Judge Rejected Altice Motion in Connecticut Fee Lawsuit
A Connecticut court will move forward with a case alleging the provider misled consumers on hidden service fees.
Updated on Sept. 23, 2026 in Telecommunications
Live Poll
Should companies be prohibited from charging hidden fees beyond the advertised price of a service?
A Waterbury Superior Court judge has denied a motion to strike a lawsuit against Altice USA, allowing claims of deceptive trade practices to proceed. The state alleges the company misled Spanish-speaking consumers regarding a "Network Enhancement Fee" that collected at least $39.1 million.
Why it matters
The ruling validates the state's claim that Altice used deceptive marketing tactics by burying disclosures in English-language fine print for Spanish-language advertisements. It highlights the growing regulatory scrutiny over how internet service providers use add-on fees to effectively increase base rates.
The disputed Network Enhancement Fee increased from an initial $2.50 per month to $6 per month. Plaintiffs allege this fee, which appears in shopping carts only after service selection, covers costs already included in base rates.
The players
Altice USA
A telecommunications provider offering cable, fiber, and mobile services under the Optimum brand.
Daniel Klau
A judge at the Waterbury Superior Court in Connecticut who presided over the motion to strike.
The details
The state's complaint alleges that Altice employed Spanish-language marketing materials that failed to adequately disclose the fee, which was described only in English-language fine print. This practice, the attorney general argues, misled consumers about the true cost of services. The court ruled that the state successfully pleaded plausible claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, a state law that protects consumers from deceptive business acts.
Timeline
January 2019: Altice allegedly began representing the fees as costs for network improvements.
October 2025: The state expanded the original legal complaint.
October 30, 2025: The state formally filed an amended complaint.
September 9, 2026: Judge Daniel Klau signed the memorandum of decision.
The Tech Race
This case sits alongside a broader regulatory trend of investigating transparency in internet service billing. It follows recent efforts by state authorities to hold ISPs accountable for fees they argue are duplicative of base business functions.
Connecticut consumers who were charged the Network Enhancement Fee will continue to watch for updates on the lawsuit's progress toward discovery and potential trial. The case underscores the importance of reviewing fine-print disclosures during the online checkout process for internet services.
The takeaway
The court's decision clears the path for the state to pursue its claims against Altice's billing disclosures. Residents should monitor future court filings in the Waterbury Superior Court for evidence regarding the alleged marketing tactics.
Further reading
For more on industry billing transparency, visit Telecommunications.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Westfair Communications.
Live Poll
Should companies be prohibited from charging hidden fees beyond the advertised price of a service?
