The action alleges that subscribers who maintain multiple screen names on their AOL account have unknowingly had those screen names "spun-off" into individual separate accounts. AOL then automatically bills the subscriber's credit card or bank account the normal monthly subscription fee for this spun-off account. Oftentimes it has taken months for subscribers to find the problem, because AOL has allegedly intentionally manipulated the billing cycle for the spun-off accounts in order to make it appear that the charges are for different billing cycles. For example, the action alleges that AOL will charge subscribers' accounts at the beginning of the month for one subscription fee and will then post a second subscription fee at the end of the same month. As a result, consumers who review their credit card or bank statements assume they are being charged one subscription fee for two separate months, rather than multiple subscription fees for a single month. Allegedly, the only way to tell if you are being double-billed is to compare your credit card or bank statements from multiple successive months.

Allegedly, when subscribers do discover the problem, they are successfully stonewalled by the company's customer support practices. ICT, the company owned by AOL to handle consumer complaints, allegedly makes subscribers navigate a complicated maze of voice mails and subjects them to long periods of being on hold. When the customer is able to reach a service representative, they are allegedly offered, at most, partial refund for the spun-off account and ICT customer representatives allegedly attempt to convince the customers to retain the spun-off account. This action is one of many that has been filed nationwide as consumers learn of the alleged fraudulent activity of AOL. Actions in almost 10 states are currently pending.