- Report: #1283892
Complaint Review: GoGo Air Inflight Internet - Chicago Illinois
Reported By:
Monticello -
West Palm Beach, Florida, USA
Submitted:
Updated:
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
GoGo Air Inflight Internet
111 N. Canal St. Chicago, 60606 Illinois, USA
Phone:
8773500038
Web:
GOGOAIR.COM
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
GoGo Air Inflight Internet Gogo LLC Recurring billing scam Chicago Illinois
GOGO Inflight internet offered on many major airlines allows internet access in a few different options. An "hour pass", "day pass", and "month pass". Unkowningly (or possibly in real fine print, I can't be sure) you're agreeing to be billed reoccurringly if you select the month pass. In my case $49.95 each month.
As I write this, I see on wikipedia that they've been sued in a class action lawsuit in 2013 (ruled on in 2015) for this exact same issue (cited below). However, its now 2016 and I've been duped in the same way. I consider myself an average internet user and someone of at least average intelligence. I was not under the impression I was signing up for a reoccurring service, I never received an email from GoGo confirming a service agreement, and they don't send invoices out when they charge your credit card.
I called their customer service number to ask that the charge be reversed. The rep told me she would "submit the request to her supervisor". Its been over a week. No word back yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gogo_Inflight_Internet
In 2013 Gogo was the subject of a class-action lawsuit, for allegedly not mentioning recurring charges on their website nor notifying customers that these recurring charges would be made.[58][59][60] A New York federal judge, Jack Weinstein, ruled on April 8, 2015 that the suit (Berkson, et al. v. Gogo LLC, Case No. 14-CV-1199, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) for claims that the company tricked consumers into signing up for automatic monthly renewal of Wi-Fi connections[61] was allowed to move forward. In an 83-page memorandum and order of the case, the judge wrote, "the average internet user would not have been informed. . . that he was binding himself to a sign-in-wrap" and that the wrap contract thus "does not support the venue and arbitration clauses relied upon by defendants."
