HAGENS BERMAN

Date Filed: June 18, 2005
Court: U.S. District Court
Location: Arizona
Ticker Symbol: MCIP

In July 2005, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a class-action complaint on behalf of telephone customers nationwide who were unlawfully billed by MCI, Inc. (NASDAQ:MCIP) for monthly service charges despite the fact they were not MCI customers. The complaint alleges that MCI assesses the monthly fees directly or through consumers' local phone bills, and asserts claims against MCI for violations of the federal Communications Act and for unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, MCI enrolled non-customers and former MCI long-distance subscribers without their knowledge or consent in the "Basic Dial-1 Plan" or another MCI calling plan that carries a monthly service fee. In 2002, MCI began charging a $3.00 or $5.00 minimum usage fee (MUF) and a $3.95 monthly recurring fee to consumers who did not have active billing accounts with MCI and whom MCI has no reasonable basis to believe are current MCI customers.

The complaint also states that MCI's policy and practice is to reverse, refund, or credit back unauthorized charges only to consumers who threaten to bring legal action, lodge complaints with regulatory authorities, or take other action. Consumers who do not pay the unauthorized charges are turned over to collections agencies.

Shary Everett, a Goodyear, Arizona resident, was repeatedly assessed monthly service charges by MCI even though she had a different long distance carrier and had terminated MCI service at a former address several years earlier. MCI refused to reverse the unauthorized charges and threatened Ms. Everett with a collections notice for failing to pay. To stop MCI from continuing to bill her without authorization, she was forced to restrict all long-distance service on her telephone line.

Last week, Federal District Court Judge Rosyln Silver denied MCI's motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiff Shary Everett could act as the class representative notwithstanding MCI's attempt to refund her monies after litigation commenced. Judge Silver also concluded that her court, not the Federal Communications Commission, is the proper forum for assessing whether MCI, as the complaint alleges, engaged in a deceptive scheme to avoid reimbursing improperly collected fees.

        

Related Documents

MCI Complaint