1 DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER

DISTRICT COURT, CITY AND

COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO

1437 Bannock Street

Denver, CO 80202

STATE OF COLORADO, ex rel. PHILIP J. WEISER,

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Plaintiff,

CENTURYLINK, INC.; CENTURYTEL

BROADBAND SERVICES, LLC; CENTURYTEL OF

COLORADO, INC.; QWEST BROADBAND

SERVICES, INC.; QWEST CORPORATION;

CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC;

CENTURYTEL OF EAGLE, INC.; CENTURYTEL

TELEVIDEO, INC.; EL PASO COUNTY

TELEPHONE COMPANY

Defendants.

 COURT USE ONLY 

PHILIP J. WEISER, Attorney General

JAY B. SIMONSON, 24077*

First Assistant Attorney General

MARK T. BAILEY, 36861*

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center

1300 Broadway, 10

Floor

Denver, CO 80203

Telephone: (720) 508-6000

FAX: (720) 508-6040

*Counsel of Record

Case No.

Div.:

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, the State of Colorado, upon relation of Philip J. Weiser,

Attorney General for the State of Colorado, by and through undersigned

counsel, alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Since 2014, CenturyLink has systematically overcharged

Colorado consumers for telephone, internet, and television services.

2. CenturyLink falsely advertised “price locks” and fixed prices

and then charged more than the advertised price by adding a misleading

“Internet Cost Recovery Fee” to customers’ bills. Even though the price was

supposedly locked, CenturyLink twice increased the amount of the “Internet

Cost Recovery Fee.” Also, CenturyLink relied on a complex promotional

pricing scheme that led to frequent misquotes. Finally, CenturyLink failed

to provide promised refunds to consumers who returned their equipment at

the completion of service.

PARTIES

3. Philip J. Weiser is the duly elected Attorney General of the

State of Colorado and is authorized under C.R.S. § 6-1-103 to enforce the

provisions of the CCPA.

4. CenturyLink, Inc. is a Louisiana corporation with a principal

office street address of 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe, Louisiana 71203.

CenturyLink, Inc. commenced doing business in Colorado in or around

November 1999 and has done so through the date of this filing.

5. CenturyTel Broadband Services, LLC is a Louisiana limited

liability company with a principal office street address of 100 CenturyLink

Drive, Monroe, Louisiana 71203. CenturyTel Broadband Services, LLC

commenced doing business in Colorado in or around March 2000 and has

done so through the date of this filing. CenturyTel Broadband Services,

LLC does business under the trade name “CenturyLink Broadband.”

6. CenturyTel of Colorado, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with a

principal office street address of 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe, Louisiana

71203. CenturyTel of Colorado, Inc. does business under the trade names

“CenturyLink” and “CenturyTel.”

7. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with

a principal office street address of 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe,

Louisiana 71203. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. commenced doing

business in Colorado in or around July 1999 and has done so through the

date of this filing. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. does business under the

trade name “CenturyLink.”

8. Qwest Corporation is a Colorado corporation with a principal

office street address of 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe, Louisiana 71203.

Qwest Corporation does business under the trade name “CenturyLink.”

9. CenturyLink Communications, LLC is a Delaware corporation

with a principal office street address of 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe,

Louisiana 71203. CenturyLink Communications, LLC commenced doing

business in Colorado in or around November 1991 and has done so through

the date of this filing. CenturyLink Communications, LLC does business

under multiple trade names, including “CenturyLink QCC.”

10. CenturyTel of Eagle, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with a

principal office street address of 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe, Louisiana

71203.

11. CenturyTel Televideo, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation with a

principal office street address of 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe, Louisiana

71203. CenturyTel Televideo, Inc. commenced doing business in Colorado

on or about August 1, 2003 and has done so through the date of this filing.

12. The El Paso County Telephone Company is a Colorado

corporation with a principal office street address of 100 CenturyLink Drive,

Monroe, Louisiana 71203.

13. All Defendants participated in, cooperated in, directed,

approved of, sanctioned, and/or knowingly received funds from Colorado

consumers as a result of the deceptive trade practices described herein.

This Complaint refers to Defendants collectively as “Defendants” or

“CenturyLink.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. Pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 6-1-103 and 6-1-110, this Court has

jurisdiction to enter appropriate orders prior to and following an ultimate

determination of liability.

15. The violations alleged herein occurred, in part, in Denver

County, Colorado. Therefore, venue is proper in Denver County pursuant to

C.R.S. § 6-1-103 and C.R.C.P. 98 (2019).

RELEVANT TIMES

16. The conduct that gives rise to the claims for relief contained in

this Complaint has been ongoing since at least January 1, 2014, and

continues through the present day.

17. This action is timely brought pursuant to C.R.S. § 6-1-115

because it is initiated within three years of the date on which the last in a

series of false, misleading, and deceptive acts or practices occurred and/or

were discovered.

PUBLIC INTEREST

18. Through the unlawful practices of their business or occupation,

Defendants have deceived, misled, and financially injured hundreds of

thousands of Colorado consumers. Further, Defendants have taken market

share from their competitors through their deceptive trade practices.

Therefore, these legal proceedings are in the public interest and are

necessary to safeguard citizens from Defendants’ unlawful business

activities.

ACTS OF AGENTS

19. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act or

practice of Defendants, such allegation shall be deemed to mean that the

principals, owners, employees, independent contractors, agents, and

representatives of such Defendants performed, directed, or authorized such

act or practice on behalf of and at the direction and control of said

Defendants, while actively engaged in the scope of their duties.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

20. CenturyLink advertises and provides multiple services in

Colorado, including internet, telephone, and television services.

21. Since 2014, more than 550 Colorado consumers have filed

complaints against CenturyLink through the Attorney General’s consumer

complaint system. Consumers complained, among other things, that:

• CenturyLink promised consumers low prices, but charged

them significantly more than the quoted price;

• When consumers called to complain, CenturyLink

employees were unable to provide assistance and refused to

honor the rates quoted to consumers;

• CenturyLink charged late-payment fees, imposed early-

termination fees, and sent consumers’ accounts to

collections even when CenturyLink had overbilled the

consumers;

• CenturyLink charged fees for unreturned equipment even

when consumers returned the equipment.

I. CenturyLink failed to honor the prices it offered consumers

A. CenturyLink’s marketing emphasized CenturyLink’s

low prices

22. A central theme in CenturyLink’s marketing has long been

that its prices are low and affordable.

23. For example, in 2015, CenturyLink circulated a mailer that

offered internet services for $19.95 per month and “guaranteed” that the

price would be “locked” for five years:

A complete copy of this mailer is attached as Exhibit 1.

24. In late 2016 or early 2017, CenturyLink circulated a mailer

that advertised internet services for $14.99/month:

A complete copy of this mailer is attached as Exhibit 2.

25. Another mailer that CenturyLink circulated in 2017 advertised

a variety of prices for different packages:

A complete copy of this mailer is attached as Exhibit 3.

26. CenturyLink’s written advertisements emphasized the price

in large, prominent print and listed a host of terms, conditions, and

limitations in very small print. See, e.g., Exhibits 1 – 3.

27. CenturyLink’s television and online advertisements similarly

emphasized CenturyLink’s low prices and flashed written disclosures and

disclaimers in small print.

28. CenturyLink trained its telemarketers and online agents to

emphasize CenturyLink’s low prices.

B. CenturyLink routinely failed to honor the prices it

quoted to consumers

29. CenturyLink routinely charged consumers higher rates than

CenturyLink had promised in advertisements, telemarketing calls, and

interactions with consumers at retail locations, door-to-door sales, and in

internet chats.

30. As described below, there are multiple explanations for this

pattern.

1. CenturyLink used a hidden surcharge to overcharge

customers it promised a “price lock” or “fixed price”

31. At various times from 2014-2017, CenturyLink advertised

“price locks” and fixed-term rates that it had no intention of honoring. An

example is found in Exhibit 1, the “$19.95 Price Lock” ad that CenturyLink

ran in 2015 for internet service. The ad featured a picture of a padlock

containing the words “5 years 1 Price 0 Contract” and “guarantee[d]” that

there would be “No rising price for 5 years.” Id.

32. When CenturyLink ran this ad, it charged $1.95 per month in

Internet Cost Recovery Fees in addition to the base rate for internet service.

In or around April 2016, CenturyLink increased the Internet Cost Recovery

Fee to $3.95. For customers who accepted the $19.95 offer, the Internet

Cost Recovery Fee represented a 20% increase over the advertised monthly

rate.

33. At the bottom of the 2015 “Price Lock” ad, in the middle of a

block of small-print text, the following disclaimers appeared: “Rate excludes

taxes, fees, and surcharges which are based on standard, not promotional,

rate. . . . Additional restrictions apply. CenturyLink may change, cancel,

or substitute offers and services, or vary them by service area, at its sole

discretion without notice.” Exhibit 1.

34. These disclaimers were confusing and misleading, and they

directly contradicted the ad’s large-print, bold-font, false price offer.

35. In other advertisements, CenturyLink offered a fixed price for

a period of time and charged the Internet Cost Recovery Fee in addition to

that price. An example of a fixed-price ad is found in Exhibit 2.

36. CenturyLink ran multiple versions of its price lock and fixed-

price ads, in print and visual media. All of these advertisements 1)

emphasized a “locked” or fixed price for a period of time, 2) did not include

the Internet Cost Recovery Fee in the advertised price, and 3) contained

disclosures that failed to adequately inform consumers that they would be

charged the Internet Cost Recovery Fee, that the surcharge would increase,

and the nature of the surcharge.

37. CenturyLink’s customer service representatives sometimes

failed to disclose the Internet Cost Recovery Fee. In other instances, they

falsely told consumers that the Internet Cost Recovery Fee was a tax.

Sometimes, the customer service representatives disclosed the surcharge,

but failed to explain the nature of the surcharge. Other times, the customer

service representative’s disclosure was contradicted by other, false

statements the customer service representative made about the price of the

service.

38. CenturyLink deliberately chose to call the surcharge the

“Internet Cost Recovery Fee” because of the similarity of that language to

other, industry-standard fees. Thus, when a consumer saw the fee listed in

a disclosure or a monthly bill, the consumer was misled to believe that the

Internet Cost Recovery Fee was, like other industry-standard fees,

authorized or required by law.

2. CenturyLink’s complicated promotional pricing

schemes and outdated billing systems resulted in

systemic misquotes

39. On top of the deceptive nature of the price lock and fixed-price

ad campaigns, CenturyLink relied on a complex promotional pricing scheme

that led to routine misquotes. Sometimes, CenturyLink billed consumers

more than twice the rate that CenturyLink had promised the consumer.

This occurred for two principal reasons.

40. First, the low prices CenturyLink advertised were subject to

so many limitations, requirements, and conditions that CenturyLink’s own

employees were unable to understand them or explain them to customers on

their sales calls or internet chats.

41. CenturyLink’s prices were frequently “promotional,” which

meant that after a certain period of time the price would expire and

CenturyLink’s higher “standard” rates would kick in. In order to qualify for

the low prices CenturyLink advertised, consumers often were required to

“bundle” services – i.e., order long-distance telephone or television services

along with internet service – and to sign up for electronic billing and/or

autopay. In some instances, CenturyLink’s promotions included gift cards

that were to be mailed to the consumer. Also, CenturyLink authorized its

customer service representatives, in certain circumstances, to offer

additional monthly discounts (i.e., $5 or $10) to induce consumers to

purchase CenturyLink services.

42. Many of these promotions and discounts applied only to

specific services and/or were not available to consumers who were already

taking advantage of another promotion.

43. This complex pricing scheme required CenturyLink’s

customer service representatives to learn and apply a host of complicated

pricing rules and restrictions, making it extremely difficult to quote

accurate prices and resulting in misquotes and failures to disclose material

terms and conditions on the quoted price.

44. Sometimes, CenturyLink partnered with third parties such as

Verizon and DirectTV to provide services in conjunction with CenturyLink.

These partnerships further complicated CenturyLink’s pricing schemes,

which added to the confusion on the part of CenturyLink’s customer service

representatives and consumers.

45. From 2014 through at least 2017, CenturyLink’s internal

customer-service meeting agendas and “Customer Service Bulletins”

detailed CenturyLink’s shifting promotions and the complex web of

requirements that were attached to each deal. Given the complexity of the

promotions and requirements, misquotes were inevitable.

46. During the relevant time period, CenturyLink employed a

National Orders Help Desk (“NOHD”) and “Consumer Advocacy Group” to

handle “escalated” complaints – i.e., complaints from consumers who demand

to speak to a manager or who file complaints with the Better Business

Bureau, State Attorneys General, or federal agencies. When reviewing

consumer complaints about misquotes, employees of the Customer Advocacy

Group resorted to the use of large charts to track the promotions and pricing

that might have been available to the consumer to try to determine why the

misquote occurred. Even with these charts, Customer Advocacy Group

employees were flummoxed in trying to determine which promotional prices

were available to which consumers.

47. The second reason that even well-meaning CenturyLink

customer service representatives were unable to quote CenturyLink’s prices

accurately is that CenturyLink’s billing systems are antiquated and ill-

equipped to handle the complexity of CenturyLink’s pricing schemes.

48. One billing system that CenturyLink uses for its Colorado

customers was originally created more than fifty-five years ago, by a

telephone company whose assets came to be owned by CenturyLink after a

series of mergers and acquisitions. Rather than incur the cost of replacing

the antiquated system, CenturyLink has been building on top of this system

since its acquisition of Qwest in 2010.

49. CenturyLink’s billing systems require the customer service

representatives to navigate multiple screens and systems and input pricing

codes into those systems. In many instances, if there is a coding error – i.e.,

the representative enters the code into the wrong system, or enters a code

for a promotion that has expired or for which the consumer is not eligible –

the system will display a price that is not available to the consumer. When

this occurs, the customer service representative quotes one price to the

consumer, and the billing system processes a higher price.

50. In other instances, CenturyLink’s billing systems simply

malfunction, failing to properly match up prices and services or failing to

apply promised discounts to consumers’ bills.

51. The result of these technical deficiencies is a longstanding

and pervasive pattern of consumers not receiving the price that

CenturyLink promised them.

3. CenturyLink customer service representatives

deliberately misled consumers

52. Some CenturyLink customer service representatives

deliberately misled consumers about the price of CenturyLink’s services or

withheld material information in order to close the sale.

53. CenturyLink knowingly created the conditions for this conduct

to occur. Sometimes, CenturyLink specifically directed the

misrepresentations. CenturyLink’s high-pressure sales culture led to

additional misrepresentations. Customer service representatives were

required to meet sales quotas, and a significant portion of their income came

from sales commissions. In at least one call center, CenturyLink added to

the pressure by sending all customer service representatives hourly updates

detailing how much each individual representative was selling.

54. CenturyLink’s complex pricing model, described above, created

multiple opportunities to mislead customers and omit facts about

CenturyLink’s actual pricing.

C. CenturyLink knew of the price misrepresentations

55. CenturyLink knew that its price lock and fixed-price

advertisements misled consumers and that its complicated pricing scheme

was leading to misquotes.

56. CenturyLink maintains detailed data about the consumer

complaints that it receives.

57. At one point, the volume of complaints was large enough to

warrant specific mention in CenturyLink’s automated system for routing

consumer phone calls. When a consumer called CenturyLink, the

automated system asked a number of questions in order to direct the call

properly. One question was, “ . . . Not getting the promotional pricing you

expected? Press 4.”

58. Notwithstanding CenturyLink’s knowledge that its

representatives were routinely misquoting prices, CenturyLink did not take

meaningful action to address the misquotes until after certain state

Attorneys General began investigating CenturyLink in 2016 and 2017.

II. CenturyLink refused to honor the prices it advertised and

quoted to consumers

59. When customers complained, CenturyLink directed its front-line

customer service representatives to enforce CenturyLink’s pricing policies,

regardless of what false promises CenturyLink’s salespeople had previously

made to the customer.

60. Instead of honoring the price its agents had offered,

CenturyLink directed its customer service representatives to offer other

limited-time promotions in an attempt to arrive at a price that was close to

the price that the consumer had been promised. When the existing

promotions were not sufficient to lower the rate to what had been promised,

the customer was stuck paying more than he or she had been promised.

61. Some customers who were overcharged elected not to pay the

entire bill but instead paid CenturyLink only the amount that

CenturyLink’s customer service representatives had quoted them.

Notwithstanding CenturyLink’s knowledge of routine misquotes,

CenturyLink imposed late-payment fees on these customers.

62. Many of CenturyLink’s offerings required customers to enter

into long-term commitments whose terms included an “early termination

fee.” Notwithstanding CenturyLink’s knowledge of routine misquotes,

CenturyLink required its front-line customer service representatives to

impose CenturyLink’s early termination fee without exception.

63. Customers consistently described their attempts to resolve

pricing issues with CenturyLink as frustrating and exhausting. Customers

were placed on long holds, were bounced from representative to

representative, had their calls disconnected for no reason, and were given

different and contradictory explanations when they spoke with different

customer service representatives.

64. Some customers simply gave up, not having the time or

energy to make lengthy, repeated phone calls to CenturyLink that were

likely to end without resolution.

65. Customers who had the persistence and wherewithal to reach

the Customer Advocacy Group were more likely to receive prices that were

close to what they were quoted. The Customer Advocacy Group also had

authority to waive early termination fees.

66. CenturyLink recorded its calls with customers, but kept the

recordings for only thirty days or less. In many instances, CenturyLink’s

misquotes did not become apparent until more than 30 days after the sales

call. When this occurred, the Customer Advocacy Group cited the absence of

a recording as a basis to conclude that the customer’s claim was

unsubstantiated.

67. CenturyLink reported customers’ accounts to collection

agencies, even when the customer had informed CenturyLink that

CenturyLink’s charges were erroneous.

III. Century Link failed to refund customers for returned

equipment

68. CenturyLink leases modems and cable boxes to customers

who order internet and television services. If a customer fails to return the

modem or cable box upon terminating CenturyLink’s services, CenturyLink

imposes a fee of $99 for the modem and $150 for the cable box. On

information and belief, these fees do not simply reimburse CenturyLink for

its actual expenses in providing modems and cable boxes. Instead, the non-

return fees generate substantial revenue for CenturyLink.

69. CenturyLink represents to customers that it will not impose

the equipment fees if consumers return their equipment.

70. CenturyLink has been unable to track equipment that

customers returned, resulting in charges to customers for equipment that

they returned.

71. CenturyLink relies on its customer service representatives to

ensure that a return label (i.e., Return Merchandise Authorization) is sent

to the customer. On information and belief, customer service

representatives have failed to properly process requests for return labels,

resulting in customers being charged equipment fees due to CenturyLink’s

errors.

72. Under CenturyLink’s policies, if the returned equipment is

received after the timeframe imposed by CenturyLink (currently 30 days

after termination of service), no refund is issued unless the customer calls

CenturyLink and demonstrates that the equipment was returned. As a

result of this policy, CenturyLink sometimes keeps customers’ non-return

fees even after customers return the equipment.

73. CenturyLink has failed to improve its practices for receiving

and giving consumers credit for returned equipment, despite its knowledge

of the pattern of improper charging of unreturned equipment fees.

IV. CenturyLink’s Remedial Measures

74. In 2016 and 2017, Attorneys General from other states

conducted investigations relating to the conduct described in this

Complaint. In 2017, the Minnesota Attorney General brought a law-

enforcement action seeking relief for Minnesota consumers. After these

investigations, CenturyLink made changes to some, but not all, of the

business practices described herein. This included more specific disclosure

of the Internet Cost Recovery Fee in CenturyLink’s marketing.

75. CenturyLink has not replaced or significantly upgraded its

billing system(s) that caused systematic price misquotes. CenturyLink has

made the business decision that it would be too expensive to do so.

76. CenturyLink has provided refunds in connection with some,

but not all, of the issues described herein. These payments represent a

small fraction of CenturyLink’s ill-gotten gains and the amount of

restitution that Colorado consumers are due as a result of CenturyLink’s

violations of the CCPA.

77. Notwithstanding CenturyLink’s remedial measures, the State

continues to receive numerous consumer complaints about the matters

alleged in this complaint.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Knowingly making a false representation as to the characteristics,

ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, or quantities of goods, food, services,

or property in violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-105(1)(e))

78. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all allegations

preceding and following this paragraph.

79. By engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint and in

the course of their business, vocation, or occupation, Defendants have

knowingly made false representations as to the characteristics, uses, and

benefits of services and property.

80. Defendants advertised their low prices – including but not

limited to “price lock,” fixed-price, and similar offers – as unique

characteristics and benefits of their services, and then failed to honor the

prices they quoted. With specific regard to the “price lock,” fixed-price, and

similar offers, Defendants subsequently increased the overcharge when they

increased the Internet Cost Recovery Fee.

81. Defendants told consumers that Defendants would not charge a

fee for unreturned equipment if consumers returned the equipment in a

timely manner. Defendants told consumers that Defendants would provide

Return Merchandise Authorizations for the consumers to use in returning the

equipment.

82. Defendants failed to provide Return Merchandise

Authorizations and charged unreturned-equipment fees to consumers who

returned their equipment.

83. Defendants have deceived, misled, and unlawfully acquired

money from Colorado consumers, causing injury to those consumers.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Advertises goods, services, or property with intent not to sell them as

advertised in violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-105(1)(i))

84. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all allegations

preceding and following this paragraph.

85. By engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint and in

the course of their business, vocation, or occupation, Defendants have

advertised goods, services, and property with intent not to sell them as

advertised.

86. Defendants advertised “price locks,” fixed rate contracts, and

similar offers for internet services with intent to charge more than the

advertised price and with intent to increase the purportedly “fixed” or

“locked” price.

87. Defendants have deceived, misled, and unlawfully acquired

money from Colorado consumers, causing injury to these consumers.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(False or misleading statements of fact concerning the price of goods,

services, or property or the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price

reductions in violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-105(1)(l))

88. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all allegations

preceding and following this paragraph.

89. By engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint and in

the course of their business, vocation, or occupation, Defendants have made

false and misleading statements of fact concerning the prices of goods,

services, and property and the reasons for, existence of, and amounts of price

reductions.

90. Defendants have made false or misleading statements of fact

concerning the price of their internet, television, and telephone services.

Defendants have also made false or misleading statements of fact concerning

the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions in connection

with internet, television, and telephone services. With respect to Defendants’

“price lock,” fixed-price, and similar advertisements, Defendants did so in two

different ways – first, by charging more than the advertised price, and

second, increasing the overcharge when they increased the Internet Cost

Recovery Fee.

91. By means of the above-described conduct, Defendants have

deceived, misled, and unlawfully acquired money from Colorado consumers,

causing injury to those consumers.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Advertise or otherwise represent that goods or services are guaranteed

without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the nature and extent of the

guarantee, any material conditions or limitations in the guarantee which are

imposed by the guarantor, the manner in which the guarantor will perform,

and the identity of such guarantor in violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-105(r))

92. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all allegations

preceding and following this paragraph.

93. By engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint and in

the course of their business, vocation, or occupation, Defendants have

advertised and otherwise represented that goods or services are guaranteed

without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the nature and extent of the

guarantee, any material conditions or limitations in the guarantee which are

imposed by the guarantor, and the manner in which the guarantor will

perform.

94. Defendants “guaranteed” a “price lock” for internet services

without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the nature and extent of the

guarantee. Defendants failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose that 1)

Defendants would charge more than the advertised price, and 2) the amount

of Defendants’ overcharge would increase over time.

95. Defendants have deceived, misled, and unlawfully acquired

money from Colorado consumers, causing injury to those consumers.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Fail to disclose material information concerning goods, services, or property

which information was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if such

failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer to

enter into a transaction, in violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-105(u))

96. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all allegations

preceding and following this paragraph.

97. By engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint and in

the course of their business, vocation, or occupation, Defendants have failed

to disclose material information concerning goods, services, and property.

Defendants knew of the undisclosed information and failed to disclose it with

the intent to induce consumers to enter into a transaction.

98. Defendants failed to disclose that consumers would not receive

Defendants’ advertised price for internet, telephone, and television services,

with the intent to induce the consumer to enter into a transaction.

99. Defendants failed to adequately disclose that consumers would

be charged the Internet Cost Recovery Fee, that the surcharge would

increase, and the nature of the Internet Cost Recovery Fee.

100. Defendants failed to disclose that they might charge consumers

for unreturned equipment (i.e., modems and cable boxes) even if the

consumers returned the equipment.

101. Defendants have deceived, misled, and unlawfully acquired

money from Colorado consumers, causing injury to those consumers.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Knowingly or recklessly engages in any unfair, unconscionable, deceptive,

deliberately misleading, false, or fraudulent act or practice, in violation of

C.R.S. § 6-1-105(1)(kkk)

102. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all allegations

preceding and following this paragraph.

103. By engaging in the conduct described in this Complaint and in

the course of their business, vocation, or occupation, Defendants have

knowingly and recklessly engaged in unfair, unconscionable, deceptive,

deliberately misleading, false, and fraudulent acts and practices.

104. Defendants collected the Internet Cost Recovery Fee from tens

of thousands of Colorado consumers every month, and Defendants continue to

do so as of the date of this filing.

105. Defendants have deceived, misled, and unlawfully acquired

money from Colorado consumers, causing injury to those consumers.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for entry of judgment in its favor, and

for injunctive relief as follows:

A. An order that Defendants’ conduct violates the Colorado

Consumer Protection Act, including sections 6-1-105(1)(e), 6-1-

105(1)(i), 6-1-105(1)(l), 6-1-105(1)(r), 6-1-105(1)(u); and 6-1-

105(1)(kkk).

B. Judgment pursuant to C.R.S. § 6-1-110(1) against Defendants to

completely compensate or restore to the original position of any

person injured by means of Defendants’ deceptive practices;

C. An order pursuant to C.R.S. § 6-1-110(1) requiring Defendants

to disgorge all proceeds derived from their deceptive practices to

prevent unjust enrichment;

D. An order pursuant to C.R.S. § 6-1-110(1) for an injunction or

other orders or judgments relating to deceptive practices;

E. An order pursuant to C.R.S. § 6-1-112(1) for civil penalties

payable to the general fund of this state;

F. An order pursuant to C.R.S. § 6-1-113(4) requiring Defendants

to pay costs and attorney fees incurred by the Attorney General;

and

G. Any such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper

to effectuate the purposes of the Colorado Consumer Protection

Act.

Respectfully submitted this _____ day of ___________________, 2019

PHILIP J. WEISER

Attorney General

s/ Mark T. Bailey

MARK T. BAILEY, 36861

Senior Assistant Attorney General

JAY B. SIMONSON, 24077

First Assistant Attorney General

Consumer Fraud Unit

Consumer Protection Section

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s Address

Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center

Office of the Attorney General

1300 Broadway,

Floor

Denver, Colorado 80203