New evidence reveals more than half of sampled customers signed up without consent 
 
 SEATTLE — Today Attorney General Bob Ferguson amended his lawsuit against Comcast to include new evidence revealing even more deceptive conduct than previously alleged. 
 
 Ferguson filed a more than one-hundred-million-dollar lawsuit against the cable television and internet giant in King County Superior Court in August of 2016. The suit asserts Comcast misrepresented the scope of its Service Protection Plan (SPP) as part of more than 1.8 million violations of Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (CPA). 
 
 More than half a million Washingtonians subscribed to the SPP since 2011, paying at least $73 million to Comcast for the service plan from 2011 through the end of 2015. 
 
 A sample of recorded calls between SPP subscribers and Comcast representatives obtained by the Attorney General’s Office reveal that Comcast may have signed up more than half of all SPP subscribers without their consent. Comcast deceived consumers even when mentioning the SPP, telling them the SPP plan was “free” when they signed up, when in fact, Comcast would automatically charge them every month after the first month. 
 
 “This new evidence makes clear that Comcast’s conduct is even more egregious than we first realized,” Ferguson said. “The extent of their deception is shocking, and I will hold them accountable for their treatment of Washington consumers.” 
 
 Sample of customer calls reveals massive deception 
 
 In May 2017, King County Superior Court Judge Timothy Bradshaw ordered Comcast to provide the Attorney General’s Office with “telephone calls that exist in which [Comcast] sold the SPP to Washington consumers.” In response to the court order, Comcast turned over to the Attorney General’s Office recordings of calls between Comcast and 1,500 Washington consumers whom Comcast signed up for the SPP. 
 
 The Attorney General’s Office analyzed a random sample of recorded sales calls between Comcast and 150 Washingtonians. Comcast did not even mention the SPP to nearly half the sample. Additional consumers in the sample explicitly rejected the SPP, but Comcast signed them up anyway. Consequently, Comcast enrolled more than half of these subscribers without their consent. 
 
 Even when Comcast actually mentioned the SPP on the sales call before signing consumers up for the SPP, Comcast continued to engage in deception. Comcast deceptively failed to disclose the SPP was a monthly recurring charge to 20 percent of the Washingtonians in the sample. Rather, Comcast often told subscribers the SPP was added for “free” to their account. 
 
 According to Comcast’s own data, more than 75% of SPP subscribers sign up via the telephone. Comcast operates call centers in Washington state, Colorado, Minnesota and Texas, as well as throughout the world in the Philippines, Mexico and Guyana. Comcast paid call center staff up to $5 for every SPP sale they made. 
 
 Comcast does not instruct its employees to send customers any information about the SPP via email, text message, mail, or refer the customer to Comcast’s website while the call is occurring and the customer is considering whether to enroll in the SPP. Rather, Comcast only provides oral representations about the SPP. 
 
 The Attorney General’s Office alleges this pattern of deception is a systemic issue throughout Comcast’s marketing and “sale” of the SPP, and represents potentially tens of thousands of new violations of the Washington state Consumer Protection Act. 
 
 Deleted call recordings impede investigation 
 
 Comcast’s refusal to produce call recordings has been an ongoing issue. 
 
 In June 2015 the Attorney General’s Office sent Comcast a Civil Investigative Demand that required Comcast to preserve these call recordings between Comcast representatives and Washingtonians who purchased the SPP. 
 
 After filing the lawsuit in August 2016, the Attorney General’s Office renewed its request for these call recordings. Comcast refused to provide them, arguing that to do so would be burdensome. Consequently, the Attorney General’s Office asked the court to compel Comcast to produce a sample of these call recordings. 
 
 Still Comcast refused to produce the recordings. Comcast responded to the Attorney General’s motion to compel production of call recordings by again arguing it would be burdensome to review and provide them. In a brief to the court, Comcast estimated it would take “approximate 8,500 reviewer hours” to produce these calls. 
 
 Only after Judge Bradshaw ordered Comcast to comply in May 2017 did Comcast admit it had already deleted 90% of the calls the Attorney General’s Office had been requesting as part of its investigation. Comcast deleted tens of thousands of calls some time after the Attorney General’s Office demanded Comcast preserve the recordings and before telling the court it would take more than 8,000 hours to produce them. 
 
 The Attorney General’s Office filed a motion asking Judge Bradshaw to levy sanctions against Comcast for discarding potential evidence while under investigation. 
 
 In August 2017, Judge Bradshaw awarded the state approximately $13,000 in attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions. Judge Bradshaw reserved ruling on whether to impose sanctions. 
 
 Despite Comcast’s deletion of recordings, through Judge Bradshaw’s court order, the Attorney General’s Office obtained the sample of call recordings that reveals additional unfair and deceptive practices. 
 
 New evidence substantially expands original $100 million-plus lawsuit substantially 
 
 Ferguson’s original 2016 lawsuit asserts Comcast violated the CPA to all of its nearly 1.2 million subscribers in Washington state. The lawsuit is the first of its kind in the nation — though the SPP is a nationwide program. 
 
 When filing his lawsuit, Ferguson announced he is seeking full restitution for the $73 million paid by SPP subscribers in Washington state. He announced he is also seeking penalties for violations of the CPA for a total of more and $100 million to hold Comcast accountable. The CPA allows a penalty of up to $2,000 per violation. 
 
 With this new evidence of these significant additional violations, Ferguson is seeking substantially more. 
 
 Shortly before Ferguson filed his lawsuit, Comcast increased the monthly price of the SPP from $4.99 to $5.99. The cost of the SPP has tripled since 2011. 
 
 Senior Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Rupert and Assistant Attorneys General Daniel Davies and Seann Colgan are handling the case for Washington. 
 
 If Washington consumers believe Comcast added the SPP to their account without their consent, they should file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office by going to www.atg.wa.gov and clicking on the “file a complaint” button on the homepage. 
 
 -30- 
 
 The Office of the Attorney General is the chief legal office for the state of Washington with attorneys and staff in 27 divisions across the state providing legal services to roughly 200 state agencies, boards and commissions. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more. 
 
 Contacts: 
 
 Brionna Aho, Communications Director, (360) 753-2727; brionna.aho@atg.wa.gov 

 State Attorney General Bob Ferguson expanded an ongoing lawsuit with Comcast on Thursday, claiming the cable giant charged many customers for a monthly service plan without telling them. Comcast says the state’s claims are baseless and mischaracterize its policies. 
 
 The Washington state attorney general’s office expanded an ongoing lawsuit with Comcast on Thursday, claiming that the cable giant signed up many Washington state customers for a monthly service plan without telling them. 
 
 The state agency said it reviewed an initial 150 sample customer-service calls to Comcast and found that 74 people were subscribed for a so-called “service-protection plan” without the plan being mentioned at all on the call. The plan currently costs $5.99 per month. 
 
 The amended complaint filed Wednesday builds on the attorney general’s original suit, filed in August 2016. The original suit sought about $100 million in restitution for consumers and penalties over claims Comcast misrepresented the service-protection plan’s coverage and inappropriately charged customers for credit checks. 
 
 With the new allegations, that amount will grow quite a bit, Attorney General Bob Ferguson said during a media briefing Thursday. His office did not have an exact figure. 
 
 Comcast turned over call recordings from 1,500 customers who subscribe to the service-protection plan. The calls took place within three days of the customer signing up for the plan. 
 
 Phone calls are not the only way to sign up for the plan. The majority of customers, about 75 percent, sign up for the plan on the phone, but it can also be done online or in stores. 
 
 In addition to the 74 people who were signed up for the plan despite it not being mentioned on the phone, in two of the 150 calls the state office has reviewed, it said people declined the service plan but were signed up anyway. In another 29, customers were not told that the service plan had a recurring monthly charge, Ferguson said. 
 
 The company denied the added claims. “The Attorney General’s new assertions are largely based on a flawed methodology and assumptions, and today’s press conference misrepresented the facts,” Marianne Bichsel, vice president of external affairs for Comcast in Washington, said in a statement Thursday. 
 
 Since 2011, more than half a million Washington residents have subscribed to the service-protection plan, which covers repairs to customer-owned wiring related to Xfinity TV, voice and internet service. 
 
 The suit against Philadelphia-based Comcast, the country’s largest cable company, is a “very significant” consumer-protection case for the state, Ferguson said. The office has settled large consumer lawsuits before, including one with Volkswagen that resulted in the car company paying $26 million to the state because of “deceptive marketing” related to its diesel vehicles. 
 
 Ferguson’s office started an investigation into calls involving Comcast’s service-protection plan in 2015, and informed the company at that time. 
 
 King County Superior Court Judge Timothy Bradshaw ordered Comcast in May to turn over a sampling of 1,500 recordings of calls. Comcast said it ended up turning over about 4,500 calls. 
 
 The company had already deleted tens of thousands of recordings from the past few years, Ferguson said. 
 
 The majority of the recordings that were turned over took place between February and June 2016. 
 
 The cable company has argued in court that the state’s claims are baseless and mischaracterize Comcast’s policies. 
 
 Bichsel said the attorney general also mischaracterized Comcast’s policies for how long it keeps recordings of calls, saying “any accusation that Comcast deleted calls because of this investigation is just plain wrong.” 
 
 A trial date has been set for next July. 

 Each month our office receives more than 2,000 emails asking for help or information. We have found that many of the constituent inquiries fall into the same categories. In some cases, these inquiries can more efficiently be handled by the agency that specializes in the area of the complaint. In order to help serve you in a more timely manner, we have provided answers to the most asked questions in each of these categories in Help by Topic . 
 
 The Attorney General's Office is authorized to bring legal action only in the name of the State of Washington, and is prohibited from serving as an attorney for individual consumers. We are further prohibited from giving advice, rendering opinions or interpretations, or conducting research on behalf of individuals or businesses. 
 
 We offer an informal complaint resolution service to Washington state residents, and to consumers with complaints about businesses located in Washington state. Through this process, we contact businesses to determine their response to consumer complaints. If a business refuses to respond or to make an adjustment, we cannot compel them to do so. We inform consumers of alternatives if our complaint resolution service is not successful. 
 
 Online 
 
 By Mail 
 
 Download a PDF file or call to request a form by mail. 
 
 Seattle 
 
 800 5th Ave. Suite 2000 
 
 Seattle, WA. 98104-3188 
 
 
 
 Call with Questions 
 
 Our call centers are open M-F 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. 
 
 1.800.551.4636 (in Washington only) 
 
 206.464.6684 
 
 1.800.833.6388 (Washington State Relay Service for the hearing impaired) 
 
 
 
 Complaint Process 
 
 Our staff will evaluate your complaint. 
 
 If your complaint is within our area of responsibility: 
 
 The complaint will be assigned to a staff member. In most cases that person will send a copy of your complaint letter, and supporting documents, to the business and ask for a response. We will let you know the name of the staff member handling your complaint and what has been done. Should you have any new information, you should send it to the attention of that person. Most firms will respond, but it may take three weeks or more from the time you first register your complaint. If we don’t get a response within a reasonable time, we will attempt to contact the firm again. In many cases the business will respond with a satisfactory solution, that we will forward on to you, and the case will be closed. 
 
 In some cases there may not be a basis for action by this office; however, in that event, we may be able to suggest other options available. 
 
 Some consumer problems can be handled most efficiently by another agency. If this is the case with your complaint we will refer you to that agency. 
 
 What if the business does NOT cooperate? 
 
 If the business disagrees with your information or they believe you are not legally entitled to an adjustment, this office cannot compel a firm to resolve a complaint. In such a case, we will inform you of your options. The main option in such disputes is to bring a legal action, such as in Small Claims Court. If the amount claimed by you is over the limit handled by Small Claims Court, a private lawsuit may be necessary. The state Consumer Protection Act provides a remedy for individuals who have been harmed by unfair or deceptive business practices. If you are successful in such a suit you may also recover the costs of bringing suit, including your attorney’s fees. 
 
 When does the AGO bring a lawsuit? 
 
 Whether or not your individual complaint is resolved to your satisfaction, the basic information on your problem will be retained along with all other complaint information we receive. This information helps us to identify patterns of illegal activity which require enforcement action by the Attorney General’s Office. When such a pattern occurs, we may take more formal action which can include meeting with the firm and their attorney to attempt to resolve the issues. If this fails to resolve our concerns, we may file a lawsuit. Typically, when we file legal action, we may ask that consumers harmed by the practice be compensated, and we may ask that the court order the defendant to pay a civil penalty. 
 
 One criterion we use in selecting cases for legal action is the extent to which the activity harms the public as a whole. Another consideration is how likely our action will be in discouraging unfair practices in the future. 

 Further Reading How Comcast convinced customers to buy “near-worthless” service plans The attorney general of Washington has filed a new amended complaint in an ongoing lawsuit against Comcast, claiming that "new evidence" reveals "even more deceptive conduct than previously alleged." 
 
 The lawsuit, which was initially submitted in August 2016, alleged that hundreds of thousands of Washington residents were "deceived" into paying "at least $73 million in subscription fees over the last five years for a near-worthless ‘protection plan.’" 
 
 According to the amended complaint, which was filed in King County Superior Court on Thursday, newly obtained recorded calls between Comcast and its Washington customers who subscribed to its "Service Protection Plan" show "that Comcast may have signed up more than half of all SPP subscribers without their consent. Comcast deceived consumers even when mentioning the SPP, telling them the SPP plan was ‘free’ when they signed up, when in fact, Comcast would automatically charge them every month after the first month." 
 
 In a statement, Attorney General Bob Ferguson called this new evidence "even more egregious than we first realized." 
 
 "The extent of their deception is shocking, and I will hold them accountable for their treatment of Washington consumers," he continued. 
 
 Further Reading Washington state sues Comcast, says it sold near-worthless service plans As Ars reported earlier, Comcast’s claims are misleading for several reasons, according to the Washington AG’s office. The service plans do not cover repairs of wire concealed within walls (or "wall-fished"). Some customers were told that the plans cover work outside their homes, even though repairs to Comcast equipment or outside wiring "are already covered [for free] by Comcast's Customer Guarantee promises," the lawsuit said. 
 
 "In short, due to limitations in the Terms and Conditions, the SPP often ends up failing to cover any repairs at all," the complaint continued. 
 
 "The short coaxial cable running from a customer's outlet to the cable box is typically Comcast Equipment that is covered by the Comcast Guarantee rather than the SPP, as are the HDMI cables provided by Comcast, and in many houses all of the remaining wiring is wall-fished. And as noted above, the SPP does not cover repairs to customer equipment, Comcast equipment, or outside wiring, either. In its advertisements and sales scripts, Comcast omitted the fact that repairs to customer equipment are not considered part of a 'service call.' Likewise, the advertisements failed to disclose that the Comcast Guarantee already covers service calls that "result from a Comcast equipment or network problem." 
 
 Comcast did not require customers to sign any agreement or confirm that they read the service plan terms and conditions before subscribing, and Comcast doesn't train or require its sales reps to send a copy of the terms and conditions to customers, the lawsuit said. 
 
 In May 2017, Comcast was ordered by King County Superior Court Judge Timothy Bradshaw to provide recordings of previous phone calls illustrating instances where Washingtonians were sold the SPP. In response, Comcast turned over 1,500 such calls. 
 
 According to the attorney general office’s new statement, it analyzed a "random sample" of 150 calls and found that in half of these calls, the SPP was not even mentioned. But that wasn't the end of the story. 
 
 "Additional consumers in the sample explicitly rejected the SPP, but Comcast signed them up anyway," the statement continues. "Consequently, Comcast enrolled more than half of these subscribers without their consent." 
 
 Comcast, for its part, denied any wrongdoing. 
 
 "We strongly disagree with the Attorney General’s new claims," Sena Fitzmaurice, a Comcast vice president and spokeswoman, emailed Ars in a statement. 
 
 "The Service Protection Plan gives those consumers who choose to purchase it great value by covering virtually all service charges over 99 percent of the time. The Attorney General’s new assertions are largely based on a flawed methodology and assumptions, and today’s press conference misrepresented the facts. In fact, the court flatly rejected the AG’s mischaracterization of Comcast’s routine handling of agent call records. We will continue to vigorously defend this in court."
– "New evidence" has emerged to expand a $100 million 2016 lawsuit against Comcast by Washington state, with accusations of "deceptive conduct" that's "even more egregious than we first realized." That's per the state attorney general, Ars Technica reports, with an amended complaint filed in King County Superior Court after the AG's office examined a "random sample" of 150 recorded calls between Comcast and its customers. The case revolves around Comcast's Service Protection Plan, which more than 500,000 Washingtonians subscribed to over a four-year span starting in 2011, paying at least $73 million, per an AG Office statement. The issue, per the suit, is the SPP is "near worthless" because it doesn't cover certain repairs (including wires embedded in walls) or charges customers for repairs already covered for free under Comcast's customer guarantee. The suit says Comcast may have signed up more than half of SPP subscribers without their consent, including those in the calls who were never informed of the plan or clearly said they didn't want to join. Also alleged: that Comcast reps told some customers the plan was "free"—only for customers to be hit with a monthly charge of $5.99 after the first month. "The extent of their deception is shocking," AG Bob Ferguson says. In a statement to Ars Technica, a Comcast rep says, "We strongly disagree with the Attorney General’s new claims," adding the evidence is "largely based on a flawed methodology and assumptions." Consumers who think they've been ripped off can file a complaint on the AG's website. Per KING-TV, it's not clear how much consumers will each get if the suit is won or settled. A trial date is set for July, per the Seattle Times. (Comcast isn't the most hated telecom company.)