Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
Report: #1283892

Complaint Review: GoGo Air Inflight Internet - Chicago Illinois

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Monticello — West Palm Beach Florida USA
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • GoGo Air Inflight Internet 111 N. Canal St. Chicago, Illinois USA

GoGo Air Inflight Internet Gogo LLC Recurring billing scam Chicago Illinois

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

GOGO Inflight internet offered on many major airlines allows internet access in a few different options. An "hour pass", "day pass", and "month pass". Unkowningly (or possibly in real fine print, I can't be sure) you're agreeing to be billed reoccurringly if you select the month pass. In my case $49.95 each month.

As I write this, I see on wikipedia that they've been sued in a class action lawsuit in 2013 (ruled on in 2015) for this exact same issue (cited below). However, its now 2016 and I've been duped in the same way. I consider myself an average internet user and someone of at least average intelligence. I was not under the impression I was signing up for a reoccurring service, I never received an email from GoGo confirming a service agreement, and they don't send invoices out when they charge your credit card.

I called their customer service number to ask that the charge be reversed. The rep told me she would "submit the request to her supervisor". Its been over a week. No word back yet.   

In 2013 Gogo was the subject of a class-action lawsuit, for allegedly not mentioning recurring charges on their website nor notifying customers that these recurring charges would be made.[58][59][60] A New York federal judge, Jack Weinstein, ruled on April 8, 2015 that the suit (Berkson, et al. v. Gogo LLC, Case No. 14-CV-1199, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York) for claims that the company tricked consumers into signing up for automatic monthly renewal of Wi-Fi connections[61] was allowed to move forward. In an 83-page memorandum and order of the case, the judge wrote, "the average internet user would not have been informed. . . that he was binding himself to a sign-in-wrap" and that the wrap contract thus "does not support the venue and arbitration clauses relied upon by defendants."  

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 02/01/2016 07:42 AM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now