In 2003, a consumer class action lawsuit accuses AOL of regularly and deliberately double-billing hundreds of thousands of customers through a deceptive scheme involving multiple screen names by creating what it refers to as "spin-off sub accounts."
The suit explains the 'deceptive' tactic in that the spin-off accounts are created for subscribers who maintain multiple screen names intended to deter customers from finding out they are being billed for two separate accounts.
Allegedly, AOL charges subscribers' credit cards at the beginning of the month for one subscription fee and will then post a second subscription fee towards the end of the month.
Apparently, the gripes of the consumers were largely ignored. On July this year, headlines bannered that that AOL's problems worsen as consumer complaints mount.
As a dire consequence, AOL is thought to be signing next to 'no customers' for its fraught broadband service, this after losing an estimated 800,000 customers in the last quarter alone. The bitter complaints remain: The alleged double-billing practices and a dubious “free trial” offer. Also, there have been customers complaining about charges for service before the expiration of their 90-day free trial period.
AOL is no stranger to class lawsuit entanglements. According to company filings, it has put $2.4 billion into a class action settlement fund and has paid out $358 million from a $600 million fund for shareholders who opted out of the major shareholder suits in California, New York and Ohio. This problem stemmed from the alleged financial misrepresentations since AOL purchased Time Warner in 2002.
Double-billing and overcharging seems to be an ongoing problem with certain Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as AOL. A Pennsylvania law firm -- Malakoff Doyle & Finberg, P.C. -- is currently investigating a class action against the ISPs for improper billing practices.