SUBMIT A COMPLAINT

Advanced Business Services / Scam charges

United States Review updated:
Contact information:

The company added charges to a phone bill of a seasonal business that was not in operation for the winter at the time. The business phone service was stopped and is about to be sent to collections and cannot be started up until the false charges are rectified.

Sa
Sort by: UpDate | Rating

Comments

  • Le
      May 05, 2009

    Also got duped and ripped-off by this company. They called to "verify" my business address. I was careful to listen for any clues that they might be trying to sell me for something. They confirmed that all they wanted to do was "verify my address". Even though I was sure not to give them a credit card number, they still managed to scam me by charging it to my phone bill. VERY VERY DECEPTIVE AND DISHONEST BUSINESS PRACTICES!! By the way, I am on the Do Not Call list and they ignored that.

    0 Votes
  • Pa
      Oct 11, 2009
    Advanced Business Services - Unauthorized charges
    Advanced Business Services
    United States
    advancedbusservices.com

    I had a third party charge on my AT&T bill. When AT&T was asked why they allow this without any written authorization, the answer is that they "assume" the charge is legitimate because this third company has all our information! AT&T said they can't do anything to stop and that I had to call the number on the bill: 1800 4...

    When I called this number they gave me a name of someone who works for us (incorrect spelling by the way), and said this person requested the service, which is absolutely not true. This person who works for us did receive several telemarketing phone calls the week before the charge, but never actually requested anything.

    The scam company made me send them an email with ALL my information before they refund the money (I still have not seen the refund on my bill); name. address, phone number, etc... I wonder in which other scam list my information is going to end up.

    0 Votes
  • Pl
      Mar 09, 2010

    INFORMATION NOTICE RE: PENDING PROPOSED CLASS ACTION
    A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of The Dominic Corea Limited Partnership d/b/a Roma D’Italia (“Plaintiff”). The lawsuit alleges that Plaintiff, as well as thousands of California residents and entities, was charged substantial sums of money on its telephone bill for e-fax services it never authorized, at rates that it was never disclosed. The charges appeared on Plaintiff’s AT&T bill as authorized by ILD Teleservices, in the amount of $49.95 for what was described as “ADVANCED BUS. SVCS, LLC-EFAX SVC MTHLY.”
    If your telephone bill contained charges by ILD Teleservices, Inc., ILD Telecommunications, Inc., or Advanced Business Services, LLC at any time for similar unauthorized service, you may be a member of the proposed class.
    The lawsuit is entitled The Dominic Corea Limited Partnership d/b/a Roma D’Italia v. ILD Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a ILD Teleservices, Inc. and Advanced Business Services, LLC, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California as Case No. 2:09-cv-7433 (GHK).
    Plaintiff’s Attorneys
    To assist in the investigation and eventual presentation of the case on behalf of the class members, plaintiff’s lawyers wish to gather information regarding ILD Teleservices, Inc.’s, ILD Telecommunications, Inc.’s, and Advanced Business Services, LLC’s alleged unauthorized billing of California residents for e-fax services.
    If you wish to aid in that process, you have the right to contact plaintiff’s counsel and provide information to them. If you seek legal advice from the plaintiff’s attorney, your communication will be privileged and not subject to disclosure.
    You may contact any of the following of plaintiff’s attorneys:
    Anthony D. Sbardellati, Esq.
    Law Offices Of Michael J. Jaurigue
    411 North Central Avenue, Suite 310
    Glendale, California 91203
    [protected]@loomj.com
    Tel.: (818) 432-3273
    Fax: (888) 879-1697 Lori L. Werderitch, Esq.
    Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz
    Sunshine Regenstreif & Taylor LLP
    1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
    Los Angeles, California 90024
    [protected]@linerlaw.com
    Tel.: (310) 500-3500
    Fax: (310) 500-3501

    YOU ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO CONTACT PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL.
    For further information regarding the lawsuit, you may visit the Central District of California’s website at http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/.
    You are under no obligation to provide information to or discuss this lawsuit with defendants’ lawyers or any person representing defendants ILD Teleservices, Inc., ILD Telecommunications, Inc., and/or Advanced Business Services, LLC, such as employees, officers, directors, managers or agents.
    Plaintiff’s Contentions
    The Federal Communications Commission defines “cramming” as “the practice of placing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges on your telephone bill.” Plaintiff contends that it, as well as thousands of California residents and entities, was charged substantial sums of money on its telephone bill for services it never authorized, at rates that were never disclosed.
    Specifically, Plaintiff received a telephone bill from AT&T containing an unauthorized charge from ILD Teleservices for $49.95 that was described as “ADVANCED BUS. SVCS, LLC-EFAX SVC MTHLY.” Plaintiff’s bills for the prior 17 months each contained the same unauthorized charge. Plaintiff never requested e-fax services, never authorized the e-fax services be charged on its phone bill, and was never aware that its phone line was even equipped with e-fax services. As the provider of the alleged “e-fax” services, Advanced Business Services knew, or should have known, that it failed to obtain authorization for these fees.
    When Plaintiff called AT&T to request a refund, it learned that ILD directed that Plaintiff’s bills be charged $49.95 for e-fax service from Advanced Business Services. ILD is a billing aggregator that acts on behalf of vendors of telecommunications services, such as Defendant Advanced Business Services, in allegedly “cramming” consumers’ telephone bills. Plaintiff contends that ILD knows or has reason to know, but systematically disregards, that it is engaged in a scheme of placing unauthorized charges onto consumers’ local telephone bills. As a result, ILD collected payment for unauthorized services of which the consumer was entirely unaware. When Plaintiff requested a refund of the unauthorized charges, both ILD and Advanced Business Services refused.
    ILD has been the subject of enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) based on allegations of cramming activity, and has entered into settlement with the FTC providing for fines, restitution, and injunctive relief. See, e.g., F.T.C. v. 800 Connect, David Stein and ILD Telecommunications, Inc. and d/b/a ILD Teleservices. Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 03-cv-60150.
    Further, it has been reported that the FCC has received over 450 complaints alleging that ILD engaged in illegal cramming in 2008 alone. “Phone Bill Cramming Spikes Again: Phantom Charges Sneaked Onto Statements Across the U.S.” (MSNBC, January 30, 2009), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078500/.
    Similarly, consumer protection websites such as /link removed/ contain hundreds of complaints about the cramming activities of both ILD and Advanced Business Services. Despite the FTC action, media reports detailing their fraudulent scheme, and hundreds if not thousands of consumer complaints against them, ILD continues to engage in illegal cramming of consumers’ telephone bills.
    Moreover, as the billing aggregator for Advanced Business Services, ILD knew, or should have known, whether the charges it caused to be placed on consumers’ telephone bills were ever authorized. Regardless, Plaintiff contends that both defendants continue to engage in and assist each other in the practice of cramming, and have unjustly obtained millions of dollars in revenue for unauthorized charges from unwitting consumers.
    Based on these allegations, Plaintiff has pled causes of action under the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and California Public Utility Code section 2890. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs, on behalf of itself and a class of others similarly situated.
    If the lawsuit is successful, any judgment received may benefit current and former victims of ILD’s and Advanced Business Services, LLC’s cramming practices to compensate them for charges billed for unauthorized e-fax services. Your potential for recovery in this action may be greater or lesser depending upon the amount billed to your phone line.
    PLEASE DO NOT ADDRESS ANY INQUIRIES TO THE COURT.

    0 Votes

Post your comment