A new controversy is making waves in the telecommunications world, and this time, the spotlight is on Verizon. What seemed to be just another company in the sector is now facing serious accusations from some of its own users. An alleged internal secret could change the way this company is perceived and its relationship with customers who dare to speak out.
What is coming to light could make not only Verizon uncomfortable, but the entire industry as well. Several customers have publicly reported that the entity keeps a secret blacklist.
This alleged list would include users who have filed complaints against the company, especially when these claims have reached government agencies, according to Phone Arena. According to the testimonies, it would act ruthlessly when a customer decides to involve an official entity, such as a consumer protection office.
What many people do when they have problems with a company, such as seeking external help or legal support, could have unexpected consequences. According to one of the whistleblowers, after presenting his case to the Consumer Mediation Program of the Office of the Attorney General of Columbia, he was included on this list. He suffered retaliation.
Verizon, under the spotlight
The impact of being on this list, according to reports, goes far beyond losing access to the company's services. The customer claims that Verizon affected his credit history by reporting a debt as active that had already been settled. This prevented him from accessing financial products and loans.
The most alarming thing is that this type of action could harm a person's financial life for years. To support his accusations, the affected individual presented emails in which instructions were given to add him to said blacklist. Although the company has publicly denied the existence of such a database, the documents seem to suggest otherwise.
The company replied that it had already sent the account to collections and that it acted according to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This regulation, according to Verizon, limits the possibilities of removing negative information from the credit history after a payment. However, experts indicate that the FCRA doesn't prohibit pay-for-delete agreements.
Another important detail is that the amount owed was not significant. In addition, part of the conflict arose from an apparent confusion about a router. Despite the minor nature of the matter, Verizon's reaction was disproportionate, according to the user.
The concerning issue here is not just the specific dispute, but the pattern this could reveal. Hiding the existence of a blacklist and taking retaliatory action against customers who file complaints damages Verizon's image and sends a negative message.