Judge Denied Altice Motion in Deceptive Practices Suit

A Waterbury court allowed the state to continue its lawsuit regarding alleged deceptive fees by Altice USA.

Updated on Sept. 23, 2026 in Telecommunications

Bold flat-color editorial illustration of a stone building facade, symbolizing the institutional authority of the state judiciary. — A Waterbury Superior Court judge denied Altice USA's motion to strike, allowing Connecticut's lawsuit over alleged deceptive billing practices to proceed. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

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 alleging that Altice USA engaged in deceptive trade practices. The state of Connecticut claims the company misled consumers, particularly Spanish-speaking residents, regarding mandatory network fees.

Why it matters

The lawsuit alleges that Altice improperly collected fees for basic business functions while using confusing disclosures to hide costs from vulnerable consumers. This ruling reinforces the state's authority to challenge telecommunications billing practices under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The company collected $39.1 million through a Network Enhancement Fee that climbed from $2.50 to $6 per month. The attorney general argues these costs cover basic infrastructure already included in base rates.

The players

Daniel Klau

He is the Waterbury Superior Court judge who signed the decision allowing the state's lawsuit to proceed.

Altice USA

It is a telecommunications company operating as Optimum that faces allegations of deceptive trade practices in Connecticut.

The details

The state alleges Altice misled customers by marketing services in Spanish while providing fee disclosures only in English-language fine print. The fees were reportedly hidden until consumers reached the final checkout stage in the online shopping cart.

January 2019: Altice allegedly began claiming fees were for network improvements.
October 2025: The state expanded its original complaint.
October 30, 2025: The state filed an amended complaint against the company.
September 9, 2026: Judge Daniel Klau signed the memorandum of decision.

The Tech Race

This case reflects a broader shift toward greater regulatory scrutiny of telecommunications billing transparency in the internet service provider market. It highlights a departure from historical industry standards where add-on fees were often shielded from aggressive consumer protection litigation.

This lawsuit could influence how companies disclose mandatory fees during the sign-up process for internet services. Residents may see changes in how Optimum communicates pricing and potential fee structures as the litigation moves forward.

The takeaway

Consumers should remain vigilant when reviewing checkout totals, as companies may bury additional fees in fine print. Checking base rates against advertised prices can help identify potential discrepancies in your monthly internet bill.