billing complaint

I don't blame you, I'd feel that way too. Did they give you any explanation for the extra charges? Did you maybe cancel an order for an iPad? Generally, they do only correct billing errors for the previous 3 months as it is the customer's responsibility to review their bills. I think the wireless agreement even says that. However, I would think you could get an exception seeing as you were billed for a line you never had. I suggest reaching out to @ATTMobilityCare via private message. Something else to consider, the cost for you to switch to someone else will likely far exceed what you were overbilled.

Nah--never bought an ipad.  I get the fine print, and I should have looked at my bill more carefully, but the fact that they're quibbling over a $100 makes it silly in my book.  It also upsets me that there was no apology for what had to have been a dishonest sales rep signing me up for something I didn't have/need.  The $35 doesn't even really compensate me for the time spent disputing this.  I don't care what it costs now to switch, att is not getting another penny from me after this is done...

@us183sub4

I know it's like rubbing salt in the wound, but seriously, this is on you.  Do you also check your credit card bill?    Mistakes happen.   I have everything on some kind of autopay, but Instill review my bills.

If the money matters to you, then you must do so.  The convenience of autopay shouldn't replace a regular review of bills.  

I have been double billed for hotel stays.  Billed for subscriptions I didn't buy and billed for propane that was never delivered.  If I didn't check my auto pay, these all would have escaped without refund/credit. 

https://www.att.com/legal/terms.wirelessCustomerAgreement-list.html

read section 1.4 of ATT customer agreement on dispute.  You have 100 days.

Verizon allows 90 days, Sprint only 60. T mobile doesn't state a limit, but has plenty of legal mumbo jumbo in their TOS to cover their rears.

Knowing you have limited rights I hope will make you more diligent in the future.

---

p.s.  my response below was meant to be to the reply about me quibbling over $100...

---

strange response.  you don't seem to realize att, a multi-billion dollar corporation, received $100 for nothing, and that i paid $100 for no services rendered.  i think that puts me in the right to complain.  it's not the amount, it's that it was fraudulent.  i freely admit my error, but in fact it was the small denomination of only $10 a month that made it so easy to go unnoticed.  finally, there is a difference between "rules" (the fine print) and "right" (a mistake was made, one that is easy to trace and identify, with no ambiguity regarding that it was an error, and one that could be easily fixed).  they have honored the rules, but they have not done what is right.  oh well...

---

@us183sub4 wrote:

strange response.  you don't seem to realize att, a multi-billion dollar corporation, received $100 for nothing, and that i paid $100 for no services rendered.  i think that puts me in the right to complain.  it's not the amount, it's that it was fraudulent.  i freely admit my error, but in fact it was the small denomination of only $10 a month that made it so easy to go unnoticed.

So how far back do you think should you be able to ask for your money back because you never bothered to check? 2 years? 10 years?  

Somewhere a line got activated. This requires approval from the end user. In order for ANY line to be activated on an account there absolutely must be a credit check run. This requires approval from the end user. 

A tablet line does not mysteriously appear on an account. Whether it was a bring your own device or an addition of hardware, there was a transaction that occurred to get this tablet line on the account.  

---

@David606 wrote:

Somewhere a line got activated. This requires approval from the end user. In order for ANY line to be activated on an account there absolutely must be a credit check run. This requires approval from the end user. 

I activated a new line in March and have yet to see it in Credit Karma, I haven't checked the regular reports since but I've seen others mention seeing it in Credit Karma.

I've said this many times and that I don't recall ever seeing any AT&T wireless credit checks, but always considered that if one came up when I added a line that it wouldn't strike me as odd so I might not remember, so I finally went back and checked my previous reports (which I've saved).

When checking my "regular" saved/printed credit reports (Transunion, Experion and Equifax) for the 1-8 months after when I did any of the following:

• I started my own AT&T Wireless Postpaid account (I ToBRed from my ex-gf) in 2011.
• Added a new line 6 months later (with a smartphone on contract).
• Added a new line 18 months ago (with a smartphone on contract).
• Added a new connected car plan with a new line in March of 2017.
• I also checked Next phone purchases or phone upgrades that resulted in a contract extension.

I do NOT see a soft or hard inquiry for a credit report for any of these. Hard should stay on for 2 years (right?) so that shouldn't be hard to find at all (not sure how long soft check stays)

AT&T credit checks would say AT&T or ATT, correct? Or something equally easily identifiable? They don't use a 3rd party? (I don't see anything near the new line/phones that even make me wonder if that is something that could be it).

Credit check or not (I don't check my credit report monthly) paid bills can and should be reviewed for accuracy. 

Cell carriers have a lot of inactive lines.  My dad never used his phone.  My ex husband never use cellular on his iPad.  It's up to the customer to remove service.  But ATT has the right to charge for service, even if you didn't use it.  Otherwise customers would be retroactively removing lines all the time.  

It would be like expecting a refund for car insurance because I never had an accident. 

re:  So how far back do you think should you be able to ask for your money back because you never bothered to check? 2 years? 10 years?  

since you asked--and i get that there should be a reasonable time limit, and maybe 3 months should be it--let me pose this hypothetical:  imagine you are charged an ambiguous "line tax" of $1.20 every month for 10 years (pretty easy to overlook, right?), and then it is found out that this is a fraudulent charge made up by at&t (not that a multi-billion dollar corporation would ever commit such an act).  would you be ok with a $3.60 reimbursement, or would you expect the $144.00, even though the letter of the law says 3 months?