Photo: John Disney/ALMInvestors Claim AT&T Created Fake Streaming Service Accounts to Hide Failure
According to an amended complaint filed last week in Manhattan federal court, AT&T management overreported the number of customers who had signed up for the company's $35-per-month product, leading investors to believe it was well-positioned to compete with cheaper online streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu.
September 16, 2019 at 03:28 PM
4 minute read
A group of AT&T Corp. investors has alleged in a revised lawsuit that the Dallas-based telecommunications giant and its executives ordered the creation of fake DirecTV Now accounts to mask the failure of the on-demand video streaming service.
According to an amended complaint filed last week in Manhattan federal court, AT&T management overreported the number of customers who had signed up for the company's $35-per-month product, leading investors to believe it was well-positioned to compete with cheaper online streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu.
The filing alleged a "pervasive" and "widespread" pattern at the company, where executives and others among upper echelons of AT&T management encouraged employees to create bogus DirecTV Now accounts for unwitting customers who never signed up for the service. According to the complaint, workers were directed to funnel fees from other services into the allegedly fabricated accounts, which also included fictitious email addresses so customers wouldn't know that they had been enlisted into DirecTV Now.
Meanwhile, AT&T executives, including chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson, trumpeted the service as having "caught fire" with consumers and said the doomed streaming service was experiencing strong growth following AT&T's purchase of DirecTV Group Inc. in 2015.
The new filing came on the heels of a monthslong investigation by lead plaintiffs attorneys from Pomerantz and Labaton Sucharow, which included interviews with former AT&T employees from across the country.
"While AT&T and the executive defendants repeatedly touted the success of DirecTV Now, depicting it as a fast-growing product with strong margins and brisk subscriber growth, in truth, this apparent success was a complete mirage," plaintiffs attorneys from Pomerantz and Labaton Sucharow said in the 233-page filing.
"Information provided by multiple former employees of AT&T and its affiliates from across the country collectively confirm a wide-ranging fraud, perpetrated at the highest levels of the company, as it pertains to subscriber numbers, promotional activity, customer churn, and the growth and success of DirecTV Now," the complaint said.
A spokeswoman for AT&T said the company planned to fight the "baseless" claims in court.
The amended complaint built on an initial filing in April, which alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934. The new complaint added named defendants to the suit and offered new theories of scheme liability, lawyers said.
According to the filing, AT&T brass pressured workers to increase sales, leading employees to slip DirecTV Now into customers' subscriptions without their knowledge. In one instance, the complaint said, salespeople were instructed to bundle up to three DirecTV Now accounts with a single mobile phone activation, sometimes creating false email addresses and running a customer's credit cards three separate times.
It wasn't until October 2018, the complaint said, that the company finally reported net subscriber additions for DirecTV were down more than 85% from previous quarters. By January 2019, AT&T acknowledged that "essentially none" of the approximately 500,000 subscribers that were given a steep discount to try DirecTV Now remained with the service, fueling a 4.3% decline in the company's stock price.
"Our complaint alleges that executive management at the very top of the company were aware and approved of the scheme to artificially boost DirecTV Now numbers by whatever means possible. This was a widespread, far-reaching fraud," Labaton Sucharow attorney Carol Villegas said in a statement.
The filing comes as AT&T is facing pressure by activist investor Elliott Management Corp. over its $49 billion takeover of DirecTV in 2015 and its $81 billion deal last year to buy Time Warner. Elliott, which took a $3.2 billion stake in AT&T, said last week in a 23-page letter to the AT&T board that it questioned AT&T's long-term strategy and ability compete for advertising dollars with other deep-pocketed streaming rivals.
Elliott said it would be pushing for additional seats on AT&T's board but stopped short of calling on Stephenson to step down as chief executive.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, has been to U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman.
The case is captioned Gross v. AT&T.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Justices Pass on Service Providers' Challenge to NY's Broadband Rate Caps
3 minute read
Investors Sue in New York Over $440M International Crypto Ponzi Scheme
4 minute read
Big Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
Trending Stories
- 1Lawyer’s Resolutions: Focusing on 2025
- 2Houston Judge Exonerated on Appeal, Public Reprimand Vacated
- 3Bar Report - Dec. 30
- 4Employment Law Developments to Expect From the Second Trump Administration
- 5How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
