YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO CONTACT PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL.
For further information regarding the lawsuit, you may visit the Central District of California’s website at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/.
You are under no obligation to provide information to or discuss this lawsuit with defendants’ lawyers or any person representing defendants ILD Teleservices, Inc., ILD Telecommunications, Inc., and/or Advanced Business Services, LLC, such as employees, officers, directors, managers or agents.
Plaintiff’s Contentions
The Federal Communications Commission defines “cramming” as “the practice of placing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges on your telephone bill.” Plaintiff contends that it, as well as thousands of California residents and entities, was charged substantial sums of money on its telephone bill for services it never authorized, at rates that were never disclosed.
Specifically, Plaintiff received a telephone bill from AT&T containing an unauthorized charge from ILD Teleservices for $49.95 that was described as “ADVANCED BUS. SVCS, LLC-EFAX SVC MTHLY.” Plaintiff’s bills for the prior 17 months each contained the same unauthorized charge. Plaintiff never requested e-fax services, never authorized the e-fax services be charged on its phone bill, and was never aware that its phone line was even equipped with e-fax services. As the provider of the alleged “e-fax” services, Advanced Business Services knew, or should have known, that it failed to obtain authorization for these fees.
When Plaintiff called AT&T to request a refund, it learned that ILD directed that Plaintiff’s bills be charged $49.95 for e-fax service from Advanced Business Services. ILD is a billing aggregator that acts on behalf of vendors of telecommunications services, such as Defendant Advanced Business Services, in allegedly “cramming” consumers’ telephone bills. Plaintiff contends that ILD knows or has reason to know, but systematically disregards, that it is engaged in a scheme of placing unauthorized charges onto consumers’ local telephone bills. As a result, ILD collected payment for unauthorized services of which the consumer was entirely unaware. When Plaintiff requested a refund of the unauthorized charges, both ILD and Advanced Business Services refused.
ILD has been the subject of enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) based on allegations of cramming activity, and has entered into settlement with the FTC providing for fines, restitution, and injunctive relief. See, e.g., F.T.C. v. 800 Connect, David Stein and ILD Telecommunications, Inc. and d/b/a ILD Teleservices. Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 03-cv-60150.
Further, it has been reported that the FCC has received over 450 complaints alleging that ILD engaged in illegal cramming in 2008 alone. “Phone Bill Cramming Spikes Again: Phantom Charges Sneaked Onto Statements Across the U.S.” (MSNBC, January 30,2009), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078500/.
Similarly, consumer protection websites such as http://www.ripoffreport.com contain hundreds of complaints about the cramming activities of both ILD and Advanced Business Services. Despite the FTC action, media reports detailing their fraudulent scheme, and hundreds if not thousands of consumer complaints against them, ILD continues to engage in illegal cramming of consumers’ telephone bills.
Moreover, as the billing aggregator for Advanced Business Services, ILD knew, or should have known, whether the charges it caused to be placed on consumers’ telephone bills were ever authorized. Regardless, Plaintiff contends that both defendants continue to engage in and assist each other in the practice of cramming, and have unjustly obtained millions of dollars in revenue for unauthorized charges from unwitting consumers.
Based on these allegations, Plaintiff has pled causes of action under the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and California Public Utility Code section 2890. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs, on behalf of itself and a class of others similarly situated.
If the lawsuit is successful, any judgment received may benefit current and former victims of ILD’s and Advanced Business Services, LLC’s cramming practices to compensate them for charges billed for unauthorized e-fax services. Your potential for recovery in this action may be greater or lesser depending upon the amount billed to your phone line.
PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS ANY INQUIRIES TO THE COURT.

My BBerry just did not “feel” as vulnerable. For the iPhone to really work for road warriors, additional (external) battery back is badly needed. One more thing to lug around…
Or, I might just have an SEMC phone charged and move the SIM card over in dire straits. That phone can handle months if stored.

They are at it again in 2010 – They are sending out letters in the UK saying they won a court case against a small frim in the UK – In fact the case never went to court it was settled outside court – so they are now using this latest treat in all thier letters , I suppose anyone who received one or two letters will now receive a third letter with more bullsh@t

Getty Images are the people in the wrong here – Take us to court and show the judge the photo the size of a postage stamp – and say you are looking for 3k lol lol lol although you have no copy right to them

I know for a fact that getty do not purchase images from photographers, the photographer keeps all rights to the images. So it should be the photograpger who takes you to court not Getty

Device manager does not recognize device. What do I do?