Skip to content Skip to navigation

Unlawful Charges

Tiger Natural Gas

When plaintiff Emily Fishman received a call offering her a new and purportedly cheaper gas program, it must have sounded like a good deal. According to the complaint, the representative claimed that a rate hike of 18.8% had already begun with her current supplier, PG&E, and that PG&E had also been granted another of 33% over the next three years. The complaint claims that the rep offered a variable rate program with Tiger Natural Gas that was free and capped at 69 cents per therm. Fishman signed up to receive her gas from Tiger, but after nine months, the complaint says, she had paid far more for gas than she would have paid with PG&E, plus a “daily charge” that Tiger had never mentioned.

Sunbelt Rental Equipment

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. has agreed to settle a class action created from five different cases in five states alleging that Sunbelt charges customers excessive “Pay on Return Refueling Charges” and “Transportation Surcharges” that exceeded Sunbelt’s cost for the services. The plaintiffs claim that Sunbelt thereby breached the customers’ contracts and violated certain state laws. 

Hertz Logo

This settlement resolves a class action suit claiming that Hertz car rental company violated its rental agreements when it charged an administrative fee to customers who received parking tickets and paid the tickets on or before the due date. 

CenturyLink Logo on Green Wall

When plaintiff Anna Williams wanted to transfer her CenturyLink account into the name of Gulf Coast Attorneys, the complaint for this class action alleges, the company told her she wouldn’t have to terminate her account and open a new one—and then she was charged new account activation fees and other charges she’d been told she wouldn’t have to pay. And according to the complaint, plaintiff Brent Lee LLC was charged more that the prices quoted for telephone and Internet services, and charge for services he never agreed to accept. The complaint alleges that these are only two examples of the deceptive behavior that CenturyLink has been practicing for a long time, and this allegation is supported by the allegations in the whistleblower case, Heiser v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. CV2017-008928, filed in June 2017 in an Arizona court.

Building Site

For some time, some municipalities in North Carolina have been charging builders and developers “impact fees” or “capacity replacement fees.” These are not the usual connection fees that new developments are charged to hook up an area of new homes to services. They’re fees that look ahead to building new sewers and water lines in the future as the area’s population grows. The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled in a case against the charging of these fees, and developers and builders are now filing class action cases to see if they can get their money back from municipalities that have charged them for these fees.

Medical Records

The complaint in this class action allege that the defendants—Acton Corporation, IM Records, Inc., Pro Impact Physical Therapy & Sports Performance, LLC, and Med-South, Inc.—all charged unlawful fees when the respective plaintiffs requested medical or health records from them. The amount that companies can charge for health records is regulated by federal law.

image of a Sysco semi-truck

This This class action alleges that Sysco Corporation’s fuel surcharges do not bear a relationship to fluctuations in fuel charges and that they are simply considered revenue.

image of century link logo

According to the complaint for this class action, CenturyLink customers routinely receive both poor service and extra charges for Internet services.

A court has found Amazon liable in a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission alleging that Amazon permitted children to rack up charges to their parents, within “free” games, without their parents’ permission. The purchases, for virtual goods like coins, stars, and pet foods, were not password-protected, and the charges ranged anywhere from 99 cents to $99.99.

This is a settlement of a class action against WCA Waste Corporation (and its subsidiaries), which provides solid waste disposal services under agreements with its customers.