[{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/12/88-million-back-att-customers-inside-look-refund-program","titre":"$88 million back for AT&T customers: An inside look at a refund program","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"$88 million back for AT&T customers: An inside look at a refund program lfair December 8, 2016 | 11:15AM $88 million back for AT&T customers: An inside look at a refund program By Lesley Fair Chances are that you or someone you know will be among 2.7 million AT&T Mobility customers who will be getting a refund soon. The FTC is returning a total of $88 million to people who were billed for premium text message services they didn’t authorize. But even if the settlement doesn’t directly benefit you as a consumer, it offers insights for business people about the steps the FTC takes to get refunds back to consumers – and the seriousness with which we approach that stewardship role. The FTC settlement was part of a joint action with the FCC and Attorneys General from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to crack down on mobile cramming. The FTC alleged that third parties placed unauthorized charges for trivia, horoscopes, celebrity tidbits, etc., on the phone bills of AT&T customers with AT&T pocketing a sizeable chunk of the take – 35% or more. A portion of the $105 million was paid in the form of penalties to the states and the FCC. The remaining funds – initially, $80 million – were earmarked for a consumer refund program administered by the FTC. But a program of that size isn’t just a matter of cutting a quick check. There are required procedures to make sure the money is returned to eligible consumers. Step #1: The FTC hired a refund administrator to manage the complicated logistics. During the 6-month period in which consumers could file refund applications, we received more than 5 million claims from AT&T customers. (Some people submitted more than one claim.) Next, the refund administrator went over every single claim to make sure it was valid. The process was painstaking, but it was essential for maintaining the integrity of the refund program. Then came the complicated calculation of how the funds should be distributed. Some good news was that the FTC was able to add more money to the initial $80 million amount through assets recovered in related law enforcement actions against Tatto and Acquinity, third parties that added charges to consumers’ AT&T bills. In addition, the court required that an independent auditor review each step of the process – another important double-check to make sure the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed. Once the auditor approved the final plan, the refund administrator prepared and printed checks and letters. What’s next?  Current AT&T customers should see a credit on their bill within 75 days. Former AT&T customers will receive a check, the first round of which were mailed today. If you get a check, be sure to cash it within 60 days. (By the way, the FTC never requires people to pay money or turn over their account information to cash refund checks.) Questions? Call the refund administrator at 1-877-819-9692 or visit ftc.gov/att.","id":3201874},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3196243,"description":"FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity wfg-adm109 November 6, 2014 | 11:07AM FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity By Lesley Fair Patent assertion entities have been the subject of much debate in antitrust and intellectual property circles. But there’s one proposition we hope that parties on all sides of the issue can agree on: It’s illegal to falsely threaten patent suits against small businesses or make unfounded claims that other companies have paid for patent licenses. That’s the misconduct alleged in a settlement the FTC just announced with patent assertion entity MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, MPHJ corporate officer Jay Mac Rust, and Texas-based law firm Farney Daniels, P.C. Generally speaking, patent assertion entities are companies that acquire patent rights and then seek licensing fees from businesses they claim are infringing their patents. The FTC’s action centers on representations that MPHJ made while asserting patents that relate to network computer scanning technology MPHJ says is used in offices of all sizes across the country. According to the FTC, the respondents sent out a series of letters to thousands of small businesses. The first letter – sent to more than 16,000 businesses on the letterhead of one of MPHJ’s dozens of six-letter subsidiaries – told the recipient they “likely have an infringing system” and directed them to contact the sender within two weeks “so that we may agree with you upon an appropriate license arrangement if one is needed.” The letter offered to settle without court action if the business agreed to a license of $1,200 per employee. (Other versions said $1,000.) Things heated up in later correspondence, sent on the letterhead of Farney Daniels. That letter included a draft lawsuit “which our client will be forced to file” against the small business if it didn’t respond within two weeks. According to the FTC, the respondents sent that letter to approximately 4,870 businesses, including 1,718 letters sent on just one day – appropriately enough, April 1, 2013. The FTC complaint challenges a series of misrepresentations that respondents made in those letters. For example, the first letter stated that “most businesses, upon being informed that they are infringing someone’s patent rights, are interested in operating lawfully and taking a license promptly” and that “many companies have responded to this licensing program in such a manner.” What was the exact tally of the “many companies” that had paid for a license at the time that statement was made? According to the FTC, when the first 7,300 letters were sent, the respondents hadn’t sold a single license through their letter campaign. What about the later letters on law firm letterhead that threatened imminent legal action against small businesses that didn’t reply? The FTC says the respondents didn’t file a single lawsuit against any of the businesses that didn’t respond, nor did they intend or prepare to file lawsuits against them. So those claims were challenged as false, too. The proposed settlement would bar MPHJ, Jay Mac Rust, and Farney Daniels from making misrepresentations when asserting patent rights, including deceptive claims about the number of licenses sold, that a lawsuit will be filed, and the imminence of any lawsuit. Future deceptive conduct could trigger penalties of up to $16,000 per letter. You can file a comment about the proposed settlement by December 8, 2014.","pubDate":"Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:05:12 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/ftc-settlement-challenges-deceptive-claims-patent-assertion-entity","titre":"FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity"}]