Complaint Review: Integretel - San Jose California

The trade practices of internet vendors of "pay-per-call" and "Voice over Internet Protocol" (VoIP) telephone services and their billers are regulated by the Federal Trade Commission and its 1993 Code of Federal Rules (CFR) as promulgated in The Trade Regulation Rule Pursuant To The Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992, Title 16 CFR Part 308. State telephone regulations may provide more consumer protections, but they may not provide less protection than this federal rule.

The elements of an "e-contract" for telephone services were stated in pages 4 and 5 of a "Final Stipulated Judgement" after litigation by the FTC charged Integretel, Inc., a telephone charge aggregator and biller, and Verity International, LTD., a foreign vendor of pay-per-call internet entertainment, with prohibited business practices, which included "cramming" bills.

[Go to "www.ftc.gov/05/2002/11/veritystip.pdf" to view the "Final Stipulated Judgement" entered on November 21, 2002 in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, Index Number 00 Civ 7422.]

The FTC rule imposes telephone billing requirements that are substantially similar to the requirements imposed with respect to the resolution of credit disputes.

Accordingly, just as with credit card disputes, telephone customers who have been Crammed or Slammed by internet vendors should:

(1) Call in and mail a "Notice of Disputed Charge(s)" to the billing aggregator (Integretel) and to their local telephone company which issued the statement of charges (Verizon). This notice should be delivered within 60 days after the first billing statement containing the disputed charge "is sent" by the local telephone company, and do not pay the disputed charge until there has been a resolution oof the dispute [16 CFR Part 308.7 (b)].

The Notice of Disputed Charge(s) requires the biller to verify that the vendor obtained an "express verifiable authorization" from the customer showing that he e-contracted for the vendor's telephone based service, and it prevents the e-crook from receiving payment in his post office box until there has been a resolution of the dispute.

Your Notice of Disputed Charge(s) shall identify the customer and the phone number which was improperly charged. The Notice shall indicate the type, date and amount of the crammed or slammed charge, and set forth the reasons why the customer believes he was improperly charged [16 CFR 308.7(b)(1-3].

For example:

NOTICE OF A DISPUTED CHARGE

Re: Print Customer's Name

Telephone Number Billed (212) -

Statement Date June 20, 2004

Date Disputed Item Billed May 19, 2004

Amount of Disputed Charge $ 40.00 (include the taxes)

Minutes Disputed two

Vendor Name Faq900.comZz

Vendor Number (900) 444-0319

I have examined my telephone bill dated June 20, 2004 and I am disputing the $40.00 charge for the following reasons:

[1. I did not have visitors at my house on the date of the disputed charge, and I did not myself authorize the disputed pay-per-call charge which the vendor crammed into my phone bill.

OR

1. I did not authorize the vendor to substitute himself as my VoIP provider, and without my knowledge or consent the vendor slammed my telephone account with a charge for his absurdly priced service.

AND

2. The disputed charge is an Automatic Number Identification (ANI) Based charge which was generated by the vendor's illegal automatic dialer, and not based upon an "express verifiable authorization" by me.]

Therefore I request that the disputed charge be credited back [or refunded] to my telephone account.

[I reaffirm my prior request that the billing aggregator and my local telephone company block my telephone line from accessing all "pay-per-call" telephone numbers.

OR

I reaffirm my prior request that Verizon freeze my choices of local, long distance and Voice over Internet Protocal providers, and that those choices not be changed without my approval.]

Dated: July 16, 2004 [your signature ]

[your name printed ]

[your address ]

To; Ken Dawson

President

Integretel, Inc. [aggregator & biller]

5883 Rue Ferrari

San Jose, CA 95138

To Whom It May Concern

Faq900.comZz [vendor]

P.O. Box 23189

San Jose, CA 95153-3189

Customer Service

Verizon [local company]

1095 Sixth Avenue

New York, NY 10036

(2) If your phone bill is crammed with unauthorized charges for internet services which you did not authorize, or if your phone bill is slammed with charges from a VoIP provider who switched you to their expensive service without your authorization, or without full disclosure of the cost of their service, you should enter your complaint in the FTC's "Consumer Sentinel" law enforcement database, it will not be publically deseminated [go to the Consumer Response Center at www.ftc.gov].

The FTC will not resolve your dispute, but if there are enough disputes entered in the database, the FTC or a State Attorney General may sue on behalf of those who paid a telephone charge which was based on unfair and deceptive acts or practices.

(3) Call in and mail in a written request to you local telephone company and ask it to block calls from your phone line to all high priced "pay-per-call" phone numbers like 540, 700, 900, 910 and 976. Do this in your Notice of Disputed Charge, and before you are crammed a second time.

(4) If you are required to defend against a vendor's e-contract claim in Court make the appropriate assertions that (a) the required disclosure by Windows displays was not made, or:

(b) were run too quickly or too small to be legible;

(c) did not disclose the cost of the service;

(d) did not identify the vendor;

(e) did not request the identity of the customer;

(f) did not disclose the service to be provided;

(g) did not request a method of payment;

(h) did not display a finished order which contained all charges for the customer's review and acceptance or cancellation;

(i) did not contain option buttons to accept (next) or decline (cancel) the vendor's offer of service.

You should protect yourself by promptly following the dispute protocols presently available.

Dan

New York, New York
U.S.A.

Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Integretel