; X IN RE VONAGE MARKET - Vonage MDL Settlement
Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

X IN RE VONAGE MARKET - Vonage MDL Settlement

VIEWS: 19 PAGES: 32

  • pg 1
									  Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page of 32
                                                            Filed 12/19/2008 Page 11of 32




                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

-------------------------------------- X
IN RE: VONAGE MARKETING AND            :
SALES PRACTICE LITIGATION              :
                                       :
-------------------------------------- :
                                       :
BUDD NAHAY, ROBERT STARRETT,           :
ALEX NEVELSON, ERIC TERRELL,           :
DARLENE PENNOCK, FRANCESCO             :               MDL Docket No. 07-3906 (FLW)
TRAMA and JOHN STEWART, on behalf :
of themselves and all others similarly :               JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
situated,                              :
                                       :
                 Plaintiffs,           :
                                       :
       -against-                       :
                                       :
VONAGE AMERICA, INC.,                  :
VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP., and             :
VONAGE MARKETING INC.                  :
                                       :
                 Defendants.
                                       :
-------------------------------------- X


                     CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

       Vonage Holdings Corporation and its subsidiaries (collectively “Vonage” or

“Defendant”) market and sell an Internet based broadband telephone service that competes with

traditional telephone and wireless phone service. Plaintiffs, current and former customers of

Vonage, assert contract and consumer claims arising from deceptive and misleading advertising

and deceptive and unfair business practices. Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, allege upon personal

knowledge as to themselves and upon information and belief as to other allegations of this

Complaint, as follows:
  Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                     Filed 02/06/2009 Page of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 22of 32



       1.       This action is brought under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on

behalf of persons residing in the United States who signed up for broadband telephone services

with Vonage.

       2.       This action seeks relief on behalf of Vonage customers: (i) declaring that Vonage

breaches its own Terms of Service by failing to allow customers to timely cancel their Vonage

service; (ii) declaring that Vonage’s advertising, Terms of Service, and business practices are

deceptive, misleading and unfair; (iii) declaring that the arbitration provision and limits on

liability found in Vonage’s Terms of Service are unconscionable and unenforceable; (iv)

directing Vonage to cease billing subscribers for Vonage services after they have requested

cancellation of Vonage’s service; (v) directing Vonage to refund all monies paid by subscribers

who cancelled their Vonage service within the first 30 days of operational service; (vi) directing

Vonage to refund all disconnection fees charged to subscribers who cancelled the service; (vii)

directing Vonage to refund, upon request, monthly charges for service on unused accounts after

customers requested cancellation of their service; (viii) directing Vonage to implement a one-

step process, on Vonage’s website, that will permit customers to cancel their service; and

(ix) directing Vonage to give notice to members of the Class of items (i)-(viii) above.


                                 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

       3.       The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). In

the aggregate, the value of the injunctive relief sought on behalf of the Class exceeds the

jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest.

       4.       The Court has jurisdiction over Defendant because Vonage maintains its principal

headquarters in New Jersey, conducts business in New Jersey, and directs the promotion, sale,

marketing and distribution of its services in New Jersey. In addition, Defendant voluntarily




                                                 -2-
  Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                     Filed 02/06/2009 Page of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 33of 32



submits to jurisdiction in this Court; Defendant’s Terms of Service explicitly states that its

agreement with its customers is governed by New Jersey law and that the parties submit to the

“personal and exclusive jurisdiction” of courts located in New Jersey.

       5.       Venue is proper in this District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

Defendant is domiciled in this District and because Defendant conducts substantial business in

this District. Transfer of actions filed in other federal district courts to this Court was ordered by

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

       6.       Vonage unilaterally, and in violation of New Jersey law, imposes contract terms

that, if upheld, would severely limit its customers’ legal rights and insulate Vonage from any

meaningful liability. Vonage’s Terms of Service provides:

               5.2 Mandatory Arbitration and No Jury Trial. Any dispute or claim between
               you, any member of your household or any guest or employee of you and us
               arising out of or relating to the Service or Device will be resolved by arbitration
               before a single arbitrator administered by the American Arbitration Association in
               accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules. The arbitration will take place
               in Somerset, New Jersey. The arbitrator’s decision will follow the plain meaning
               of the relevant documents, and will be final and binding. Without limiting the
               foregoing, the parties agree that no arbitrator has the authority to: (i) award relief
               in excess of what this Agreement provides; or (ii) award punitive or exemplary
               damages. Judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in
               any court having jurisdiction thereof. REGARDLESS OF ANY STATUTE OF
               LAW TO THE CONTRARY, ANY CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION
               ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE SERVICE MUST BE FILED
               WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR AFTER SUCH CLAIM OR CAUSE OF ACTION
               AROSE OR BE FOREVER BARRED. All claims shall be arbitrated
               individually. You shall not bring, or join any class action of any kind in court or
               in arbitration or seek to consolidate or bring previously consolidated claims in
               arbitration. THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION CONSTITUTES A WAIVER
               OF ANY RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AND AN AGREEMENT TO BE
               SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION IN, AND CONDUCT ARBITRAL
               PROCEEDINGS IN, NEW JERSEY.

This provision is unconscionable and unenforceable because it, inter alia: requires consumers to

arbitrate under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association;

unreasonably shortens statutory limitations periods; unlawfully restricts remedies available under



                                                 -3-
  Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                     Filed 02/06/2009 Page of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 44of 32



remedial statutes, and; prohibits, in both judicial and arbitral proceedings, collective action. In

Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, 912 A.2d 88 (2006), the Supreme

Court of New Jersey ruled that a class prohibition found in an arbitration provision like Vonage’s

is “unconscionable and unenforceable.” The arbitration provision in the Vonage contract,

therefore, must be severed from the Terms of Service and Plaintiffs should be permitted to seek

class-wide relief in this Court.


                                             PARTIES

       7.       Plaintiff Budd Nahay is a citizen of Washington and a former Vonage customer.

Mr. Nahay was improperly charged fees by Vonage after he cancelled the service.

       8.       Plaintiff Robert Starrett is a citizen of Colorado and a former Vonage customer.

Mr. Starrett was improperly charged fees by Vonage after he cancelled the service.

       9.       Plaintiff Alex Nevelson is a citizen of California and a current Vonage customer.

Mr. Nevelson was improperly charged by Vonage for service that should have been free under

Vonage’s One Month Free promotion.

       10.      Plaintiff Eric Terrell is a citizen of California and a current Vonage customer.

Mr. Terrell was improperly charged by Vonage for service that should have been free under

Vonage’s One Month Free promotion.

       11.      Plaintiff Darlene Pennock is a citizen of Washington and a former Vonage

customer. Ms. Pennock was denied the benefit of Vonage’s Money Back Guarantee and

improperly charged fees by Vonage after she cancelled the service.

       12.      Plaintiff Francesco Trama is a resident of Pennsylvania and a former Vonage

customer. Mr. Trama was improperly charged fees by Vonage after Vonage transferred his

telephone number, at Mr. Trama’s request, to another telephone service provider.




                                                 -4-
  Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                   Filed 02/06/2009 Page of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 55of 32



       13.     Plaintiff John Stewart is a resident of New Jersey and a former Vonage customer.

Mr. Stewart was improperly charged fees by Vonage after Vonage transferred his telephone

number, at Mr. Stewart’s request, to another telephone service provider.

       14.     Defendant Vonage Holdings Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its

principal headquarters in New Jersey.

       15.     Defendant Vonage America Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vonage

Holdings Corporation with its principal headquarters in New Jersey. Vonage America is a

provider of broadband telephone services to approximately 2.6 million subscriber lines.

       16.     Vonage Marketing Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vonage Holdings

Corporation with its principal headquarters in New Jersey. Vonage Marketing conducts brand-

building, advertising and promotion strategies.

       17.     Defendants shall be collectively referred to as “Vonage.” At all relevant times,

each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, representative, successor, successor-in-interest

and employee of the remaining co-Defendants and each was acting within the course and scope

of such agency and employment with the ratification of its respective principals. Defendants

have participated in, furthered, or benefited from the improper acts, plans, schemes, and

transactions to promote, sell and provide Vonage’s service described below.


                                  STATEMENT OF FACTS


Vonage Service as Marketed

       18.     Vonage uses Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, technology, which enables

voice communications over the Internet through the conversion and compression of voice signals

into data packets. VoIP technology allows a subscriber to make telephone calls using a standard

telephone plugged into an adaptor (provided by Vonage) which is then connected to a broadband



                                                  -5-
  Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                     Filed 02/06/2009 Page of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 66of 32



Internet connection. Thus, VoIP is an alternative to traditional and wireless telephone service.

       19.      Vonage launched VoIP service in March 2002 and claims to be the leading

provider of broadband telephone services in the United States. By September 2006, Vonage

reported over 2 million active subscriber lines; today, there are approximately 2.6 million.

       20.      In competing with traditional telephone services, voice quality and reliability are

essential to Vonage’s financial success. Accordingly, Vonage’s marketing campaign

emphasized that it provided telephone company quality and reliability at a fraction of the price

and with none of the hassle.

       21.      For example, potential subscribers who visit Vonage’s web site

(www.vonage.com) are told that “Vonage is an all-inclusive phone service [that] gives you local

and long distance calling anywhere in the US, Canada and Puerto Rico for one low price.” See

http://www.vonage.com/help_vonage.php?refer_id=WEBSB070501001W1. (last visited Mar.

28, 2008) (“About Vonage Page”). Subscribers are further told that “Vonage gives you great

phone service and more” including “Higher quality calls than landline in many cases.”

       22.      Explaining VoIP technology to potential subscribers, Vonage claims VoIP “is a

great new way to make and receive phone calls using your broadband connection . . . Vonage

converts your phone calls into data that zips through your high-speed Internet connection just

like email. It comes out the other end just like a regular phone call. Your callers will never know

that it’s any different since it sounds just like a regular phone call.” Id. (emphasis added).

       23.      In addition to promises of quality and service that meet (or beat) what consumers

have grown to expect from their traditional phone carriers, Vonage promises potential

subscribers a no hassle relationship with “no annual contracts.” Id.; see also

http://www.vonage.com/services_premium.php (audio representation of “no hassle and no




                                                 -6-
  Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                      Filed 02/06/2009 Page of 32
                                                              Filed 12/19/2008 Page 77of 32



contracts” when the multimedia link on the page is played). The appeal of these promises is

considerable in an industry where consumers and government regulators have criticized

anticompetitive and deceptive practices typified by refusals to release or port numbers, lengthy

and confusing service contracts, hidden charges, complex rate structures, and early termination

fees.

        24.     Vonage advertises that its service plans allow the consumer to keep their existing

phone numbers. According to the Vonage’s marketing materials, all the potential customer

needs is a broadband Ethernet Internet connection, a U.S. or Puerto Rico shipping address and a

credit/debit card. Furthermore, according to Vonage:

               Once you sign up, we will ship your startup package within 5 business days. To
               start saving, simply connect your telephone to your high-speed Internet
               connection using the Vonage phone adapter. Pick up the phone, and use it just
               like you do today!

See Premium Residential VoIP Home Service: Vonage-A Better Way to Phone for less,

http://www.vonage.com/calls_plans_residential_premium.php (last visited Mar. 26, 2008).

        25.     Vonage has touted its customer support services in its advertising. On its website

Vonage has stated, “There’s customer support – and then there’s Vonage Customer Support.

Vonage has built one of the strongest customer support service capabilities in the industry,

featuring live, expert specialists available 24/7 . . . You’ll get an expert trained to our high

service standards, and who will answer your questions clearly and understandably.”

        26.     In addition to these representations, Vonage offered financial incentives to

encourage potential customers to subscribe to the service including one month of free service and

a money back guarantee.

        27.     Vonage offered “One Month Free” to new subscribers under its flat rate

residential plans. The monthly rate for such plans is $24.99.




                                                  -7-
  Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                     Filed 02/06/2009 Page of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 88of 32



       28.      Vonage offered a “Money Back Guarantee” to new subscribers, which Vonage

described in its marketing materials as:

               There’s no risk to trying Vonage service. Our no-hassle Money Back Guarantee
               policy guarantees your satisfaction. If for any reason you wish to cancel service
               within 30 days of activation, we’ll refund your money with no questions asked.

Vonage Money-Back Guarantee, http://www.vonage.com/features.php?feature=guarantee (last

visited Dec. 30, 2006). Subscribers need to meet only three conditions to be eligible for a full

refund of their money: they must cancel the service within 30 days of activation of the account,

they must not exceed 250 minutes of usage in the first 30 days of service; and they must return

the equipment in its original packaging.

       29.      According to its November 2006 Securities Registration Statement (Form S-1/A),

Vonage spent a total of $513.2 million on advertising in 2005 and the first nine months of 2006,

using “extensive television, online, print and radio advertising, direct mail, a customer referral

program and a range of other promotions.” According to Nielsen/Net Ratings, an independent

Internet media and market research firm, Vonage was the top advertiser on the Internet from

January 2005 through the first quarter of 2006.

The Vonage Service in Reality

       30.      To open a Vonage account, a customer must provide a credit or debit card

number and authorize automatic monthly service charges from Vonage. The customer’s

credit/debit card is then automatically charged a fixed monthly fee for the next month’s service.

Vonage’s revenue is derived primarily from the monthly fees charged to subscribers for the VoIP

service.

       31.      Despite Vonage’s claims about the superiority of its service over land-line

service, numerous problems have been reported by subscribers. Many subscribers have




                                                  -8-
  Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                     Filed 02/06/2009 Page of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 99of 32



complained that the service does not work at all. Subscribers who have been able to use VoIP

have reported: problems with sound quality like static, distortion, echoes and delays;

disconnections mid-call; incoming calls going directly to voice-mail without ringing; incorrect

“out of service” messages for incoming and outgoing calls; false busy signals; ringing delays;

inoperable fax capability; and related computer problems.

       32.      Consumers who call Vonage to report problems or seek help are cast into a

sequence of technical support operations that provide little, if any, actual assistance. Subscribers

report significant problems with Vonage’s customer service, including long hold times, hang

ups, multiple transfers, and representatives who do nothing more than read from scripts. Vonage

itself has recognized that its customer service is inadequate. In its November 2006 Securities

Registration Statement, Vonage stated, “In the recent past, we have not been able to expand our

customer care operations quickly enough to meet the needs of our greatly increased customer

base, and the quality of our customer care has suffered.” Vonage also stated that its average

monthly customer churn rate (the number of customers who cancel the service) increased to

2.6%, “due in part to our rapid growth and inability to hire enough qualified customer care

employees which led to less than satisfactory customer care.”

       33.      Contrary to Vonage’s promise of “no contracts,” Vonage imposes extensive and

oppressive Terms of Service upon subscribers. This contract includes several provisions limiting

subscribers’ rights including: waivers of liability and disclaimers of warranties that immunize

Defendant for any failure or inferiority of service; a prohibition on jury trials; a one year

limitation on actions; a limitation on remedies; a mandatory arbitration requirement; and a

prohibition on class proceedings in litigation and arbitration. In direct contradiction of its

promises of “no annual contracts,” the Terms of Service gives Vonage the right to impose a




                                                 -9-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 10 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 10 of 32



“disconnection fee” of $39.99 on subscribers who cancel the service within two years of account

activation. (Before February 2007, the disconnection fee was imposed on subscribers who

cancelled service within one year of activation.)

       34.     Contrary to Vonage’s promise of “no hassle,” Vonage intentionally impedes and

delays cancellation requests from dissatisfied subscribers. Vonage collects automatic payments

from its customers’ credit/debit cards during the weeks and months it takes for the service to be

terminated. Subscriber complaints include:

   •   To make a long story short. . . over the past 6 months I have called Vonage 8 times . .
       .been put on hold for over 2 hours every time . . . and not allowed to cancel my account.
       That’s right folks, their customer service simply hangs up on me as soon as I tell them I
       want to cancel my service.

   •   I have tried numerous times to cancel my service. I even wrote a complaint letter to BBB
       and got a reply from Vonage saying . . . what do you know . . . that I have to call their
       customer service to cancel the service.

   •   Our experience with Vonage started out okay, with good service and good rates.
       However, quickly the service went downhill and efforts to cancel the service took nearly
       a year!

   •   I work for Best Buy and recommend Vonage all the time, so I decided to try it myself.
       Boy if I could only go back in time!

       The phone transfer was never complete after 2 months of me calling them, while they
       never followed up with anything. When I tried to cancel their service, I realized the
       telephone number on the website is just a decoy to get you to spend over an hour on the
       phone. I asked the service person why they gave a general information number as their
       cancellation number and she said it was to get people to call so they can give the
       customer the correct number.

   •   I attempted to secure phone service from Vonage. Initially, the advertised price specials
       were not applicable to my order, but this was not mentioned in ad. I waited no less than
       30 minutes each of the 5 times I called customer service to find this out. I am now in the
       process of attempting to cancel my order and am having no luck. There are always, at
       least, 25 minute waits for customer service and you can not cancel on line although you
       can immediately order on line.




                                               -10-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                   Filed 02/06/2009 Page 11 of 32
                                                          Filed 12/19/2008 Page 11 of 32



      Also, customer service is closed weekends! The e-mails I receive are not worded very
      well and are very evasive. My order is being processed although I have requested
      cancellation 7 times. The operators are very difficult to communicate with and don’t
      seem to understand English well. Now it appears they have cancelled my old phone #
      that I wanted to keep and have given me a Vonage #. I work and can’t be on the phone
      all day with them and they are not available on weekends.

  •   We attempted to cancel our service within the 30-day trial period. The customer service
      group refused to allow us to cancel the service. Requested to speak to a manager during
      the call and was refused. Now they are trying to collect $99 for the router which we
      would be happy to return to them at our expense. Manager told us they did not want the
      router back and we would have to pay the $99. Finally had to have local phone company
      take our number back from Vonage due to they would not assist us. We are now getting
      e-mails advising that we owe them $99 however we are not going to pay them as they
      state a 30-day free trial. This is outside of all of the service issues and being on hold for
      3 hours trying to correct problems with their customer service group.

  •   I’ve been a Vonage customer for 2 years and have suffered with their continual
      degradation in quality of service (QoS), including frequent gaps in calls, poor voice
      quality, choppy voice, dropped calls, etc. I finally decided to drop their voip service in
      favor of a competitor (with whom I am quite happy now!). Terminating service with
      Vonage is a nightmare -- their customer service is worse than their phone service if that is
      possible!

      After calling their help/support number, I was on hold for about 30 minutes before being
      told that I could not be transferred to the billing office where cancellations were handled.
      I was given a new number to call, 800-860-5691 and not published anywhere on the
      Vonage site, to cancel service. I called first on a Friday when the announced wait time
      was between 45-60 minutes -- the programmed voice suggested calling back. On Tues-
      Thus when call volumes are lower. I did that and the wait time was reduced to 30
      minutes! The assistant who answered then refused to cancel my Vonage line until I gave
      them the chance to ‘repair’ my line, told me to call back the main help number, and then
      hung up!!

      I had to call back, wait another 30 minutes and forcefully insist that my line be cancelled
      which the assistant did do, finally!! Recommendation: stay away from this lousy
      company which doesn’t give a whit about consumers.

  •   Switching phone service to Vonage has been a nightmare. Watch out for promises that
      have undoubtedly no end and absolutely no meaning. I initiated the phone transfer in
      January and still today it is May 2nd and I have yet to complete. Endless hold times and
      customer service that is horrible. I have been trying to cancel for the last two weeks and
      can not seem able to get this done.




                                              -11-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 12 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 12 of 32



       It has cost me 4 months of paying for two phone companies and two lines of service, and
       the cancellation fee of $39 plus the equipment rebate of $79. This is a disaster!

   •   Signed up for Vonage 30-day risk-free trial. The Vonage router was not compatible with
       my internet provider. Tried to cancel by calling the customer service number within the
       30-days but on hold for over one hour. Attempted to cancel service within the 30 day
       trial period only to be unsuccessful due to long on hold times. Went to their web site to
       cancel online and was redirected to call the customer service number. Eventually after
       the 30 day period was finished I reached someone at customer service . . . hold time 45
       mins and cancelled service. I was told I would be charged a $121 disconnection fee as I
       hadn’t called within 30-day period. What a joke. The problem here is Vonage does not
       want you to cancel service and makes it as difficult as possible for someone to cancel
       service. I am disputing this with my credit car[d] company.

See Consumer Complaints about Vonage, http://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell-

phones/vonage.html (last visited Aug. 29, 2006).

       35.     Contrary to Vonage’s promise of “One Month Free,” Vonage begins counting the

one month period from the date the customer calls to order service and not from the date that

service actually begins. Service cannot begin until the customer receives a phone adaptor (which

Vonage promises to ship within 5 business days of receiving a request for service). If the

customer transfers an existing phone number to Vonage, service cannot begin until the number is

successfully ported, which Vonage discloses will take a minimum of 20 days. Thus, there is a

gap, ranging from one week to several weeks, between the time service is requested and service

is actually available. Vonage subsequently charges customers for service that should fall within

the promised free month of service.

       36.     Contrary to Vonage’s promise of a 30-day Money Back Guarantee, Vonage does

not provide new subscribers with 30 days to try its service and makes it difficult for them to

cancel the service. For purposes of calculating the 30-day trial period, Vonage begins counting

when Vonage administratively opens a new account and not when the service is operational (i.e.

when a new subscriber makes, or could make, his first call). Because of the lag time between the




                                               -12-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                     Filed 02/06/2009 Page 13 of 32
                                                            Filed 12/19/2008 Page 13 of 32



date a request for service is received and the date the account is operational (i.e., equipment is

received and installed by the customer and, if necessary, a telephone number is ported), the

subscriber will have fewer than 30 days to try the service before deciding whether to cancel.

Where a phone number is ported, the trial period could be 10 days or, conceivably, expired

before the service is working. As a result, many subscribers who have attempted to cancel

during the 30-day trial period have been denied the complete refund of their money advertised.

In addition to withholding monies already paid under the Money Back Guarantee offer, Vonage

charges these customers a disconnection fee for cancelling the service and reverses the rebates

(i.e., charges the customer) offered on the cost of equipment purchased at the time the account

was opened. In total, a subscriber who is deemed to have cancelled after the Money Back

Guarantee period has expired may be assessed fees and other charges of $150 and more.

Plaintiffs’ Experiences with Vonage

       37.      Plaintiff Budd Nahay signed up for Vonage service in late 2004. When his

Vonage phone service did not work as promised, Mr. Nahay requested that Vonage cancel his

service. Despite numerous phone calls, Vonage did not timely cancel his service and his credit

card was billed for additional months and a cancellation fee.

       38.      Plaintiff Robert Starrett signed up for Vonage in early 2006. When his Vonage

phone service did not work as promised, Mr. Starrett requested that Vonage cancel his service.

Despite numerous phone calls, Vonage did not timely cancel his service and his credit card was

billed for additional months and a cancellation fee.

       39.      On January 10, 2007, Plaintiff Alex Nevelson, having heard about, and interested

in, the free month service promotion, agreed to sign up for service. He received the modem

necessary to use the service on or about January 17, 2007 and was informed by Vonage on




                                                -13-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 14 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 14 of 32



January 30, 2007 that his existing phone number had been transferred successfully to his new

Vonage account. When he received his bill, Mr. Nevelson saw that Vonage counted his free

month from the date service was ordered, January 10, 2007, not the date the service was ready

for use, January 30, 2007. Mr. Nevelson contacted Vonage to demand that the free month begin

on January 30, 2007. Vonage refused to give him a credit for the 20 days during which he was

unable to utilize the service as represented. Plaintiff Alex Nevelson continued to pay his

previous service provider, Time Warner, during the period January 10, 2007 through January 30,

2007.

        40.    On or about August 27, 2006, Plaintiff Eric Terrell, having heard about, and

interested in, the free month service promotion, agreed to sign up for service. Before he could

use the service, Mr. Terrell had to wait for Vonage to send him a modem and to port his

telephone number to the newly opened account. As a result, Mr. Terrell was not able to use the

service until sometime in September 2006 and did not get the benefit of 30 days free service.

Mr. Terrell asked Vonage to credit his account for the days during which service was not

activated, but Vonage refused. Mr. Terrell continued to pay his previous service provider,

Pacific Bell/ATT, during the period August 2006 through October 2006.

        41.    Plaintiff Darlene Pennock signed up for Vonage service in February of 2006.

Ms. Pennock experienced months of delays in the set up and actual initiation of her service,

including: (1) more than eight hours of hold time with “customer service” requests; (2) repeated

disconnections, and; (3) failures to transfer her previous telephone number to her new “line.”

Ms. Pennock ultimately requested that Vonage cancel her service. Despite the fact that Ms.

Pennock’s cancellation notification was delivered within the first 30 days of her actual full

service activation, Vonage did not refund her service fees and costs, and additionally charged her




                                               -14-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 15 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 15 of 32



a disconnection fee.

       42.     Plaintiff Francesco Trama switched his phone service from Comcast to Vonage in

December 2006. On or about April 15, 2007, Plaintiff Francesco Trama terminated his service

with Vonage and reinstated service through Comcast. In order to keep the same number,

Plaintiff Francesco Trama filled out a “Letter of Agency” form with Comcast to facilitate the

transfer from Vonage. The number was switched over within 10 days. Vonage, however,

continued to charge Plaintiff Francesco Trama for the number that was now being serviced by

Comcast. In August 2007, Mr. Trama called Vonage to inquire into the charges and was told

that even though Vonage had received the letter of agency, he still had to pay for the four months

of service changes after the transfer, totaling $100.00, because he had not personally called

Vonage to terminate service.

       43.     Plaintiff John Stewart was a Vonage subscriber when he requested Comcast port

his number from Vonage to Comcast on February 24, 2007. Comcast sent Vonage a “Letter of

Agency” sometime between February 24, 2007 and March 10, 2007, the date on which Plaintiff

John Stewart’s service with Comcast began. On April 25th, Mr. Stewart realized that he was still

being charged by Vonage for a phone number that was then being serviced by Comcast. Mr.

Stewart called Vonage to inquire about these charges and was told that even though the number

had been transferred or ported, Mr. Stewart still had to personally notify Vonage of the ported

number. Mr. Stewart then cancelled the debit card that he had given to Vonage. Vonage

subsequently reported $31.00 in post-cancellation charges to a collection agency.


                               CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

       44.     This action is brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and seeks certification of four classes:




                                                -15-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                      Filed 02/06/2009 Page 16 of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 16 of 32



        (1)    a National Marketing Class of persons who signed up for broadband telephone
        services with Vonage;

        (2)    a National Cancellation Class of persons who were charged monthly service fees,
        disconnection fees or other fees, after cancelling Vonage’s service;

        (3)    a California Marketing Class of California residents who signed up for broadband
        telephone services with Vonage;

        (4)    a California Cancellation Class of California residents who were charged monthly
        service fees, disconnection fees or other fees, after cancelling Vonage’s service.

Excluded from each of the Classes are Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has or had a

controlling interest, any officers or directors of Defendant, the legal representatives, heirs,

successors, and assigns of Defendant, any Judge assigned to this action and his or her immediate

family, and anyone who timely requests exclusion from the Class.

       45.      This action is properly maintainable as a class action. The Classes are composed

of thousands of persons who signed up for Vonage broadband telephone service. Vonage

Holdings’ Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, states that

Vonage had nearly 1.9 million subscriber lines as of June 30, 2006 and that the average monthly

churn was over 2%, meaning that approximately 40,000 Vonage customers cancel their service

each month. All members of all Classes were subjected to the same deceptive marketing by

Vonage via print advertising, television and the Internet. All members of the cancellation classes

paid service charges or other fees after they requested cancellation of the service. Moreover,

joinder of such persons in one action is impracticable, and the disposition of their claims in a

class action will provide substantial benefits to both the parties and the Court.

       46.      Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Classes, thereby

making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the

Classes as a whole.




                                                 -16-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                        Filed 02/06/2009 Page 17 of 32
                                                               Filed 12/19/2008 Page 17 of 32



       47.       Plaintiffs’ claims and the claims of members of the Classes all derive from a

common nucleus of operative facts. Therefore, Plaintiffs are asserting claims that are typical of

the claims of the each of the Classes, and Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and

protect the interests of the Classes; Plaintiffs have no interests that are antagonistic to those of

the other members of the Classes. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and

experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation.


                                   FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
                         Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
                                       N.J. Stat. 56:8-1 et seq.
                                    (National Marketing Class)

       48.       Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

       49.       Vonage’s VoIP service constitutes “merchandise” under N.J. Stat. 56:8-1.

       50.       Plaintiff and other Class members are “persons” under N.J. Stat. 56:8-1.

       51.       Vonage engages in deceptive advertising and unconscionable trade practices, and

thus unlawful conduct, under N.J. Stat. 56:8-2 by:

             (a) advertising “One Month Free” when Vonage counts a customer’s “One Month

                Free” from the date an account is administratively opened rather than from the

                date the account is operational and subsequently charges customers for some

                portion, if not all, of the first month of service;

             (b) advertising “No Contract” and “No Annual Contract” when Vonage charges

                disconnection fees to subscribers who cancel their service within two years of

                activating their account;

             (c) advertising “No Hassles” when Vonage delays, obstructs and fails to implement

                customer requests to cancel service;



                                                  -17-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                        Filed 02/06/2009 Page 18 of 32
                                                               Filed 12/19/2008 Page 18 of 32



             (d) inserting unconscionable limits on liability, including a ban on class proceedings,

                into the Terms of Service.

       52.       The above-described unlawful practices by Defendant have harmed Plaintiffs and

the Class Members. Among other things, Plaintiffs have purchased services that are not

provided on the terms advertised and will pay more for those services than advertised.

       53.       Vonage’s unlawful conduct arose, was directed, and emanated from New Jersey

to the detriment and injury of Class members.

                                 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
                        Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
                                      N.J. Stat. 56:8-1 et seq.
                                  (National Cancellation Class)

       54.       Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

       55.       Vonage’s VoIP service constitutes “merchandise” under N.J. Stat. 56:8-1.

       56.       Plaintiffs and other Class members are “persons” under N.J. Stat. 56:8-1.

       57.       Vonage engages in deceptive advertising and unconscionable trade practices, and

thus unlawful conduct, under N.J. Stat. 56:8-2 by:

             (a) advertising “One Month Free” when Vonage counts a customer’s “One Month

                Free” from the date an account is administratively opened rather than from the

                date the account is operational and subsequently charges customers for some

                portion, if not all, of the first month of service;

             (b) advertising a 30-Day Money Back Guarantee when Vonage counts a customer’s

                30-day trial period from the date an account is administratively opened rather than

                from the date the account is operational and delays, obstructs and fails to

                implement customers requests to cancel service, ultimately depriving customers




                                                  -18-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                      Filed 02/06/2009 Page 19 of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 19 of 32



                of the refunds guaranteed in this promotion;

             (c) advertising “No Contract” and “No Annual Contract” when Vonage charges

                 disconnection fees to subscribers who cancel their service within two years of

                 activating their account;

             (d) advertising “No Hassles” when Vonage delays, obstructs and fails to implement

                 customer requests to cancel service;

             (e) inserting unconscionable limits on liability, including a ban on class proceedings,

                into the Terms of Service.

       58.       The above-described unlawful practices by Defendant have harmed Plaintiffs and

the Class Members. Among other things, Plaintiffs have purchased services that are not

provided on the terms advertised and paid more for those services than advertised.

       59.       Vonage’s unlawful conduct arose, was directed, and emanated from New Jersey

to the detriment and injury of Class members.

                                    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
                                         Breach of Contract
                                    (National Cancellation Class)

       60.       Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

       61.       Defendant entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and members of the Class under

which Defendant agreed to honor subscribers’ requests to cancel their Vonage service. In

addition, by entering into these contracts, Defendant agreed to stop performing services for

Plaintiffs and members of the Class when Defendant was directed to do so and to cease charging

to Plaintiffs’ credit cards for services no longer wanted.

       62.       Defendant entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and members of the Class under

which Defendant promised a money-back guarantee to subscribers who cancelled within the first



                                                 -19-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 20 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 20 of 32



30 days of service.

       63.      Defendant materially breached the contract with Plaintiffs and the Class by

counting the 30-day guarantee period from the day an account was administratively opened

rather than operable, by setting up impediments to cancellation, by refusing to honor Plaintiffs’

and Class Members’ request to cancel their Vonage service, and by charging Plaintiffs and Class

Members service and other fees after requests to cancel had been made.

       64.      Plaintiffs and members of the Class have had to pay significant additional sums

to Vonage as a direct result of Defendant’s refusal to honor the cancellation requests.

                               FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
                                (National Cancellation Class)

       65.      Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

       66.      Defendant entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and members of the Class under

which Defendant agreed, implicitly and consistently with its duty of good faith and fair dealing,

to honor subscribers’ requests to cancel their Vonage service. In addition, by entering into these

contracts, Defendant agreed to stop performing services for Plaintiffs and members of the Class

when Defendant was directed to do so and to cease charging Plaintiffs’ credit cards for services

no longer wanted; such performance was required by the reasonable expectations of the parties

and Defendant’s duty of good faith and fair dealing.

       67.      Defendant entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and members of the Class under

which Defendant agreed, implicitly and consistently with its duty of good faith and fair dealing,

to refund monies paid by a subscriber if the subscriber cancelled service within the first 30 days

of operable service; such performance was required by the reasonable expectations of the parties

and Defendant’s duty of good faith and fair dealing.



                                               -20-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 21 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 21 of 32



        68.      Defendant materially breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing implicit in

its contract with Plaintiffs and the Class by counting the 30-day guarantee period from the day an

account was administratively opened rather than operable, by setting up impediments to

cancellation, by refusing to honor Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ request to cancel their Vonage

service, and by charging Plaintiffs and Class Members service and other fees after the requests to

cancel had been made.

        69.     Defendant’s conduct was deliberate and intended to enrich Defendant by

depriving Plaintiffs of the benefits of their contract.

        70.     Plaintiffs and members of the Class have had to pay significant additional sums

to Vonage as a direct result of Defendant’s refusal to honor the cancellation requests.

                                   FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                                       Unjust Enrichment
                                       (National Classes)

        71.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

        72.     As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices,

Defendant has wrongfully used Plaintiffs’ and members of the Classes’ credit cards to collect

fees outside the scope of the Terms of Service.

        73.     Defendant has knowingly received benefits at the expense of Plaintiffs and

members of both Classes and it would be unjust for Defendant to retain these benefits.

                                   SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                            Violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act
                                    Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.
                                         (California Classes)

        74.     Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.




                                                 -21-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                      Filed 02/06/2009 Page 22 of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 22 of 32



       75.         Vonage’s VoIP service constitutes “services” under Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(a).

       76.         Plaintiff and other Class members are “consumers” under Cal. Civ. Code §

1761(d).

       77.         The purchases of Vonage’s VoIP service by Plaintiff and other Class members

constitute “transactions” under Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(e).

       78.         Vonage failed to disclose material terms about its “Money-Back Guarantee” and

“One Month FREE” offers, advertised “no annual contract” but then invoked a 12-page “Terms

of Service” agreement and charged an early termination fee, included unconscionable provisions

in the Terms of Service agreement, charged service fees and other charges to consumers without

their authorization after they cancelled the VoIP service. In so doing, Vonage violated the

Consumers Legal Remedies Act by:

              a.        Representing that goods or services have characteristics, uses or benefits
                        which they do not have;

              b.        Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;

              d.        Making false or misleading statements regarding the existence of price
                        reductions; and

              e.        Inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract.

       79.         Vonage has made these representations or failed to disclose the aforementioned

material facts in connection with transactions intended to result or that have resulted in

consumers purchasing Vonage’s VoIP service.

       80.         Plaintiffs have suffered damage as a result of Vonage’s methods, acts and

practices as described above, and seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and

costs of suit and non-monetary relief as the Court deems appropriate.




                                                 -22-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 23 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 23 of 32



                                 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                              Violation of the Unfair Competition Law
                               Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
                                         (California Classes)
       81.      Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

       82.      Vonage’s acts and practices as alleged in this Complaint constitute unlawful,

unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus.

& Prof. Code § 17200, et. seq.

       83.      Vonage engaged in unlawful business practices by, among other things:

                a.    engaging in conduct, as alleged herein, that violates the Consumers Legal
                      Remedies Act;

                b.    engaging in conduct, as alleged herein, that violates the False Advertising
                      Law; and

                c.    engaging in conduct that undermines or violates the stated policies
                      underlying the CLRA and the False Advertising Law, both of which seek to
                      protect consumers against unfair and sharp business practices and to
                      promote a basic level of honesty and reliability in the marketplace.

       84.      Vonage engaged in unfair business practices by, among other things:

                a.      engaging in conduct where the utility of that conduct is outweighed by
                        the gravity of the consequences to Plaintiff and Class members;

                b.      engaging in conduct that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous
                        or substantially injurious to Plaintiff and Class members; and

                c.      engaging in conduct that undermines or violates the stated policies
                        underlying the CLRA and the False Advertising Law, both of which seek
                        to protect consumers against unfair and sharp business practices and to
                        promote a basic level of honesty and reliability in the marketplace.


       85.      Vonage engaged in fraudulent business practices by engaging in conduct that was

and is likely to deceive consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances. Vonage’s

fraudulent business practices include but are not limited to:




                                                -23-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 24 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 24 of 32



                a.      failing to disclose material terms about its “Money-Back Guarantee” and
                        “One Month FREE” offers;

                b.      charging customers for service that should have been free under the “One
                        Month Free” and “Money-Back Guarantee” promotions;

                c.      advertising “no contract” and “no annual contract” when it invokes a 12-
                        page “Terms of Service” agreement that includes unconscionable terms
                        and charges an early termination fee; and

                d.      charging customers early termination fees and service fees after
                        cancellation.

       86.      As a direct and proximate result of Vonage’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent

acts, business practices, and conduct, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury in fact

and lost money or property as a result of Vonage’s practices in that, among other things:

                a.      Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased Vonage’s VoIP
                        services; and

                b.      Plaintiffs and Class members would have paid less for the VoIP service
                        than they paid.

                                 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                              Violation of the False Advertising Law
                              Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.
                                       (California Classes)

       87.      Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

       88.      Vonage’s acts, conduct, and practices, as alleged herein, constitute false

advertising in violation of Business and Professions Code § 17500, et seq. Among other things

Vonage has, with the intent of selling VoIP services, made or disseminated or caused to be made

or disseminated before the public in this state, in standardized written and electronic form,

statements concerning the VoIP service that (1) were untrue or misleading, and which Vonage

knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, to be untrue or misleading, or

(2) which were made as part of a plan or scheme not to sell the VoIP service as advertised.



                                                -24-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                      Filed 02/06/2009 Page 25 of 32
                                                             Filed 12/19/2008 Page 25 of 32



       89.      Vonage used marketing materials, marketing programs, promotional practices

and other sales techniques that failed to disclose material terms about its “Money-Back

Guarantee” and “One Month FREE” offers, advertised “no annual contract” but then invoked a

12-page “Terms of Service” agreement and charged an early termination fee, and improperly

charged service fees and other charges to consumers without their authorization after they

cancelled the VoIP service.

       90.      As a direct and proximate result of Vonage’s false advertising practices as alleged

herein, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as a

result of Vonage’s practices, and Vonage has benefited and unjustly enriched themselves by,

among other things: (a) selling the VoIP service to Plaintiffs and Class members that Vonage

otherwise would not have sold to them; and (b) charging service fees and other charges to

Plaintiff and Class members without their authorization after they cancelled the VoIP service.

Plaintiff and members of the Class lost money and/or property as a result of Vonage’s conduct.


                                    NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                                         Breach of Contract
                                   (California Cancellation Class)

       91.      Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

       92.      Defendant entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and members of the Class under

which Defendant agreed to honor subscribers’ requests to cancel their Vonage service. In

addition, by entering into these contracts, Defendant agreed to stop performing services for

Plaintiffs and members of the Class when Defendant was directed to do so and to cease charging

to Plaintiffs’ credit cards for services no longer wanted.




                                                -25-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 26 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 26 of 32



       93.      Defendant entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and members of the Class under

which Defendant promised a money-back guarantee to subscribers who cancelled within the first

30 days of service.

       94.      Defendant materially breached the contract with Plaintiffs and the Class by

counting the 30-day guarantee period from the day an account was administratively opened

rather than operable, by setting up impediments to cancellation, by refusing to honor Plaintiffs’

and Class Members’ request to cancel their Vonage service, and by charging Plaintiffs and Class

Members service and other fees after requests to cancel had been made.

       95.      Plaintiffs and members of the Class have had to pay significant additional sums

to Vonage as a direct result of Defendant’s refusal to honor the cancellation requests.

                                TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
                                (California Cancellation Class)

       96.      Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

       97.      Defendant entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and members of the Class under

which Defendant agreed, implicitly and consistently with its duty of good faith and fair dealing,

to honor subscribers’ requests to cancel their Vonage service. In addition, by entering into these

contracts, Defendant agreed to stop performing services for Plaintiffs and members of the Class

when Defendant was directed to do so and to cease charging Plaintiffs’ credit cards for services

no longer wanted; such performance was required by the reasonable expectations of the parties

and Defendant’s duty of good faith and fair dealing.




                                               -26-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 27 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 27 of 32



        98.     Defendant entered into contracts with Plaintiffs and members of the Class under

which Defendant agreed, implicitly and consistently with its duty of good faith and fair dealing,

to refund monies paid by a subscriber if the subscriber cancelled service within the first 30 days

of operable service; such performance was required by the reasonable expectations of the parties

and Defendant’s duty of good faith and fair dealing.

        99.      Defendant materially breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing implicit in

its contract with Plaintiffs and the Class by counting the 30-day guarantee period from the day an

account was administratively opened rather than operable, by setting up impediments to

cancellation, by refusing to honor Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ request to cancel their Vonage

service, and by charging Plaintiffs and Class Members service and other fees after the requests to

cancel had been made.

        100.    Defendant’s conduct was deliberate and intended to enrich Defendant by

depriving Plaintiffs of the benefits of their contract.

        101.    Plaintiffs and members of the Class have had to pay significant additional sums

to Vonage as a direct result of Defendant’s refusal to honor the cancellation requests.

                               ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
                                     Unjust Enrichment
                                    (California Classes)

        102.    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

        103.    Vonage has received, and continues to receive, benefits at the expense of

Plaintiffs and Class members as a result of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ purchase of the VoIP

service. Vonage wrongfully accepted and retained these benefits to the detriment of Plaintiff and

Class members.

        104.    Vonage’s enrichment at the expense of Plaintiffs and Class members was unjust.



                                                 -27-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                     Filed 02/06/2009 Page 28 of 32
                                                            Filed 12/19/2008 Page 28 of 32



                                    PRAYER FOR RELIEF

       WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the Classes,

demand judgment as follows:

       (a)     A determination that this action is a proper class action maintainable pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23 and appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Classes;


       (b)     Declaratory relief including:


               (i)     a declaration that Vonage breaches its own “Terms of Service” by failing

               to allow consumers to timely cancel their Vonage service;


               (ii)    a declaration that Vonage’s advertising, Terms of Service, and business

               practices are deceptive, misleading and unfair;


               (iii)   a declaration that the arbitration agreement and limits on liability found in

               Vonage’s Terms of Service are unconscionable and unenforceable;


       (c)     Equitable relief including:


               (i)     disgorgement and/or restitution of all monies paid by subscribers who

               cancelled their Vonage service within the first 30 days of operational service;


               (ii)    disgorgement and/or restitution of all monies paid by subscribers for days

               of service that should have been free under the One Month Free promotion;


               (iii)   disgorgement and/or restitution of all disconnection fees charged to

               subscribers who cancelled service;




                                                -28-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 29 of 32
                                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 29 of 32



               (iv)   disgorgement and/or restitution of monthly charges for service on unused

               accounts after customers requested cancellation of service;


       (d)     Injunctive relief including:


               (i)    directing Vonage to cease billing subscribers for Vonage services after

               they have requested cancellation of service;


               (ii)   directing Vonage to implement a one-step process, on Vonage’s website,

               that will permit customers to cancel their service.


       (e)     Notice to the Classes of the Action and relief resulting therefrom;


       (f)     The costs and disbursements incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with this action,

including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and


       (g)     Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.




                                               -29-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4                   Filed 02/06/2009 Page 30 of 32
                                                          Filed 12/19/2008 Page 30 of 32



                                JURY TRIAL DEMANDED


      Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.

Dated: December 19, 2008                             Respectfully submitted,




                                                     /s/ Scott Alan George, Esq.
                                                     David R. Buchanan
                                                     Scott Alan George
                                                     SEEGER WEISS LLP
                                                     550 Broad Street, Suite 920
                                                     Newark, NJ 07210
                                                     (973) 639-9100
                                                     CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE CLASS

                                                     Andrew N. Friedman
                                                     Victoria S. Nugent
                                                     Whitney R. Case
                                                     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
                                                     PLLC
                                                     1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
                                                     Suite 500, West Tower
                                                     Washington, DC 20005
                                                     Telephone: (202) 408-4600
                                                     Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
                                                     CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE CLASS

                                                     Jonathan Shub
                                                     SEEGER WEISS LLP
                                                     1515 Market Street
                                                     Suite 1380
                                                     Philadelphia, PA 19102
                                                     (215) 564-2300
                                                     CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR THE CLASS




                                              -30-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4       Filed 02/06/2009 Page 31 of 32
                                              Filed 12/19/2008 Page 31 of 32




Lee S. Shalov                            Reginald Terrell
Patrick L. Rocco                         THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
SHALOV STONE & BONNER LLP                223 25th Street
163 Madison Avenue                       Richmond, California 94804
P.O. Box 1277                            Telephone: (510) 237-9700
Morristown, NJ 07962                     Facsimile: (510) 237-4616
(973) 775-8997
                                         Lawrence D. Nwajei
Paul M. Weiss                            LAW OFFICES OF
FREED WEISS                              LAWRENCE D. NWAJEI
111 West Washington Street               5850 Canaga Avenue, Suite 400
Suite 1331                               Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Chicago, IL 60602                        Telephone: (818) 710-2775
(312) 220-0000
                                         Eric H. Gibbs
Daniel M. Cohen                          Amanda M. Steiner
CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA LLP               Christina H. C. Sharp
507 C Street, N.E.                       GIRARD GIBBS LLP
Washington, DC 20002                     601 California Street, 14th Floor
(202) 587-5061                           San Francisco, CA 94108
                                         Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Steven N. Berk                           Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
CHAVEZ & GERTLER, LLP
1225 15th Street, N.W.                   Benjamin Schwartzman
Washington, DC 20005                     GREENER BANDUCCI SHOEMAKER
(202) 232-7550                           PA
                                         950 West Bannock Street, Suite 900
James C. Krause                          Boise, ID 83702
Eric J. Benink                           Telephone: (208) 319-2600
KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK &               Facsimile: (208) 319-2601
SLAVENS, LLP
625 Broadway, Ste. 635                   Craig M. Aronow
San Deigo, CA 92101                      REBENACK ARONOW & MASCOLO
Telephone: (619) 232-0331                LLP
Facsimile: (619) 232-4019                200 Livingstone Ave.
                                         New Brunswick, NJ 08901
Donald Amamgbo                           Telephone: (732) 247-3600
AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES                     Facsimile: (732) 247-3630
7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
Oakland, California 94621                Barbara Quinn Smith
Telephone: (510) 615-6000                MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO
Facsimile: (510) 615-6025                6685 Beta Dr.
                                         Cleveland, OH 44143
                                         Telephone: (440) 605-7297
                                         Facsimile: (440) 848-8175




                                  -31-
 Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 19
Case 3:07-cv-03906-FLW-TJB Document 26-4    Filed 02/06/2009 Page 32 of 32
                                           Filed 12/19/2008 Page 32 of 32




Thomas A. Hargett
Thomas K. Caldwell
MADDOX HARGETT & CARUSO
10100 Lantern Rd.
Suite 150
Fishers, IN 46038
Telephone: (317) 598-2040
Facsimile: (317) 598-2050

David P. Meyer
Matthew R. Wilson
DAVID P. MEYER & ASSOCIATES
CO., LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
Columbus, Ohio 43215
Telephone: (614) 224-6000
Facsimile: (614) 224-6066



425431.2




                                 -32-

								
To top
;