Comcast Sued For Robocalling Woman 153 Times Over A Bill She'd Already Paid

from the if-you're-annoyed,-press-1 dept

Techdirt’s very own Karl Bode had just written about Time Warner being forced to pay over $200k for robocalling a woman 153 times about an overdue balance that actually was owed by a completely different person. What with all the complaints that ISPs these days aren’t forced to actually compete with one another, Comcast, in its infinite wisdom, decided to prove to the public that it will in fact directly compete with Time Warner on the battlefield of robocalling people about stuff when they shouldn’t. Comcast’s entry into the competition concerns the company robocalling Kia Elder about an overdue balance…that she’d already paid four years ago.

According to the lawsuit, Comcast customer Kia Elder was robocalled repeatedly by Comcast for an overdue balance of $527 she said she paid way back in 2011. Yet Comcast repeatedly called Elder “once or twice a day” between September 2014 and “at least through” June 18, and was incapable of updating its systems to show the bill had been paid despite repeated complaints. Elder and her attorney are now seeking $500 to $1,500 for each alleged Comcast violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. “Defendant acknowledged plaintiff’s instructions to stop calling her phone but did not stop,” states the complaint.

Yes, Comcast apparently called Kia regarding a bill that had already been paid more often than a high school kid calls his ex to try to win her back. Kia reportedly complained about the calls, but they still kept coming. She tried to get Comcast to update its records to reflect the paid bill, but the calls kept coming. And now, thanks to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which essentially requires companies not plug up the public’s cell phones with robotic corpo-vomit, she’s seeking anywhere between $200k and half-a-mil-do as punishment.

Now, I’m not sure why legislation is required to inform companies that calling someone’s cell phone twice a day is inappropriate, but it sure seems like Comcast hasn’t given up on its dedicated aims to treating the public like shit now that the merger-dream is over.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: comcast

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Comcast Sued For Robocalling Woman 153 Times Over A Bill She'd Already Paid”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Mason Wheeler (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ugh, not just college housing. That happened to me at my old apartment. Apparently whoever used to own my phone number owed someone money. If I had a nickel for every time I had to tell someone “no, Carla doesn’t own this phone number anymore, I don’t know who she is or how to contact her, please update your records…”

Xploding_Cobra (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Not even just that. I’ve owned my house outright since the mid 90’s and I STILL get calls from some company I never heard of trying to collect some debt from the guy that had this place before me. The fact that I went to grade school with the guy is beside the point – I still have no idea where the hell he might be today.

David says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

A city I lived in had a suburb with its own area code. Somewhat unusual. If you substitute my area code for that of the suburb, you’ll reach a drug counseling center.

If you leave off the suburb area code when calling the counseling center from elsewhere in the city…

Took me quite some time to figure out how I was getting all those calls.

Not much the phone company can do about that though.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

…wrongful robocalls…

Unlike telemarketing scams and illegal (doesn’t abide by Do Not Call) calls both these cases involve a prior business relationship. Such relationship creates exceptions to the various laws, including calling cel phones (which requires prior consent).

What both companies (or their agents) did falls under the definition of harassment. That has always been illegal, even for collection calls.

MDT (profile) says:

RE: Black Bellamy & What Happened Twice

This is twice that it has made major headlines, and the amounts are large enough that people will spread the tail to their friends, especially if their friends have had this problem.

“Hey dude! Dude! You’re rich!”

“What the eff you talkin about?”

“Man, that stupid cable company that keeps callin about your brother’s account, they ain’t allowed to do that, you done tole them a dozen times you ain’t him! You can get like, a million bucks in court for them doin that!”

“Holy eff, you serious? I gotta find me a lawyer!”

jilocasin (profile) says:

“Now, I’m not sure why legislation is required to inform companies that calling someone’s cell phone twice a day is inappropriate…

That’s easy, most companies believe it’s their god given right to abuse, harass, demean, anyone at anytime if there’s the remotest possibility doing so might [and apparently any percentage above zero is good enough] make them the tiniest amount of additional income.

The only surprising thing is that such a law restricting such behavior exists.

tqk (profile) says:


Now, I’m not sure why legislation is required to inform companies that calling someone’s cell phone twice a day is inappropriate …

Er, what? I’m sure you don’t mean what that reads like to me. Twice, I can accept. The third time, immediately escalate to their supervisor. Hundreds of times? That’s just “Holy !@#$!” Of course this is legislation territory!

This is like that TV commercial: “Pay me now, or pay me later.” You can’t be bothered to fix your broken system after being told hundreds of times it’s broken? You can’t be bothered to test your system before you roll it out to ensure it’s working as it should? You can’t be bothered to exercise *any* quality control or due diligence or supervise your employees’ actions? You owe me your first, second, and third child for twenty years of indentured servitude, and don’t blame me if they hunt you down and kill you for that, you bonehead! Oh, and die screaming falling into a volcano!

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Pardon?

The purpose of the legislation isn’t to tell them that’s not not acceptable, as that’s clear from the start. No, the purpose is to set the fine amounts, so that the ones being harassed know about how much they can get if they win, and decide if it’s worth it, and the companies can’t argue their way into paying a couple of bucks for each call as they ‘weren’t really that bad’.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...