Who profits from cramming? FTC challenges T-Mobile's role in bogus billing

Share This Page

It was an all-too-common occurrence.  People’s mobile phone bills included unexplained – and unauthorized – monthly charges.  It’s called cramming and the FTC has brought a series of cases against companies that had fees for ringtones, horoscopes, “love tips,” etc., placed on cell phone bills without consumers’ consent.  The crammers took a chunk of the cash, but you might be surprised to learn who the FTC says pocketed a 35-40% piece of the action.  A just-filed lawsuit pulls back the curtain on the role the FTC alleges that mobile phone carrier T-Mobile USA played in deceptive and unfair billing.

T-Mobile bills people for its own cell phone services and for services offered by those third-party ringtone and horoscope peddlers – often at a monthly cost of $9.99 per subscription.  T-Mobile’s bills make some clear and prominent claims about its own services, but the FTC says information about third-party services was often buried in fine print.  You’ll want to read the complaint for details, but the gist of the FTC’s case is that it’s the law – and it’s always been the law – that it’s illegal to bill people without their express consent.

According to the FTC, choices T-Mobile made in how it billed customers exacerbated the problem of unauthorized charges.  For consumers who looked at an online bill summary, T-Mobile lumped fees for third-party subscriptions into one category called “Use Charges.”  If consumers clicked to expand that field, all they got was a line listing “Premium Services” with no explanation of what they were being billed for.

The FTC says T-Mobile’s full bills, which often totaled 50 pages or more, were no clearer.  The company chose to include both third-party charges and charges for other services – for example, texting – under the not-very-descriptive descriptor “Usage Charges.”  Even if consumers dug down and found the “OTHER SERVICE PROVIDER CHARGES” section, they may have seen a caption like “8888906150 BrnStorm23918.”  The FTC says that didn't adequately explain to consumers that T-Mobile was billing them $9.99 per month for a trivia text service provided by another company.  Pre-paid customers were out of luck, too, since T-Mobile just deducted the $9.99 charge from their available minutes without any notification.

Add to the mix the FTC’s allegation that in many cases, T-Mobile ignored signs that it was lending a hand to crammers notorious for placing unauthorized charges on consumers’ bills.  “But how could T-Mobile know?” you might ask.  By looking at the facts right in front of them, the FTC's lawsuit alleges.

One warning sign the FTC says T-Mobile didn’t adequately heed was the pile of complaints from its customers.  As those numbers grew, T-Mobile’s own employees told the company that consumers “do not know what the charges are or why they are being billed for them.”  According to the complaint, in some cases, T-Mobile kept charging consumers for subscriptions that were resulting in refund rates as high as 40% in a single month.  (The FTC says that figure likely underestimates the percentage of consumers who were crammed because before they could ask for a refund, they first had to identify the charges.  No mean feat, given how T-Mobile listed third-party subscriptions on bills.)

Another red flag was data from the company’s own Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) – an in-house program that was supposed to review problematic subscription services.  It took a refund rate of 15% or more to get a service into the year-long PIP program.  If the refund rate temporarily dipped below 15% in a given month, the FTC says T-Mobile removed the service from the PIP.  If it rose above 15% the next month, T-Mobile reset the one-year clock all over again.  And even if T-Mobile terminated a particular subscription for unauthorized charges, it continued to charge consumers for other subscriptions sold by the same merchant.

There were more alarms the FTC says T-Mobile didn't properly heed.  Even after receiving credible alerts from industry auditors that certain companies were engaged in cramming, T-Mobile continued to charge consumers for their services and pocket its hefty share.

The warnings continued in the form of press reports, class action lawsuits, state AG settlements, and FTC law enforcement actions against crammers.  How did T-Mobile respond?  Aside from the ka-ching of money made from placing those companies’ charges on customers’ bills, the FTC says things were pretty quiet on T-Mobile’s end.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, T-Mobile didn’t respond well to consumer complaints.  In many cases, the company flat-out refused to give refunds for unauthorized charges or offered only partial refunds.  In other instances, consumers were told there was nothing that could be done about charges they had already paid, but that T-Mobile would block future charges.  According to the FTC, the company sometimes failed to follow through with even that half-a-loaf promise.  T-Mobile told some consumers to take it up with the third-party merchant, but then didn’t give them accurate contact information.  The FTC says in other instances, T-Mobile told consumers they must have OKed the charges, even though T-Mobile had no proof to back that up.  According to the complaint, T-Mobile even told some people they had to pay up because they hadn't taken sufficient steps to actively decline a merchant's solicitation.

Count I of the lawsuit alleges that T-Mobile violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making deceptive representations about charges on consumers’ phone bills.  Count II focuses on allegedly unfair billing practices.  What's the FTC asking for?  A court order to prevent T-Mobile from engaging in mobile cramming, refunds for consumers, and disgorgement of T-Mobile’s ill-gotten gains.

You’ll want to follow the case as it goes to trial in Seattle.  In the meantime, bookmark the Business Center’s Payments and Billing page for compliance resources.




Yes, indeed they are as thief as the crammers, we switch to t-mobile one year ago in May 2013, diligently explained the T-mobile Premium Retailer inside Washington Square Mall in Portland, Oregon about our monthly maximum payment agreeable, he assured me that monthly payments, to include payment for 4 phones, family plan, all included, unlimited text messages, and internet for $144/per month, first month was way over that and charges started in the next 15 days, not 30 days as he promised, every month there was an unauthorized charges,always something different, it has been a night mare with T-mobile, statements are very difficult to understand, very ambiguous, I personally contacted T-mobile to try to clarify the unauthorized charges, and they often will put you on hold then hang up so you start all over again until this is no longer your priority to resolve. I tried cancelling service and get reimbursement for our $1000-upfront payment for the 4 family phone plan we purchased on May 18th-2013, and was told that we were over the 14 day return policy, even taught we still were under the 30 days of opening account. since they put you on a binding contract, T-mobile have their hands on your neck and mouth very deceptive, we are very unhappy with how things unfolded after the purchase, we have copies of all doc's should any one needs to process a claim, we are tired and despise T-mobile now.
There's no intellectual honesty - it's non the less clear that institutionalism decreases ethics in practice, I believe, to a competition in indoctrination; and in theory, to an agreeable exercise on a level with crossword puzzle. Marketing seem to occupy the position long vacated by cognitive psychology through compromised ethics; and ethics is eroded by institutionalism, it's perceived best enemy, because ethics can not be manufactured intuitively, conceptually and psychologically in a production line. Thence, I think that FTC's work, which follows strictly law, is commendable to adjust that faculty in innovation to the desired end, but also, I think, demands observance of the foundation on which the principles underlying sciences and metaphysics notions may not be compromised and / or negated liberty and freedom, the basis of the idealism of materialism - checking the free will! Balancing the equation between the governmental goals, the economy downturn and the consumer protection in the contemporary time may demand a bit of debate on idealism radicalism in play, as far as those policies are concerned. However, for American consumers it is good news, too, to have absolute protection.

Since switching to Tmoble I have found any complaint is taken very fast and not listened to very completely as I have rushed off the line when on the phone.

Add new comment

Comment Policy

Privacy Act Statement

It is your choice whether to submit a comment. If you do, you must create a user name, or we will not post your comment. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes this information collection for purposes of managing online comments. Comments and user names are part of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) public records system (PDF), and user names also are part of the FTC’s computer user records system (PDF). We may routinely use these records as described in the FTC’s Privacy Act system notices. For more information on how the FTC handles information that we collect, please read our privacy policy.