Frontier Communications customers who've sued the company for falsely advertising Internet speeds are asking the West Virginia Supreme Court to allow the case to proceed.
"We hope the Supreme Court will finally grant us our day in court, so we can get finally get West Virginia out of the digital dark ages," said Michael Sheridan, a Frontier customer in Greenbrier County suing the Internet provider.
For 18 months, Frontier has argued that its customers agreed to "terms and conditions" that require the two sides to settle disputes through arbitration - not in a court of law.
"We strongly believe that arbitration provides for quick and fair resolution of consumer complaints, tailored to each consumer," Frontier spokesman Andy Malinoski said.
But Frontier's customers allege the company "buried" the arbitration provisions on its website - a site they never visited. Frontier also included the terms in a monthly bill, but in print so minuscule that nobody saw it, customers say.
Last week, Frontier customers urged the Supreme Court to reject the company's efforts to dismiss the class-action lawsuit that alleges Frontier failed to provide the high-speed Internet services it advertises.
In December, Lincoln Circuit Judge Jay Hoke rejected Frontier's push to toss the lawsuit and force customers to settle their disputes through arbitration - a process that limits claims for damages to $10,000. Customers stand to gain significantly more in damages through a jury verdict or settlement.
Frontier appealed Hoke's decision to the Supreme Court, characterizing its arbitration terms as "friendly" to customers and saying the judge's ruling showed "hostility" toward such proceedings.
"We believe the controlling decisions on this issue from the U.S Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia support Frontier's position in this matter," Malinoski said.
In a response filed with the Supreme Court last week, Frontier customers argue they never agreed to arbitrate their disputes over Internet service. They never signed a contract with the company. They never agreed to Frontier's terms and conditions.
"Frontier's position is that consumers are obliged to be on alert at all times - diligently reviewing the fine print on each and every page of promotional material received - for the possibility that they may be waiving their rights by doing nothing at all," Frontier's customers said in the legal brief.
Frontier has asserted it repeatedly informed customers about the arbitration terms on monthly bills and on the company's website. Customers suing the company had a chance to cancel their Internet service but never did, according to Frontier.
"In addition to the terms and conditions appearing on our website, we sent a printed hard copy of our terms and conditions to each of the plaintiffs with his or her bill," Malinoski said. "Also, a message printed directly on the bill itself notified them of the terms and conditions, including the consumer-friendly arbitration process."
In October 2014, Frontier customers sued the company, alleging Frontier "throttles back" its Internet service and provides speeds slower than advertised. Frontier never notified customers about the practice, according to the complaint.
Customers reiterated those complaints in their Supreme Court filing last week.
"Frontier's practice of overcharging and simultaneously failing to provide the high-speed, broadband level of service it advertises has created high profits for Frontier but left West Virginia Internet users in the digital dark age," the legal brief states.
Frontier has said that the handful of customers suing the company got the Internet service they paid for.
The Hurricane law firm Klein, Sheridan & Glazer and the Charleston law firm Bailey & Glasser are representing Frontier's disgruntled customers.
Reach Eric Eyre at ericeyre@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-4869 or follow @ericeyre on Twitter.