Washington AG Sues DirecTV

**Scott Greczkowski** · 12-15-2009 09:55 AM

Washington AG sues DirecTV over contracts

McKenna calls binding pacts confusing, misleading

Jim Camden jimc@spokesman.com

OLYMPIA – Customers of the nation’s largest satellite television service are being lured into long contracts they don’t understand with fees they don’t know they must pay, Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna contends in a lawsuit filed Monday.

But a spokesman for the company, DirecTV, said the company is “disappointed” the suit was filed and predicted it won’t stand up in court.

Read the rest at
Washington AG sues DirecTV over contracts | Spokesman.com | Dec 14, 2009

**stonecold** · 12-15-2009 10:01 AM

just another read what your signing problem

**Scott Greczkowski** · 12-15-2009 10:13 AM

I think part of the problem is people are not signing anything. Thats where I see a lot of confusion.

**stonecold** · 12-15-2009 10:23 AM

I will lay some of hte blame on Direct Sales aka Directv in house Sales department. I think like all sales departments they conviently forget to mention they have to apply for there rebate to get promo pricing or that 34.99 only include one reciver with out taxes.

Stonecold hates the sales department, most of my calls that get esclated to me are over this mess.

**yorktown** · 12-15-2009 12:13 PM

It's that way at a lot of companies. The sales people say whatever they want then they blame other departments for not giving them enough information.

**vurbano** · 12-15-2009 01:02 PM

I hope the courts finally make Directv act responsibly.

**cfb** · 12-15-2009 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by stonecold

just another read what your signing problem

I think the problem is giving people something to sign while saying "Sign here, this says you accept the installation", and theres stuff about a $500 early termination charge on it thats not highlighted.

**Scott Greczkowski** · 12-15-2009 02:34 PM

Or issues where you have defective equipment replaced and when the replacement equipment is activated instead of being activated as replacement equipment its activated as new equipment, triggering a new 2 year commitment.

I can see that happening, as it happened to ME.

**Jason Whiddon** · 12-15-2009 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by vurbano

I hope the courts finally make Directv act responsibly.

Originally Posted by cfb

I think the problem is giving people something to sign while saying "Sign here, this says you accept the installation", and theres stuff about a $500 early termination charge on it thats not highlighted.

Originally Posted by Scott Greczkowski

Or issues where you have defective equipment replaced and when the replacement equipment is activated instead of being activated as replacement equipment its activated as new equipment, triggering a new 2 year commitment.

I can see that happening, as it happened to ME.

All comments right on point!

**stonecold** · 12-15-2009 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Greczkowski

Or issues where you have defective equipment replaced and when the replacement equipment is activated instead of being activated as replacement equipment its activated as new equipment, triggering a new 2 year commitment.

I can see that happening, as it happened to ME.

But that was not intentional so it not a valid arugment.

It was tech csr stupidity but it was not some evil master plan by Directv to screw you over.

1. is just a bo bo

2. is something you can sue over.