Comments (scroll down to add your own):

1. Yup, I got a notice about this. I’m eligible for a couple of free pay-per-view movies or a month of some premium service. Both of these would require a couple of things. First, I would have to still be one of their customers. I am, but not everyone is. And second, I would have to be renting a cable box, which I’m not.

   I’m sure that the lawyers who “represented” me in this class action lawsuit got paid in cold, hard cash. Instead, I’m eligible for services I can’t use.

   Comment by Dale — Feb 6th 2006 @ 12:09 pm

2. My girlfriend received some stupid Rent 1 Get 1 Free coupons from Hollywood Video when they erroneously charged people late fees. What a ripoff, I don’t know why this was an acceptable “payback.”

   Comment by jim — Feb 6th 2006 @ 1:29 pm

3. Even more ludicrious is the fact that nobody associated with the lawfirm representing the class counsel nor the information provided in the Class Action Claims Administratior’s Website can or will confirm or deny whether or not that future activity which originated this lawsuit in the first place, was included in the language of the settlement so that subscribers would win something for this effort that exceeded the legal fees paid to the lawyers for such a shabbyily negotiated settlement.

   Comment by Michael — Aug 10th 2006 @ 4:45 pm

4. Worse, if they changed to Comcast(ic!, I have a different definition than their commericals), like in my case, I get a huge check of $5. Wow, I would have preferred the discount on my bill. Than again, perhaps it’s because if I call for their services they increase so much everything cost me more then the $5. It’s amazing how lack of competition is a great means of overcharging customers (or should I say, rip off. (No, perhaps it’s competition in cahoots, ie. light companies in TX, deregulation, HA!) Enough said.

   Comment by nikkiO — Jun 27th 2008 @ 3:38 pm

Leave a comment