The Spectrum Cable class action lawsuit is entering a pivotal stage as the case has been formally stayed and moved to arbitration. The lawsuit, originally filed in a Kentucky circuit court, alleges that Spectrum Cable misled customers through deceptive billing practices. The latest development came on September 3, 2025, when Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings granted an order compelling arbitration, pausing all court deadlines until at least December 1, 2025, when a joint status report is due.
This means the case will not advance further in federal court unless arbitration is resolved or otherwise revisited, a move that significantly shapes the trajectory of the claims. Consumers who believe they were affected by Spectrum’s billing practices are urged to stay alert as the arbitration process unfolds.
Plaintiff Accuses Charter of Deceptive Fees
Plaintiff Richard Wookey filed the lawsuit against Charter Communications (DE) Inc., which is doing business as Spectrum Cable and Charter Communications Operating LLC. The case, also referred to as the Charter Spectrum class action, contends that Spectrum unlawfully imposed additional costs on its cable television customers.
At the core of the case is the accusation of a Charter Communications deceptive fee, specifically tied to Spectrum’s monthly “Broadcast TV Surcharge.” The plaintiff argues that Spectrum concealed the true cost of service by disguising a discretionary fee as a mandatory, government-related charge.
The Broadcast TV Surcharge Under Scrutiny
The Spectrum Broadcast TV Surcharge lawsuit centers on a $28 monthly fee added to customer bills. According to Spectrum, the surcharge is designed to cover retransmission costs for carrying local broadcast stations. However, the lawsuit claims that Spectrum misrepresents the charge as a pass-through fee dictated by local broadcasters or government authorities.
The complaint asserts that Spectrum has full control over whether to apply the fee and that the surcharge significantly exceeds the company’s actual retransmission expenses. It is claimed if Spectrum were truly paying out the full amount collected, the company would be distributing more than $34 million annually to broadcasters, which the plaintiff argues is highly unlikely.
By portraying the surcharge as unavoidable, the plaintiff alleges that Spectrum engaged in deceptive conduct, violating state consumer protection laws and leading to Spectrum's hidden fees that inflate customers’ bills without transparent disclosure.
Timeline of Legal Proceedings
The Spectrum overcharge lawsuit has seen a series of procedural moves since it was first filed. A summary of key developments includes:
- July 2, 2025: The case was removed from the Jefferson Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings was assigned.
- July 9, 2025: Spectrum’s parent companies filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Strike Class Action Allegations, supported by declarations and proposed orders.
- July 31, 2025: The plaintiff requested an extension to respond to the arbitration motion.
- August 29, 2025: Instead of opposing arbitration, the plaintiff submitted an agreed order to compel arbitration.
- September 3, 2025: Judge Jennings issued an Agreed Order Compelling Arbitration, staying the case in its entirety.
The stay halts all discovery, deadlines, and proceedings in federal court until arbitration concludes or new orders are issued. A joint status report from both parties is due December 1, 2025.
Legal Basis for the Claims
The complaint cites violations of Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 367.170, which declares unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts in trade or commerce unlawful. The statute defines “unfair” as “unconscionable,” framing the surcharge as both misleading and unconscionable under Kentucky law.
In addition, KRS 367.220 allows consumers to recover actual damages if they are harmed by deceptive business practices. The plaintiff argues that Spectrum’s surcharge constitutes such a violation by misleading subscribers about the true cost of television services.
The Spectrum deceptive pricing claim is therefore grounded not only in allegations of misrepresentation but also in state statutes that provide clear consumer protections against false or unfair billing practices.
Who Could Be Affected by the Case?
While the lawsuit was filed in Kentucky, the allegations point to broader billing practices that may affect consumers nationwide. Currently, the proposed class definition encompasses Kentucky residents who subscribed to Spectrum’s television services and were charged the Broadcast TV Surcharge. Internet-only customers are not part of the class.
If arbitration or future proceedings expand the scope, consumers across the country who paid the surcharge could potentially be included. Those who qualify may seek refunds or other monetary relief if the case results in a favorable outcome.
The case also highlights how cable subscribers should scrutinize billing statements to identify hidden fees or surcharges that may not reflect true pass-through costs.
Consumer Remedies and Potential Outcomes
If successful, the arbitration could result in:
- Refunds or compensation for customers who paid the Broadcast TV Surcharge
- Possible elimination or restructuring of the surcharge
- Greater transparency in advertising and billing to ensure customers understand the true cost of Spectrum’s television service
Although no resolution has been reached, this case remains an important example of how consumers are challenging Spectrum's allegedly deceptive pricing claims through the legal system. The outcome could have implications not only for Spectrum but also for how other cable providers present and justify similar surcharges.
Arbitration Outcome Could Shape Cable Billing Practices
The Spectrum Cable class action lawsuit has entered arbitration, halting federal court proceedings until December. At issue is whether Spectrum misled customers by disguising a discretionary fee as a mandatory charge. With millions of dollars potentially at stake and consumer billing transparency on the line, the outcome could affect how cable companies nationwide structure and disclose their fees.
For now, Spectrum subscribers who believe they were overcharged should closely monitor updates, as arbitration will determine whether refunds or policy changes are required.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
It alleges that Spectrum imposed a deceptive “Broadcast TV Surcharge,” misleading customers into believing it was a government or broadcaster-mandated fee when it was actually discretionary.
The lawsuit cites KRS 367.170, which prohibits unfair, false, or deceptive trade practices, and KRS 367.220, which allows consumers to recover damages for such practices.
Possible outcomes may include refunds for affected customers, elimination of the surcharge, or clearer disclosure of fees in future billing.
Currently, the proposed class covers Kentucky residents who subscribed to Spectrum television services and paid the Broadcast TV Surcharge.
The case is stayed in federal court while arbitration proceeds. A joint status report from both parties is due by December 1, 2025, which will provide the next Spectrum cable settlement updates.
Add Comment