By Johnnie Rosario
When the Guam Legislature increased the Business Privilege Tax from 4% to 5% in March of 2018, local telephone, internet, and cable television provider GTA passed the cost of this increase to its consumers as a surcharge over and above the prices it agreed to charge.
That was against the law because consumers had no or inadequate notice of that cost ahead of being charged, according to the Attorney General’s office (AGO) which filed a lawsuit on Friday alleging the company also created a false impression that the BPT is a mandatory surcharge the government imposes on customers.
“Businesses are required to pay BPT, not consumers,” said Assistant Attorney General Ben Paholke. “Customers should not have to hire an attorney to comb through the fine print of several agreements to understand why a company has advertised one price, then charged them another.”
The AGO is seeking from the court to order GTA, among other things, to disgorge all funds illegally obtained and pay restitution, costs, and attorney fees for each affected customer.
“It really is underhanded and disgusting if you really think about it,” said Sean Cruz of Mangilao. “Businesses can be so greedy and flippant with the law. They agree to charge one thing and then think they can just change the terms without notice. How dare they. Hope they are fined severely and made to pay everyone back!”
The Consumer Protection Division of the OAG is charged with investigating, enforcing, filing lawsuits and recovering funds on behalf of Guam’s consumers when companies or businesses engage in false, misleading, or deceptive business practices.
Earlier in his term, Leevin ‘Equal Justice for All’ failed to address past corruption-illegal double dipping—in the Office of Attorney General (OAG) before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.
For over almost eight years prior to his predecessor’s assumption of office, the management of the OAG was complicit in illegal double dipping by John Patrick Mason, a previous Deputy Attorney General at the OAG. This Deputy Attorney General purportedly worked under an independent contract. By working under the guise of this independent contract, this Deputy Attorney General avoided suspension of his pension which would have occurred had he been employed as an employee, not an independent contractor. This despite a statutory requirement that a Deputy Attorney…