Opinion ID: 2559108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr Grayson's Amended Complaint and Mr. Breakman's Complaint

Text: On March 26, 2004, Mr. Grayson filed an amended complaint in which he set forth a cause of action under the CPPA. He alleged the following, in part. He brought this cause of action for the interests of himself and the general public. Paragraph 157. He described himself essentially as a businessman who had served in 1990 and 1991 as the President of a Fortune 500 international communications company, with over $1 billion in assets, which operates in a variety of different markets, including prepaid calling cards. [9] He has obtained and used prepaid calling cards in [the] District, the unused value of which the Defendants have failed to report and pay to the Mayor. Paragraph 6. Mr. Grayson alleges further that the unused portion of a prepaid calling card is breakage, and [t]he defendants have been retaining breakage since 1992, in the amount of millions of dollars, instead of reporting and turning over the breakage to the Mayor of the District, as unclaimed property. Paragraphs 27-35. As of some time in 2003, each of the[ ] Defendants held around $200,000 in communications prepayments received in 1999 from owners whose last known address was in the District; these sums had remained dormant during the statutory dormancy period, but [t]he[ ] defendants failed to report and pay or deliver these deposits and advance payments to the Mayor by November 1, 2003. Paragraph 64. When the amount of communications prepayments that the[ ] with District addresses in other years since 1997, are taken into consideration, the total amount of communications prepayments that each of the[ ] [D]efendants had received from owners whose last known address was in the District that had remained dormant during the statutory dormancy period, as of June 30, 2003, exceeded $500,000 for Verizon, AT & T, MCI and Sprint. These sums were not reported or paid to the District, and [a]s noted above, the . . . Plaintiff has obtained and used prepaid calling cards in the District, the unused value of which the Defendants have failed to report and pay to the Mayor. Paragraph 32. The complaint alleged that by their actions, the Defendants engaged in unlawful trade practices under D.C.Code § 28-3904 (2003). [10] Paragraph 165. The Defendants have engaged in the trade practice of soliciting and accepting communications prepayments, and then failing to pay or deliver to the Mayor the unused balances of prepaid calling cards . . . , in violation of [the District of Columbia Unclaimed Property Act, in particular, D.C.Code § 41-119 (2003)]. Paragraph 164. Paragraphs 166 through 168 and 173 of Mr. Grayson's Second Claim for Relief specified that [t]his practice is unlawful under D.C.Code § 28-3904 . . . for several reasons: 166. § 28-3904(a) & (e). It is unlawful because the Defendants have represented to the owner that his or her prepayment equals the purchase price of the card. The Defendants have provided services whose price is less than the amount of prepayment. Thus the Defendants have represented that their services have characteristics, uses, benefits and quantities that they do not have. This violates D.C.Code § 28-3904(a) (2003). This also constitutes a representation of a material fact which has a tendency to mislead, which violates id. § 28-3904(e). 167. § 28-3904(h). This trade practice is unlawful because the Defendants have advertised and offered communications services whose price is equal to the amount of the prepayment, when the Defendants did not intend to provide services whose price is equal to the amount of the prepayment. In fact, the Defendants have provided services whose price is less than the amount of prepayment. Thus the Defendants have advertised or offered services without the intent to sell them (in cases where the calling card is never used) or without the intent to sell them as advertised or offered. This violates D.C.Code § 28-3904(h) (2003). . . . . 168. § 28-3904(r). This trade practice is unlawful because pursuant to it, the Defendants retain property that, by law [D.C.Code § 41-119 (2003) and D.C.Code § 2-308.14 (2003)], must be paid or delivered to the District. The Defendants knew at the time of the sale that breakage is common, and their customers would be unable to receive substantial benefits from such breakage, unless the Defendants paid or delivered it to the District. Breakage leads to a gross disparity between the price of the prepaid calling card sold and the value of the services received. The Defendants have knowingly taken advantage of the inability of the customer reasonably to protect his interests because of age, physical or mental infirmities, ignorance, illiteracy, and inability to understand the language of the agreement, all of which lead to high breakage levels. This violates D.C.Code § 28-3904(r) (2003). . . . . 173. § 28-3904(f). The failure to pay or deliver breakage to the District also is unlawful because the Defendants have failed to inform their customers that the Defendants will not pay or deliver breakage to the District. This is failure to state a material fact, and such failure tends to mislead the customers, in violation of D.C.Code § 28-3904(f) (2003). Paragraphs 169 to 172 alleged the impact of defendants' unlawful trade practices on senior citizens and disabled persons. For example, Paragraph 172 declared that senior citizens and disabled persons are substantially more vulnerable than other members of the public to the Defendants' conduct set forth above because of age, poor health or infirmity, impaired understanding, mobility or disability. They have actually suffered substantial economic damage from the Defendants' conduct. Paragraph 177 asserted that: Verizon, AT & T, MCI and Sprint each have issued approximately 100,000 prepaid calling cards to persons whose last known address is in the District, which have remained dormant during the statutory period, but for which breakage has not been paid or delivered to the Mayor. Mr. Breakman filed a complaint against AOL on January 23, 2008. He sought to remedy AOL's unlawful trade practice of charging its current and past members more than double the price offered to new members for essentially the same services and failing to disclose to . . . current and past members that essentially the same services are available at less than half the price they are being charged. Paragraph 1. He described himself only as a resident of the District of Columbia, Paragraph 14, who was bringing his lawsuit in a representative capacity on behalf of the interests of the general public . . . for unlawful trade practices under the [CPPA]. Paragraph 5. He did not allege that he is an AOL member, or that he has any relationship to AOL. Rather, Mr. Breakman's complaint states that he `is suing Defendant AOL for its trade practices in violation of the laws of the District of Columbia which have injured District of Columbia consumers who have paid and/or continue to pay AOL $23.90 to $25.90 a month for essentially the same Dial-up ISP Service new members get for $9.95 a month because AOL has failed to disclose to said consumers the material fact that essentially the same service is available for $9.95 per month.' Paragraph 12. He demanded actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, [a]n injunction, and [r]easonable attorneys' fees against AOL for each individual consumer.