COMPLAINT - Page 1

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

Eric Olsen, Oregon Bar No. 783261

Lead Attorney for Plaintiff

David Johnson, Oregon Bar No. 123553

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

djohnson@olsendaines.com

Phone 503-362-9393

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

MICHAEL FULLER, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/

COLORADO/FLORIDA/OREGON, INC., 

a Georgia corporation,

Defendant.

 Case No. 3:15-cv-688

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION 

COMPLAINT

Unfair Trade Practices

ORS 646.605 et seq.

Demand for Jury Trial

1.

JURISDICTION AND THE PARTIES

This Court has jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because

true diversity of citizenship exists between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000, including class statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 2

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

2. 

Michael Fuller (“plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

brings this action against Comcast of California/Colorado/Florida/Oregon, Inc. (“defendant”).

3.

Plaintiff and class members are Oregon consumers charged unfair hidden fees by 

defendant after switching their home Internet service to Comcast.

4.

Plaintiff has lived at his home in Portland and has been a “person” as defined at ORS 

646.605(4) at all times material.

5.

Defendant is a Georgia company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast 

Corporation.

6. 

Defendant has regularly provided Oregon consumers its home Internet services and has 

been a “person” as defined at ORS 646.605(4) at all times material.

7.

Defendant unfairly profits by deceiving new Oregon customers into paying hidden

installation fees and modem kit fees.

8.

As of the date of this complaint, defendant’s parent company is worth over $100 billion 

dollars.

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 3

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

9.

Venue is proper in this district because plaintiff’s home Internet service is provided here, 

plaintiff and other class members reside here, and defendant regularly conducts its business here.

10.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all class members, seeks fair compensation, injunctive 

relief, punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs from defendant. Plaintiff does not seek 

emotional harm damages either individually or on a class basis.

11.

This complaint’s allegations are based on personal knowledge as to plaintiff’s own 

conduct and are made on information and belief as to the acts of others.

12.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

On or around February 20, 2015 at around 10:30am, plaintiff called defendant at 503-

335-3663 and spoke with defendant’s agent, identified as Joshua, for about 9 minutes.

13.

Plaintiff told defendant plaintiff was interested in switching his home Internet service 

from Clear Wireless to Comcast.

14.

Defendant offered to sell plaintiff home Internet service, and defendant promised 

plaintiff that defendant’s home Internet service would work at plaintiff’s apartment as soon as 

plaintiff installed defendant’s modem.

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 4

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

15. 

Plaintiff asked defendant to list all potential costs associated with switching his home 

Internet service from Clear Wireless to Comcast.

16.

Defendant explained to plaintiff that the only potential costs were the monthly service 

cost, the modem rental cost, a refundable deposit, and a potential late fee.

17.

Plaintiff asked defendant whether or not defendant’s modem would install in his 

apartment’s existing cable jack.

18.

Defendant told plaintiff that defendant had looked up information specific to plaintiff’s 

apartment number and that defendant was certain its modem would be installed and working in 

plaintiff’s home by the end of the business day, as soon as defendant removed the tap on the line.

19.

Defendant assured plaintiff there would be no installation fees.

20.

Before accepting delivery of defendant’s modem at defendant’s place of business on 

February 20, 2015, plaintiff told defendant that plaintiff would not enter any arbitration or class 

action waiver agreements and defendant told plaintiff that plaintiff was not required to enter any 

such agreements in order to receive defendant’s home Internet service.

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 4 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 5

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

21.

When plaintiff arrived home with defendant’s modem, plaintiff plugged the modem into 

the existing Comcast jack in his apartment but the modem would not work as defendant had 

promised.

22.

Later the next week, defendant’s agent came to plaintiff’s apartment and installed the 

modem.

23.

Defendant’s agent told plaintiff that plaintiff would not be charged for the installation.

24.

On or around April 22, 2015, at around 11:50am, plaintiff returned defendant’s phone 

call at 1-800-266-2278 and spoke with defendant’s agent, identified as Sharon, for about 16 

minutes.

25.

During the call, plaintiff asked defendant for an explanation of a $15 modem kit fee and a 

$70 installation fee defendant claimed plaintiff owed.

26.

Plaintiff told defendant that defendant had never mentioned a modem kit fee or an 

installation fee before, and that plaintiff had never agreed to pay either fee.

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 5 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 6

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

27. 

Plaintiff asked defendant what was included in the modem kit fee, as plaintiff was 

already paying defendant a monthly modem rental cost, and the only product plaintiff received 

other than the modem was a basic Internet cable.

28.

Defendant told plaintiff that based on the information specific to plaintiff’s apartment 

number, defendant should have known its modem wouldn’t have worked in plaintiff’s Comcast 

jack when plaintiff initially ordered service in February 2015.

29.

Only after plaintiff protested, defendant agreed to waive the modem kit fee, and reduce 

the installation fee in half.

30.

Plaintiff protested the installation fee in its entirety. 

31.

On April 22, 2015, defendant collected the disputed $35 installation fee from plaintiff 

under protest to avoid interruption of service, and defendant provided plaintiff confirmation 

number 09624J to memorialize the charge.

32.

Plaintiff would not have switched to Comcast if plaintiff was told he would potentially be 

charged a modem kit fee or installation fee.

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 6 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 7

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

33.

Defendant’s conduct as alleged above was malicious because defendant intentionally 

misrepresented that its Internet service would work at plaintiff’s apartment on February 20, 

2015, as soon as plaintiff installed defendant’s modem, in hopes plaintiff would rely on the 

representation and switch his home Internet service from Clear Wireless to Comcast.

34.

Defendant’s misrepresentation was willful based on defendant’s subsequent admission 

that it knew its modem wouldn’t have worked in plaintiff’s Comcast jack when plaintiff initially 

ordered service.

35.

As a proximate and direct result of defendant’s material misrepresentation, plaintiff was 

injured and suffered an ascertainable loss of $35 on April 22, 2015. 

36.

Plaintiff tried to resolve this matter short of a lawsuit but defendant refused to waive its 

hidden fee or refund the money it unfairly collected from plaintiff.

37.

Having no other choice, plaintiff now prosecutes defendant to make things right, on 

behalf of himself, and other Oregonians who paid defendant unfair hidden fees, from April 22, 

2014 to April 22, 2015.

38. 

Defendant intentionally chose to charge Oregon consumer unfair hidden fees in hopes of 

wrongfully profiting on a large scale.

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 7 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 8

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

39.

Defendant intentionally chose to play the odds, assuming that it would profit by partially 

waiving its unfair hidden fees in cases where consumers reviewed their charges and complained.

40.

Defendant’s choice to secretly profit on unfair hidden fees stood to give it an advantage 

over other home Internet providers that chose to do business honestly.

41.

Defendant’s pattern and practice of collecting unfair hidden fees from Oregon consumers 

is outrageous and violates the standards of business practices expected of companies doing 

business in Oregon.

42. 

Based upon the facts alleged in this complaint, plaintiff requests equitable relief in the 

form of an order requiring defendant to remedy its UTPA violation by informing all class 

members of its potentially hidden fees and refunding moneys defendant unfairly collected from 

all class members.

43.

Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and 

asks this Court to certify this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

44.

This action satisfies the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 requirements of numerosity, commonality, 

typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority.

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 8 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 9

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

45.

Plaintiff asserts a claim for willful violation of the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act

under ORS 646.638(8) on behalf of a proposed statewide class (the “class”) defined as:

(a) All Oregon persons who defendant caused an ascertainable loss of money 

by intentionally charging unfair hidden fees after the person switched their 

home Internet service to Comcast, within the applicable statute of 

limitations.

46.

Excluded from the claims are any claims for emotional harm that may have been suffered 

by any person who otherwise fits within the class.

47.

Specifically excluded from the class are all federal judges and members of their families 

within the first degree of consanguinity, and the officers, directors and counsel of record for 

defendant.

48.

The proposed plaintiff class meets the prerequisites of a class.

49.

Comcast has over 17 million home Internet customers nationwide and thousands of home 

Internet customers in Oregon. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is 

impracticable. Plaintiff is unable to state the exact number of the members of the class without 

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 9 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 10

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

the discovery of information available to defendant, but upon information and belief avers that 

there are likely hundreds, if not thousands of class members in Oregon.

50.

The disposition of the claims of the class members through this class action will benefit 

the parties and this Court and the identities of the individual persons, as well as whether unfair 

hidden fees were assessed and collected are readily ascertainable through defendant’s account 

records.

51.

Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class. The claims have the same essential 

characteristics as the claims of the members of the class as a whole and are based upon identical 

legal theories. It is the same course of conduct (i.e. misrepresenting the existence of, and hiding 

unfair fees and charges) that serves as the gravamen of the claims against defendant. The 

members of the class have suffered the same type of injury (ascertainable loss caused by unfair 

collection of hidden fees) and possess the same interests as plaintiff. The single resolution of 

these claims would be preferable to a multiplicity of similar actions.

52.

Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The counsel 

representing plaintiff and the class are qualified, experienced, able, and have the resources 

necessary to successfully prosecute a statewide consumer class action in federal court. 

53.

Plaintiff and his counsel do not foresee any circumstances where the interests of plaintiff 

would be adverse to those of the class.

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 10 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 11

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

54.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the class, which 

predominate over any questions affecting solely individual members of the class, including, 

without limitation:

(a) Whether defendant’s conduct was willful;

(b) Whether defendant’s conduct violated the UTPA;

(c) Whether plaintiff and class members sustained ascertainable losses as a result of 

defendant’s violation;

(d) Whether the class members are entitled to an injunction against defendant; and

(e) The proper measure of damages.

55.

This suit is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because the

questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions 

affecting only individual members. Specifically, all members suffered injury as a result of a 

“common wrong” on the part of defendant and actual damages are easily ascertainable by 

reference to defendant’s records concerning the members of the class.

56.

A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of this controversy because it would be economically impractical for plaintiff and members of 

the class to pursue individual actions against defendant, as the costs of prosecution would likely 

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 11 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 12

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

surpass their individual damages. Further, given the large size of the class, individual 

adjudication of the claims would require thousands of lawsuits. Moreover, intervention and 

joinder would require the intervention or joinder of thousands of parties. Individual adjudication, 

intervention, and joinder, therefore, are not reasonable options. Class treatment is superior to all 

other methods of adjudicating the claims of the putative class.

57.

This suit is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because 

defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby 

making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole. Upon information 

and belief, defendant continues to engage in the malicious, illegal conduct subject to this 

complaint and class treatment of this action will permit plaintiff and the class members to 

vindicate their rights against defendant and conserve the resources of this Court and the parties.

58.

Class treatment of this action will also avoid the possibility of inconsistent outcomes that 

could result from a multitude of individual actions in varying jurisdictions. Further, the interests 

of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions 

do not outweigh the benefits of class treatment. Members of the class possess claims for 

ascertainable loss that in most instances do not exceed a few hundred dollars. Thus, no individual 

class member possesses an overriding interest in the right to retain counsel and litigate to 

conclusion an individual claim. In fact, individual adjudication of these claims remains wholly 

impractical. The class members would be compelled to spend substantially more money on 

attorney fees and costs to prosecute their individual claims than the amount of each individual 

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 12 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 13

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

claim. The interest of members of the class in individually controlling the prosecution or defense 

of separate actions, therefore, does not outweigh the benefits of class treatment.

59.

Upon information and belief, there are few if any other cases pending by or against 

members of the class raising the claims asserted herein. This Court is the desirable forum for this 

controversy because defendant regularly transacts business in Oregon and no significant 

difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of a class action. Plaintiff will be able 

to identify class members through discovery of defendant’s extensive computer databases storing 

information regarding customers who switched to Comcast home Internet in the past year. Thus, 

no difficulties exist regarding the identification of class members.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 13 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 14

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

60.

CAUSE OF ACTION

CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unfair Trade Practices on behalf of the statewide class)

Plaintiff re-alleges the above paragraphs by reference.

61.

Defendant injured plaintiff and class members through its willful and malicious use of 

unfair trade practices as detailed above, violating the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act 

generally, and specifically, including and not limited to ORS 646.608(1)(e), (i), (q), (s), and (t).

62.

As a result of defendant’s willful and malicious use of unfair trade practices, plaintiff and 

class members suffered ascertainable economic losses and are entitled to actual or statutory 

damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 

ORS 646.638.

63.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 14 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 15

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

WHEREFORE, after a stipulation or determination that defendant violated the UTPA, 

plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, prays for relief as follows:

(a) That this action may proceed as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, that plaintiff 

be appointed as the representative for the proposed class, and that plaintiff’s counsel 

be appointed as counsel for the proposed class;

(b) That plaintiff and the proposed class recover the damages determined to have been 

sustained by them, with appropriate statutory damages and punitive damages, and that 

judgment be entered against defendant on behalf of plaintiff and each member of the 

class;

(c) That defendant be enjoined as requested in paragraph 42;

(d) That plaintiff and the proposed class recover reasonable attorney fees and costs; and

(e) For other equitable relief this Court may determine is fair and just.

DATED: April 23, 2015

s/ David Johnson

David Johnson, Oregon Bar No. 123553

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

djohnson@olsendaines.com

Phone 503-362-9393

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 15 of 16
COMPLAINT - Page 16

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to ORS 646.638(2), I certify that on April 23, 2015, I caused this complaint to 

be delivered to the following persons by first class regular mail:

Oregon Attorney General

c/o Department of Justice 

1162 Court Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301-4096

DATED: April 23, 2015

s/ David Johnson

David Johnson, Oregon Bar No. 123553

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff

OlsenDaines, P.C.

US Bancorp Tower

111 SW 5th Ave., 31st Fl.

Portland, Oregon 97204

djohnson@olsendaines.com

Phone 503-362-9393

Case 3:15-cv-00688-ST Document 1 Filed 04/23/15 Page 16 of 16