Suddenlink Reduced Maintenance, Poor Service Oklahoma Class Action

This class action takes issue with the service provided by Suddenlink Communications, under the control of Altice USA. The class is Suddenlink customers in Oklahoma, although much of the material presented by the complaint refers to Suddenlink performance in West Virginia. The complaint alleges that Altice has reduced its maintenance work, maintenance budget, and number of full-time employees, and made other changes that have led to large numbers of consumer complaints.

The class for this action is all Oklahoma customers of Suddenlink video service, phone service, and high-speed Internet service, between January 1, 2016 to the present.

In its first numbered paragraph, the complaint refers to “Suddenlink’s ever-changing unconscionable self-contradicting adhesion contract” that the complaint implies shields the company from accountability in a number of ways.

The complaint quotes the Public Service Commission of West Virginia as saying that Suddenlink has failed “to provide safe, adequate and reliable service … by, inter alia, intentionally reducing its maintenance work and maintenance budget, reducing full-time employees, changing its methods of communicating with its subscribers and ignoring the thousands of customer complaints that resulted.”

Altice acquired the facilities and customers of Suddenlink in West Virginia in 2015. The complaint quotes it as saying, “Altice already has considerable experience … that will enable it to contribute global strategic insights to Cequel’s [Suddenlink’s] current and future operations.” It touted its “strategic investments that enhance their value proposition for consumers.”

But the complaint alleges that Altice’s real plans involved aggressive cost-cutting at the expense of services. The complaint claims, “By 2017, Altice USA CEO Dexter Goei bragged that Suddenlink has taken out at least half of the targeted costs, with more cuts to come. … At the same time, Goei crowed that Suddenlink’s 47.3% profit margins were the highest in the U.S. cable industry.”

Because of the increasing volume of customer complaints, the Public Service Commission opened an investigation. The complaint quotes a long list of its findings, including the following:

• “Suddenlink customers cannot request a credit for a qualifying outage when they call to report the outage. A customer has to call a second time, after the outage, to request a credit.”
• “When calling to report a service issue, Suddenlink customers oftentimes have to wait days or weeks for a service technician.”
• “Suddenlink did not post consumer payments timely, which resulted in customers’ service being terminated and/or incurring late fees.”
• “Suddenlink significantly decreased the amount of its outside plant maintenance in year 2018, and continued to decrease its maintenance and expenditure until year 2021.”
• “During the term of Altice’s Technical Service division’s operation, it stopped doing plant maintenance entirely.”

Suddenlink’s adhesion agreement with customers tries to impose arbitration on certain claims, but the complaint alleges that the agreement deprives arbitrators of the power to require it to improve its services. The complaint quotes it as saying that “neither You nor Suddenlink may seek, nor may the arbitrator award, non-individualized relief that would affect other account holders.”

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer, Utilities
Tags: Breach of Contract, Inadequate Service, Negligence, Reduction in Services, Telecommunications, Unfair Services, Unfair Terms and Conditions, Unjust Enrichment