How's Post?


How's Post?


An AT&T logo on a wall.

AT&T supervisors inspired gross sales reps to create faux DirecTV Now accounts to make the web video service appear extra profitable than it actually was, a class-action criticism alleges.

AT&T “promot[ed] and reward[ed] account fraud” akin to creating the faux accounts and signing AT&T clients up for DirecTV Now “without the customer knowing,” the lawsuit claims.

The brand new allegations had been made Friday in an amended criticism as a part of a lawsuit filed towards AT&T in April in US District Courtroom for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that AT&T lied to buyers so as to conceal DirecTV Now’s failure.

“AT&T misrepresented the true condition of DirecTV Now and hid the associated risks,” the amended criticism says. DirecTV Now’s inevitable failure was subsequently made clear when subscriber numbers started to drop, the amended criticism says:

The dramatic decline in DirecTV Now subscriber numbers was a materialization of the dangers related, together with: improper gross sales practices, such because the creation of pretend accounts, which predictably led subscribers to cancel these accounts, upon realizing they had been being billed for a service they didn’t use; the aggressive use of promotional campaigns to artificially maintain subscriber ranges; and promoting the product at irrationally low costs that might finally want to extend.

As we beforehand reported, the lawsuit seeks certification of a category consisting of all individuals who acquired AT&T frequent inventory in reference to the Time Warner Inc. acquisition and all individuals who acquired AT&T inventory between October 22, 2016 and October 24, 2018. When AT&T purchased Time Warner in June 2018, Time Warner shareholders’ inventory was transformed into AT&T inventory. The lawsuit claims that AT&T issued these shares pursuant to a registration assertion with the SEC that lied about DirecTV Now’s efficiency.

AT&T TV biz in freefall

When contacted by Ars yesterday, AT&T stated it would “fight these baseless claims in court,” however it didn’t present any particular response to the brand new allegations.

AT&T should defend towards the lawsuit whereas its TV enterprise is in fast decline regardless of the acquisitions of DirecTV and Time Warner. AT&T informed shareholders final week that it expects to lose about 1.1 million TV clients within the third quarter in its DirecTV satellite tv for pc and U-verse wireline TV providers. That does not embrace DirecTV Now, which was lately renamed “AT&T TV Now.”

AT&T launched DirecTV Now in November 2016 with low cost pricing beginning at $35 a month. DirecTV Now constructed a subscriber base of 1.86 million by the tip of Q3 2018, however that quantity dropped to 1.34 million by June 2019 after a collection of worth will increase.

The criticism says that AT&T and executives together with CEO Randall Stephenson violated the Securities Act by making false and deceptive statements in regards to the efficiency of DirecTV Now. Plaintiffs are asking for compensatory damages for buyers.

Ex-employees allege shady techniques

The amended criticism quotes 17 confidential witnesses who used to work for AT&T and one different who labored for an AT&T contractor. The witnesses embrace gross sales reps and consultants, gross sales managers, an assistant vp of gross sales, members of DirecTV Now’s product analytics crew, a lead monetary analyst, a regional director of gross sales operations, an operations director, a product developer, a monetary analyst, and a lead strategic pricing supervisor. They labored for AT&T in numerous elements of the US, together with: Hawaii; Michigan; Pennsylvania; New Jersey; California; an AT&T regional workplace protecting Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi; Georgia; Oregon; and Idaho.

CW-1 (confidential witness 1), a gross sales rep for AT&T in Hawaii from 2015 to June 2018, described a observe of making faux DirecTV Now accounts for patrons. The criticism says:

CW-1 reported that he was “taught to manipulate” gross sales of DirecTV Now when clients had been activating new cell phones. Based on CW-1, when a wi-fi buyer would come into the shop to get a brand new telephone, the client historically needed to pay an activation payment to improve their telephones. After the launch of DirecTV Now, CW-1 and his colleagues had been taught to transform the activation payment into as much as three subscriptions of DirecTV Now and covertly waive that payment.

CW-1 and different gross sales reps informed clients that there was a $35 activation payment and that their buy got here with one to a few months of DirecTV Now without cost, the criticism stated. CW-1 and fellow AT&T staff “would then waive the activation fee on AT&T’s system but would not tell the customer they were doing this. Instead, CW-1 and his colleagues would charge the amount of the activation fee to the customer but apply that money to the DirecTV Now subscription.”

The criticism continues:

CW-1 added that when DirecTV Now was operating a promotion, Gross sales Representatives had been taught to create as much as three accounts with that $35 activation payment, and would achieve this through the use of “bogus” e mail addresses for the additional accounts, and “sneakily run” the client’s bank card for every account. CW-1 added that AT&T’s system was designed to permit this and didn’t require the e-mail accounts to be verified, so the personnel within the retailer might “put any” e mail handle into their methods and run the identical bank card for a number of accounts.

CW-1 additional suggested that when the supposed trial interval had handed, he and his colleagues had been imagined to manually cancel these subscriptions so the client wouldn’t get charged. CW-1 defined that they’d do that by a “back end” system, with out the client ever figuring out. CW-1 added that they’d maintain a “log” which detailed the client’s info, the faux e mail addresses, and the date that they wanted to cancel. Based on CW-1, the log was stored on the notepad operate on an iPad so he might manually go in and cancel the accounts. CW-1 added that generally the purchasers would proceed to be charged on their bank cards with out their data, however most occasions, CW-1 and his colleagues would go into the accounts and cancel them manually to take away the recurring cost.

CW-1 stated this observe started in 2017 and “that he and his colleagues were able to make the subscriber growth ‘explode’ by using these sales tactics,” the criticism stated. Every gross sales rep was initially given a goal of eight to 10 new DirecTV accounts every month, however that “quickly increased to 20-30 new accounts per sales representative, each month,” the criticism stated.

CW-1 additional claimed “that he heard from AT&T employees from both the west and east coasts of the US stating that they had been directed to create fake accounts in the same way that he had,” the criticism says.

Similar tactic reported in different states

Different confidential witnesses informed related tales, in keeping with the criticism.

CW-2, who labored for AT&T as a senior gross sales advisor in Michigan, “said that they would try to pitch DirecTV Now but it was a ‘very hard sell’ and that sometimes the customer would say that they did not want the product, but that they would go ahead and add it to the account anyways without telling them,” the criticism stated.

CW-5, a retail gross sales advisor at AT&T shops in New Jersey, reported that “in December 2017, a Store Manager sat him down and explained that management followed a certain sales pitch to get customers to sign up for DirecTV Now, even if the customer did not understand what they were signing up for,” the lawsuit stated. “CW-5 explained that this included telling the customer they were being charged for one thing, but in actuality assigning that charge in the system to DirecTV Now.”

Alleged false statements to buyers

The lawsuit lists what it calls quite a few “false and misleading statements and omissions” in statements to buyers between September 2016 and September 2018. With these false and deceptive statements, AT&T “created an impression of a state of affairs related to DirecTV Now that differed in a material way from the one that actually existed,” the criticism stated.

For instance, AT&T continued touting the supposed success of DirecTV Now all through most of 2018 even after “AT&T had conducted an internal investigation into fraudulent sales practices and DirecTV Now which found widespread fraudulent account creation by AT&T employees,” the criticism stated. In September 2018, Stephenson informed buyers that “the [DirecTV Now] customer base has been very resilient to the price moves as we put new functionality in the platform, cloud DVR and multiple streams.”

AT&T lastly started to disclose the reality about DirecTV Now’s efficiency in October 2018, the lawsuit stated. That is when AT&T “announced a dramatic reversal in the DirecTV Now business which it claimed was the result of a decision to ‘rationalize’ the pricing of the product,” the criticism stated. Additional disclosures allegedly made it clear “that AT&T had engaged in aggressive promotional activity and amassed a massive group of highly promotional customers that all but assured DirecTV Now would not be profitable.”

The brand new outcomes and disclosures “partially revealed the falsity of AT&T’s prior statements about DirecTV Now and constituted a materialization of previously concealed risks regarding DirecTV Now,” the criticism stated.

Regardless of these disclosures, Stephenson informed buyers in December 2018 that the service had 2 million clients, the criticism stated. However DirecTV Now hadn’t really reached 2 million clients, because it misplaced 267,000 clients in This autumn 2018 after hitting a peak of 1.86 million, the criticism stated.

“Defendants were conveying to the market that DirecTV Now was continuing to grow while the opposite was true,” the criticism stated.


Log In

Forgot password?

Don't have an account? Register

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.


My Library