A statewide class action has been filed in New York against Integretel, Inc., Mercury Marketing of Delaware, Inc. and Neal Saferstein, owner of these companies. The action is brought on behalf of all New York residents who, since 1997, never agreed to pay for an Internet service, or any other service, from Mercury Marketing of Delaware, Inc., or its subsidiaries, but who have been billed by Mercury on their phone bills anyway. The consumers allege that, in agreement with local phone services providers such as Verizon Wireless, Mercury and its subsidiaries illegally piggyback fees for services that are never provided onto consumers' telephone bills. Consumers allege that Mercury and its subsidiaries have a long history of this illegal conduct and have engaged in fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, tortious conversion and deceptive trade practices as a result of this conduct. Additionally, the consumers allege that Mercury's subsidiary, Integretel, Inc., has violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to and actually collecting from consumers for these nonexistent services. The consumers are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, treble damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

This action arises as the result of what industry insiders refer to as "cramming". Under a "cramming" scheme, companies will allegedly contract with
local telephone and wireless service providers to piggyback fees onto consumers' phone bills. These fees are usually for such services as Internet access or
other telecommunication services that are not ordered by the consumer. The consumers allege that companies that engage in these schemes do so in the hope
consumers will not notice the extra charge on their phone bills, and will blindly pay for services they have not ordered and have not received. According to consumers, the defendants in this matter, Mercury Marketing and its subsidiaries, are among the most notorious perpetrators of "cramming" schemes in the nation. Consumers allege that dozens of actions have been brought against Mercury by state governments and the Federal Trade Commission in order to force the company to cease its activities. However, the consumers allege that Mercury merely settles these cases and then continues to engage in these schemes due to fact that the potential profit far exceeds any fines and settlements that may be imposed upon the company.

The consumers allege that in New York, Mercury and its subsidiaries have an agreement with Verizon wireless to bill customers for services under Verizon's monthly telephone bill. According to the consumers, once they discover the unauthorized charge and complain, they are given the runaround by Mercury and its subsidiaries. Consumers allege that Mercury initially attempts to convince consumers that the charge is valid and legal. If the consumer continues to complain, Mercury allegedly attempts to offer the consumer a "free trial" for Internet service. However, the consumers allege that the free trial is bogus and merely intended to facilitate future billing. If complaints continue, the consumers claim that Mercury will offer a credit. However, consumers assert that the credit is only issued after further complaints and threats are made and may take months to be issued. It is the consumers' allegation that this tactic is engaged in by Mercury in the hopes that the consumer will forget about the charge and credit. According to the consumers, this scheme has victimized thousands, if not tens of thousands, of New York residents in the six years it has been in operation.