort of curbing “cramming” (the unauthorized addition of charges to a consumer’s telephone bill) and protecting consumers, telecommunications billing clearinghouses formed the Coalition to Ensure Responsible Billing (CERB). CERB’s members are Billing Concepts (dba USBI, Zero Plus Dialing, Inc. (ZPDI) and its affiliate Enhanced Services Billing, Inc. (ESBI)), ACI Billing Services, Inc. dba OAN Services, HBS,ILD Telecommunications, Inc. & Integretel, Inc. (including its affiliate: eBillit). The Coalition has created mandatory Anti-Cramming Consumer Protection Standards of Practice. The Standards outline stringent, pro-consumer policies for helping to ensure that only legitimate charges appear on consumers’ bills.
..."
Note that a number of their members were charged or reached settlements with FTC or state AGs in connection with "cramming".
Supposedly, CERB requires its members to maintain the following "mandatory Anti-Cramming Consumer Protection Standards of Practice."
In other words, the members apparently promise to be real good now, probably to avoid increased industry restrictions from regulatory agencies.
http://www.cerb.org/standards.html
CONSUMER PROTECTION STANDARDS OF PRACTICE OF
THE COALITION TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE BILLING ("CERB")
In order to protect consumers from unauthorized, deceptive or ambiguous charges on their telephone bills, the Members of CERB hereby adopt and agree to be bound by the following Consumer Protection Standards of Practice.
PRE-SCREENING OF PROVIDERS AND SERVICES
Members commit to pre-screening all prospective service providers and the programs, products and services they offer.
SCREENING OF PROVIDERS
Members will require as a precondition for any business relationships the following information:
Service provider company name and address.
Names of officers and principals of the company.
Proof of corporate or partnership status.
Copies of certifications as required.
Foreign corporation filings as required.
Any information regarding whether the company, its affiliates and/or its officers or principals have been subject to prior conviction for fraud or have had billing services terminated.
That any tariffs be made available on request.
The names, addresses, officers and principals of any telemarketing companies to be used by the service provider.
The names, addresses, officers and principals of any third party verification companies to be used by the service provider .
SCREENING OF PROGRAMS, PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Members will require the following information to be provided to them:
Marketing materials.
Advertisements (print or other media).
Applicable fulfillment package (which must include cancellation information if not included elsewhere and a toll free customer service telephone number).
Scripts for both sales and validation.
Honest, clear and understandable text phrase for telephone bill.
Prior notification of any material change in the above information.
Members will not knowingly provide billing for services employing the following practices:
Box, sweepstakes, or contest-type entry forms.
Negative option sales offers, including negative option "free trial" periods.
800 pay per call.
Collect callback.
Phantom billing (charging for calls never made or services never provided).
Such other programs, products or services Members determine to be deceptive or anti-consumer.
Each Member will maintain an internal standards committee to review the information collected for both providers and programs. Members of these committees will have no vested sales interest in the acceptance of a service, product or program.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
In order to better police the business practices of its service providers and to assure the efficiency of its screening procedures Members commit to engage in active monitoring of providers and programs. Members will:
Monitor consumer inquiries.
Monitor consumer complaints to government agencies.
Monitor escalated complaints to the local exchange carrier.
Maintain up-to-date records regarding complaints and inquiries.
Adopt action plans to respond to complaints and inquiries.
Notify service providers of complaints or inquiries.
Coordinate investigations with service providers.
Each Member shall take such disciplinary action as each determines is appropriate under the circumstances.
MANDATORY AUTHORIZATION
It is critical that consumers can depend upon their authorization for the service, product or program for which they will be billed. Verification of authorization must be available from service providers, on request, for a two-year period.
Members will require service providers to employ one of the following forms of authorization, subject to applicable law:
Letter of authorization or sales order, or
Recorded independent third party verification, or
Voice recording of telephone sales authorization.
A valid authorization must include:
The date.
The name, address and telephone number of the consumer.
Assurance that the consumer is qualified to authorize billing.
A description of the product or service.
A description of the applicable charges.
An explicit consumer acknowledgement that the charges for the product or service will appear on the telephone bill.
A toll free telephone number that subscribers may call to make inquiries concerning the service.
The acceptance by the consumer of the offer.
In addition, authorization verified by an independent third party must include:
An initial statement that the purpose of the verifications is to confirm the consumer's intention to accept the sales offer.
A statement that the service provider is not affiliated with a LEC, where there is no affiliation.
A unique consumer identifier.
A review by third party personnel of the entire verification where the verification is automated.
An independent third party verifier must meet the following criteria:
It must be completely independent of the service provider and the telemarketer.
It must not be owned, managed, controlled or directed by the service provider or the telemarketer.
It must not have any financial incentive in the completion of the sale.
It must operate in a location physically separate from the service provider and the telemarketer.
CONSUMER-FRIENDLY BILLING PRACTICES
Central to a consumer's right to ensure that they have not been crammed is the ability to understand and read the telephone bill. Members agree that informed consumers can better protect themselves from unauthorized products or services. Members will support providing consumers a bill that can be easily understood.
Consumer bills should include:
A clear identification of the billing entity.
A clear identification of the service provider.
A clear description of products or services.
A clear identification of the charges.
The toll free telephone number that subscribers may call to make inquiries concerning the billing.
CONSUMER SATISFACTION
Consumers must be able to easily and quickly discuss problems. Members are committed to monitoring consumer satisfaction particularly with regard to any disputes or inquiries that may arise. Members will provide quick and thorough responses. Members shall provide on request:
The name, address, phone number and fax number of the service provider.
The nature of any charge.
The method of authorization.
Information as to how a consumer may cancel a service or product.
In addition, in order to facilitate resolution of disputes Members will:
Provide a toll free customer service number.
Provide dedicated staff to respond to consumer inquiries.
Provide a full and timely investigation of any dispute.
Initiate a credit or respond to the consumer within 30 days of the consumer's dispute.
DISCLOSURE
Members may share with each other and, upon request, will provide federal and state enforcement agencies with the following information:
Identifying information with respect to terminated service providers and programs.
A description of specific practices relating to cramming that the Members have encountered, and the steps being taken by the Members to correct them.
Aggregate data with regard to complaints filed with federal and state government authorities received by Members.
On October 1, 1998, a copy of these Standards of Practice and a list of all Members were sent to the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and all state Public Utility and Service Commissions and each state Attorney General. These Standards were updated and redistributed to the above parties on November 11, 1999.
The Coalition to Ensure Responsible Billing was formed by the United States' leading billing clearinghouses in an effort to combat consumer fraud on the local telephone bill.
..."
In your dealings with ILD, did you find that they complied with the "mandatory Anti-Cramming Consumer Protection Standards of Practice" that CERB claims their members follow?
"...
16. Defendants charge consumers between $12.95 and $39.95 per month for their Internet services.
17. Defendants, typically through third party telemarketers, make unsolicited calls to verify business contact information and in some instances to offer their Internet services without asking consumers to purchase anything.
18. In many instances, Defendants' calls begin with the telemarketer stating that the purpose of the call is to verify or update business information without informing consumers that the call also involves an offer of Internet services.
..."
Allegations of doctored recordings:
"...
23. Defendants, directly or through their representatives, agents, or third party contractors, make audio recordings of consumer calls that purport to show that consumers have agreed to purchase Defendants' Internet services. In many instances, the audio recordings do not truthfully reflect the calls they purport to have recorded. In many instances, the recordings have been falsified or altered to misrepresent the call as a whole and the consumers' responses in particular. In other instances, the voices on the recordings do not belong to the particular consumers who were purportedly on the calls.
..."
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/03/inc21.shtm
"For Release: 03/01/2010
FTC Halts Massive Cramming Operation that Illegally Billed Thousands; Alleges Scam Took in $19 Million over Five Years
A U.S. district court judge has ordered a halt to the illegal practices of an Internet services company that crammed unauthorized charges onto the telephone bills of thousands of consumers and small businesses for services they never agreed to buy. At trial the Federal Trade Commission will ask the court to halt the practices permanently and force the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains.
The FTC charged that Inc21 and its affiliated companies sold Internet services, including Web site design services, Web site hosting, Internet directory listings, search-engine advertising and Internet-based faxing, for charges ranging from $12.95 to $39.95 a month.
The FTC alleged that the defendants hired off-shore telemarketers to call prospective clients.
Sometimes the telemarketers offered a free trial, without explaining that consumers would have to take certain steps to avoid charges. In other cases the telemarketers said they simply were calling to verify their business contact information.
The FTC alleges that Inc21 used third-party billing aggregators, to place charges on the phone bills of thousands of consumers and businesses that either:
were never contacted at all;
were told they were contacted only to verify business information;
declined Inc21' s offer of Internet services; or
were told they would receive a free trial offer, but not informed that they would be charged if they did not cancel.
In papers filed with the court, the FTC charged that Inc21 and its agents supposedly made tape recordings to demonstrate that its charges were authorized. But the FTC alleged that in many cases, the recordings were doctored to misrepresent the call and the consumers’ responses. In other cases, the voices on the tapes are not those of the consumers who were supposedly on the calls.
The FTC charged the defendants with unfair and deceptive acts, in violation of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
District Court Judge William Alsup issued a Temporary Restraining Order, and then a Preliminary Injunction to halt the unlawful conduct, pending trial. In his Order, Judge Alsup wrote, “It was Inc21 who orchestrated this overall scheme and set in motion an army of telemarketers who committed fraud. Even if Inc21 did not approve of the fraud (and it seems likely that it did approve), the fact remains that Inc21 is responsible for organizing this engine of fraud and reaping its profits. As such, Inc21 may certainly be held accountable and the engine of fraud may be shut down by court order.”
The defendants named in this matter are Inc21.com Inc., doing business as Inc21, Inc21.net, Inc21 Communications, Global YP, NetOpus, Metro YP, JumPage Solutions, GoFaxer.com and Fax Faster.com, Jumpage Solutions, Inc., GST U.S.A., Inc., Roy Yu Lin and John Yu Lin officers and directors of Inc21. The FTC complaint also names Sheng Lin, the father of Roy and John Lin, as a “relief defendant” because he allegedly received funds that can be traced to the deceptive and unfair practices, and has no legitimate claim to those funds.
The FTC received invaluable assistance in this matter from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and IRS-Criminal Investigations Division.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was 4-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.
..."
Charges crammed through third party billing aggregator, ILD Teleservices:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2010/03/ftc_cramming.html
"...
I got my phone bill and ILD (ILD TeleServices) charged me $30.88 for some kind of Internet service that I never authorized," Christie, of Connel, WA, tells ConsumerAffairs.com. "When I called them, I was kept on hold for over 30 minutes and have not been able to dispute these charges."
..."
I've had at least 15 tech's out in the last 1 1/2, and only last month did the ATT tech reinstall the equipment upstairs to help with the speed. Since the reinstall on 04/06/2012, I've had 4 more tech's to the residence; the last one was out yesterday, and I am crossing my fingers that the problem is fixed this time. One of the reps tried to charge us for the visit ($55 trip charge and wanted to change out wiring in the bedroom) and I threw a fit; they waived the fee. But I have had other billing problems with ATT.
I called back on 04/06/2012 and spoke to a rep who said he would give us free HBO and Cinemax for three months, a locked in internet rate of $29.95 for a year, and a $20 adjustment for the service problems. Before the $20 adjustment, this would make the bill $174.01 per month. I received my bill at the first of this month only to find that no credit was given, I was being charged for HBO and Cinemax ($26 a month), and my internet was almost $40. So I called billing on the 22nd of May.
The rep I spoke with in billing saw the previous reps notes and promised to adjust the bill. I logged onto my bill today only to find no adjustment. So I called customer service this evening.
I spoke to a rep named Eden this evening in customer service that refused to give us the free HBO and Cinemax, the lowered internet rate, or the credit to the account, despite what is written in their system; her logic is that we are not new customers, and these rates are reserved for new customers. I asked to speak to her supervisor. I was put on hold for almost 30 minutes, and finally she came back on the line only to tell me that I still needed to hold; Eden put me back on hold and about 1 minute later my call was disconnected by them (I assume she hung up on me). I called customer service back only to find out that they are not closed for the evening. Needless to say I am furious. While ATT's tech support has always been crap, their billing and customer service has typically been good. This rep refusing to credit my account and willfully hanging up on me was the last straw. I spent this evening filing complaint reports with the BBB of Dallas, the Attorney General of Texas, the FTC, and the FCC. I suggest you do the same because the more complaints that are filed the more likely major corrective action will be taken against ATT. I went through billing problems with another company, I had to get these agencies involved, and it is surprising how fast they act on issues like this.