• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, August 1, 2016

Comcast, the country's largest Internet and cable provider, duped around 500,000 Washington residents into purchasing so-called "service protection plans," state Attorney General Robert Ferguson alleged Monday in a new lawsuit against the company.

Comcast allegedly "grossly misrepresented" the $4.99-a-month plan by claiming it provided comprehensive coverage for repairs, including for all "inside wiring," the lawsuit alleges. Instead, the service plans cover only "a narrow scope of repairs," and specifically exclude most of the wiring inside people's homes, according to the lawsuit.

"Although Comcast claimed the [plan] covers all service calls related to customer-owned equipment, it does not cover any actual repairs relating to customer equipment. It simply covers the technician visiting the customer's house and declaring that the customer's equipment is broken," the complaint alleges.

Ferguson alleges that Comcast misrepresented the scope of the plan protections on its Web site, as well as in emails and online chats with customers. The company allegedly collected $73 million in fees for the plan from Washington residents since 2011.

From January of that year through the middle of this June, Comcast's site allegedly promised people that the service protection plan would provide a host of benefits, including "unlimited covered service calls with no contracts," "hassle-free replacement and repair of defective customer inside wiring," and "confidence that if there is a problem with any XFINITY service, Comcast will take care of it without charging a service fee."

The plan's online terms and conditions state that it covers "all inside-wiring related service calls," but the last paragraph contains a disclaimer stating: "The plan does not cover the repair of wire concealed within a wall (i.e. wire that is wall fished)," according to the lawsuit.

A Comcast spokesperson says the plan has covered more than 99% of Washington consumers' repair calls. "We worked with the Attorney General’s office to address every issue they raised, and we made several improvements based on their input," the spokesperson stated. "Given that we were committed to continue working collaboratively with the Attorney General’s office, we’re surprised and disappointed that they have instead chosen litigation."

The company adds it intends to "vigorously defend" itself.