Charter Communications, the parent of Spectrum, is defending several class action lawsuits, the largest being a securities fraud case filed in August 2025 accusing executives of misleading investors about the fallout from the end of a federal internet subsidy, and a June 2026 data breach class action brought after hackers accessed records of more than 40 million customers. A separate consumer class action over Spectrum’s Broadcast TV surcharge is stayed in arbitration. The Charter Communications class action lawsuit landscape sits alongside a $1.1 billion wrongful death judgment and a string of regulatory settlements that inform how investors and customers are viewing the company’s legal exposure.
The Securities Fraud Class Action
The lead case is Sandoval v. Charter Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06747, filed August 14, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.1CourtListener. Sandoval v. Charter Communications, Inc. It names Charter, CEO Chris Winfrey, and CFO Jessica Fischer as defendants, and covers investors who bought Charter stock between July 26, 2024 and July 24, 2025.2Saxena White. Charter Communications Complaint
What the Lawsuit Alleges
The suit is built around the Affordable Connectivity Program, a pandemic-era FCC subsidy that paid up to $30 a month toward broadband bills for low-income households. Charter had 4 to 5 million customers on ACP before the program stopped taking new applicants in early 2024 and exhausted its funding that May.3Broadband Breakfast. Charter Hit With Class Action Suit Over ACP Guidance
Through late 2024 and into 2025, Charter executives told investors the transition was under control. Fischer said in late 2024 that after Q4, “we expect the onetime impacts from ACP to be behind us.” Winfrey told analysts in January 2025 that “the impact of the elimination of the ACP is now behind us,” and repeated similar language in April.2Saxena White. Charter Communications Complaint
The complaint alleges those statements were materially misleading. According to the lead plaintiff, the defendants failed to disclose that ACP-related customer losses were still weighing on revenue, that Charter’s growth initiatives were not offsetting the drag, and that the risk to earnings was greater than the company let on.4Labaton Keller Sucharow. Sandoval v. Charter Communications, Inc. et al
The July 2025 Disclosure and Stock Drop
The alleged truth surfaced with Charter’s second-quarter earnings on July 25, 2025. The company reported losing 117,000 broadband subscribers, nearly double the 66,000 lost in Q1 and worse than the 99,000 lost in the same quarter the prior year. Adjusted earnings of $9.18 per share missed the $9.58 Wall Street consensus.5Saxena White P.A. Charter Communications, Inc.6Deadline. Charter Stock Falls Sharply on Q2 Earnings Charter reported $5.7 billion in EBITDA with modest year-over-year growth, but plaintiffs allege that result depended on a $45 million one-time benefit and that EBITDA would otherwise have declined.
Charter’s stock fell 18.5% that day, its worst single-session drop since going public in 1999, wiping out roughly $9.8 billion in market value.6Deadline. Charter Stock Falls Sharply on Q2 Earnings3Broadband Breakfast. Charter Hit With Class Action Suit Over ACP Guidance Subscriber losses continued in the following quarters, with 109,000 more internet customers lost in Q3 2025 and another 119,000 in Q4, giving weight to the claim that the ACP-driven downturn was not a one-time event.7Charter Communications. Charter Announces Third Quarter 2025 Results8Yahoo Finance. Charter Communications Sheds Fewer Broadband Subscribers
Where the Case Stands
On November 10, 2025, Judge Lewis J. Liman appointed the Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff, with Labaton Keller Sucharow and Saxena White as co-lead counsel.4Labaton Keller Sucharow. Sandoval v. Charter Communications, Inc. et al A corrected amended complaint was filed January 28, 2026. Charter and the individual defendants moved to dismiss on March 31, 2026, filing a memorandum of law and exhibits including SEC filings and earnings call transcripts.1CourtListener. Sandoval v. Charter Communications, Inc. The motion is being briefed and remains pending.9Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. Charter Communications, Inc.
The 2026 Data Breach Class Action
Charter’s second active class action arose from a data breach affecting more than 40 million customers. Investigators traced it to an incident around April 1, 2026 in which the hacking group ShinyHunters used a voice phishing attack to steal a Charter employee’s Microsoft login credentials, then used that access to reach the company’s Salesforce platform.10AL.com. Spectrum Customers Personal Information May Have Been Compromised in Massive Data Breach
According to the plaintiffs, the stolen records included full names, email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses, account plan details, customer support ticket histories, and potentially customer proprietary network information.11Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law. Charter Communications Data Breach Charter acknowledged the breach publicly on May 27, 2026, but has disputed that “sensitive” personal information or CPNI was taken.12gblock.app. Charter ShinyHunters 40M Salesforce Vishing Breach
On June 1, 2026, Connecticut resident Mariah Kent filed a class action in federal court, alleging Charter failed to adequately secure customer data and failed to train employees to withstand social engineering attacks. The suit seeks a jury trial, damages, and injunctive relief for affected U.S. customers.10AL.com. Spectrum Customers Personal Information May Have Been Compromised in Massive Data Breach
The Broadcast TV Surcharge Class Action
A consumer class action filed in Jefferson County, Kentucky by plaintiff Richard Wookey challenges Spectrum’s $28 monthly Broadcast TV surcharge. The complaint alleges the fee is deceptively presented as an externally mandated pass-through of retransmission costs paid to local stations, when Charter’s actual costs are significantly lower, letting the company keep the difference as profit.13WDRB. Louisville Man Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Spectrum Claiming Unfair Billing Practices
Charter removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky and moved to compel arbitration. In September 2025, the court entered an agreed order compelling arbitration and staying all federal proceedings. As of June 2026, the arbitration is unresolved and the case remains stayed.14PACER Monitor. Wookey v. Charter Communications (DE), Inc. et al Customers who might have expected relief from a Kentucky courtroom won’t get it in the near term; the dispute will now play out privately between the plaintiff and the company under Charter’s arbitration clause.
Other Major Legal Matters Shaping Charter’s Exposure
The class actions above sit within a broader legal record that investors and customers frequently ask about.
The Betty Thomas Wrongful Death Verdict
Goff v. Charter Communications arose from the 2019 murder of 83-year-old Betty Thomas by Roy James Holden, a Spectrum field technician who robbed and killed Thomas in her home. Holden pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison in April 2021.15Slashdot. Charter Must Pay $1.1 Billion After Cable Technician Murdered Customer The civil suit alleged Charter was grossly negligent in hiring Holden without verifying his employment history and in ignoring warning signs including thefts of credit cards and checks from elderly female customers. In July 2022, a Dallas County jury awarded $375 million in compensatory damages and $7 billion in punitive damages.16CVN. $7B Awarded to Family of Elderly Woman Murdered by Cable Company Service Technician
Judge Juan Renteria later reduced the punitive award to $750 million under U.S. Supreme Court guidance on proportionality. With pre-judgment interest, Charter’s total liability was adjusted to over $1.1 billion. The jury also found Charter had used a forged document in an attempt to force the case into arbitration. Charter has stated it will appeal.15Slashdot. Charter Must Pay $1.1 Billion After Cable Technician Murdered Customer
Regulatory Settlements
In December 2018, Charter agreed to a $174.2 million settlement with the New York Attorney General over claims that Spectrum knowingly delivered internet speeds far slower than advertised, in some cases up to 80% below what customers were promised, and leased outdated modems to 900,000 subscribers that could not reach advertised speeds. The settlement included $62.5 million in direct refunds to more than 700,000 customers and over $110 million in free premium channels and streaming services to 2.2 million New York subscribers. Charter did not admit wrongdoing.17New York Daily News. Charter/Spectrum Cable Agrees to Record $174M Settlement for Misleading Customers on Internet Speed
In November 2023, the SEC settled charges against Charter for $25 million over deficiencies in internal controls around stock repurchases. The SEC found that Charter’s buyback plans contained “accordion” provisions tied to the timing of debt offerings, which the company controlled, meaning the plans did not genuinely satisfy Rule 10b5-1. Charter neither admitted nor denied the findings.18Debevoise & Plimpton. SEC Settles Stock Repurchase Charges
In July 2024, Charter agreed to a $15 million FCC settlement for violating federal 911 and network outage reporting rules, including failing to notify more than 1,000 emergency call centers of a service disruption affecting 911 access. The consent decree requires a formal compliance plan with mandatory cybersecurity measures aligned to the NIST Cyber Security Framework.19FCC. FCC Settles 911 Rule Investigation With Charter
Taken together, the Good Jobs First Violation Tracker records roughly $285 million in penalties against Charter across 93 enforcement actions since 2000, with consumer protection matters accounting for the largest share.20Good Jobs First Violation Tracker. Charter Communications That figure predates the securities class action, the data breach litigation, and the Betty Thomas judgment, all of which remain in active litigation or on appeal.