Atlantech Online, Inc.

Review: In January 2014, Atlantech advised [redacted]. via email that we had been the victim of international toll fraud (Atlantech provided us a list of 59 fraudulent international calls). We immediately responded by calling the sender of the email, Steve M[redacted], who informed us that, for [redacted]’s protection, he had disabled our international calling capacity. We subsequently received a bill for approximately $5k, listing almost 400 fraudulent calls. Our account exec, Morgan H[redacted], advised us to pay only the undisputed portion; he advised us that the international long distance (ILD) carrier Atlantech uses would likely not hold them responsible, so [redacted] would likely not have to pay for the fraudulent calls we did not place.

For the next five months, [redacted]’s operations team diligently followed up with Mr. H[redacted] at Atlantech, both by phone and by email, in an effort to amicably resolve this billing dispute. At regular intervals, we requested that Mr. H[redacted] update us on the status of his communications with the ILD; he alternately replied that he was still looking into it or failed to reply at all. Per his instruction, we continued to pay only the undisputed (non-fraud-related) portions of our bills as they came due. Eventually, Mr. H[redacted] informed us that he thought [redacted] would have to pay for the fraudulent calls, after all.

Around June 11, 2014, Atlantech dropped by [redacted]’s office to inform us that we were the victim of a second incident of international toll fraud. Our operations manager instructed Atlantech to permanently disable all international calling services. Atlantech confirmed via email that all international calling had been disabled.

On June 26, 2014, we spoke with Mike F[redacted] at Atlantech by phone. He proposed that [redacted] pay $2,036.55, and Atlantech keep $278.39 and return $1,758.16 to [redacted]’s account in the form of an account credit. we made clear to Mr. F[redacted] that this was not an acceptable resolution from [redacted]’s perspective, as we did not place any of the calls, and we were concerned that Atlantech would use the credit (without [redacted]’s authorization) to pay for a portion of the second incident of toll fraud, effectively stripping [redacted] of its ability to dispute those fraudulent charges. We indicated that we would be willing to pay $278.39 in return for a release from all additional charges connected to the toll fraud. Mr. F[redacted] agreed that Atlantech would email us a claim release agreement releasing [redacted] of all responsibility for the international toll fraud that was perpetrated against us, in return for which [redacted] would pay Atlantech $278.39 (Atlantech’s cost for the first 59 fraudulent calls, those made before Atlantech informed [redacted] that our international calling had been disabled) after the agreement was fully executed. Per our discussion, this resolution was not to include any overpayment/credit-back arrangement of any kind, strictly the payment for 59 calls at $278.39. The following day, we received via email from Atlantech an Account Credit and Release Agreement containing the credit-back terms which we had explicitly informed Mike the day prior that [redacted] would not agree to. We declined to sign the document.

On July 15, 2014 [redacted] received an email notice that Atlantech intended to suspend [redacted]’s Internet service (thereby rendering our VOIP phone service unusable and cutting off all communications) on July 31, 2014 unless we brought our account current before that date. [redacted] is current on all legitimate/undisputed charges to date.

On July 25, 2014, in an email exchange, [redacted] asked Mr. F[redacted] to meet with us face to face (both businesses occupy the same office building) and work out a solution together. He replied that he saw no reason to meet, and asked that we instead Email him a proposed solution. We Emailed our proposal that same day, requesting a response by July 28, 2014, and requesting that Atlantech hold off on suspending our services while we negotiated a solution. [redacted] received no response from Atlantech to our proposed solution. In the event that Atlantech suspends our services, this will cause a significant and unjustified disruption to our business.Desired Settlement: [redacted] wishes to ensure that our Internet/VOIP services are not suspended while our two companies negotiate a reasonable resolution to this billing dispute over the fraudulent calls.

Consumer

Response:

consumer ([redacted] Inc. ###-###-#### cell) voice mailed that both have lawyered up and are trying to come to a resolution, says Atlantec Online has agreed to hold off on suspending the consumer's services while they are moving through the negotiation process

Business

Response:

Please find enclosed a summary timeline of the events occurring from January 2014 through June 2014.In surmmary, the customer's phone system (PBX) was hacked resulting in un-authorized calls made internationally. After the customer requested we turn off international long distance (ILD) we did so, however they claim long distance calls were still being made (not by them) and they blamed this on us. International long distance calls are calls made by dialing 011 and then the phone number. Some of the calls the customer is disputing are calls made to the Caribbean, etc. You do not have to dial 011 to place these calls, these are made much like making a domestic call, Disconnecting ILD does not affect those types of calls. By turning off the customers ILD, we did all we could to prevent un-authorized calls. The customer needs to take responsibility for their own phone system and employees to prevent un-authorized calls. We cannot be held responsible for this. :We worked out a compromise with the customer regarding the first time they were hacked, however the customer didn’t want to sign a credit release form we have always used so the Compromise fell apart. Both parties tried to work this out between representatives from both companies but that failed.It is now in the hands of our attorneys,Thanks very much,Michael F[redacted]

Business

Response:

returned call to business (Michael *f[redacted]r ###-###-####) who voice mailed he had questions, voice mailed him to call me if he still had questions since the complaint has been closed [redacted]an)