3 D.A.s Accuse PacBell of Unfair Sales Practices : Telecom: In civil suit, the California officials say phone firm sold customers unneeded services. Company calls approach ethical.

Three California district attorneys filed a civil lawsuit against Pacific Bell on Thursday, charging the state’s largest phone company with using unfair and illegal sales practices to get customers to buy extra phone services.

The move by the district attorneys in Alameda, Monterey and San Mateo counties represents a public relations headache for PacBell, which provides phone service to 11 million Californians. PacBell has defended its sales approach, which is used throughout the state.

Filed in Alameda Superior Court, the case seeks civil penalties of at least $20 million, restitution for affected customers and a preliminary injunction to force PacBell to halt its alleged sales abuses.

PacBell’s parent companies, Pacific Telesis and San Antonio-based SBC Communications, were also named as defendants.

In a statement, PacBell said the charges “lack substance” and vowed to vigorously fight the case. “Our sales and service practices are appropriate and ethical . . . and our customers consistently rate us highly on service.”

The lawsuit came after a months-long probe that was first disclosed in January by The Times. The charges in the case closely mirror allegations brought by a labor union and consumer groups against PacBell and that are still pending before the California Public Utilities Commission.

For nearly two years, consumer watchdog groups, and current PacBell sales employees, have complained that the phone company’s aggressive sales push has resulted in customers buying extra services they do not need or want.

Under its incentive-laden sales reward system, the company requires employees to offer lists of packages to all customers, even those who call for repairs or for payment information.

The lawsuit alleges that PacBell used unlawful and misleading methods to sell inside phone wiring repair plans and packages of call waiting, caller ID and other services. In addition, the attorneys charge that PacBell acted illegally when it embarked on a campaign to get Californians to stop blocking the display of their phone number on all their outgoing calls--a selection known as “complete blocking.”

The caller ID effort is by far the most controversial PacBell campaign. At one point, an outside marketing firm hired by PacBell called 300,000 California customers who had elected to block their phone number from display on caller ID boxes.

During the pitch, the marketers urged the customers to “upgrade” to selective blocking, which would cause their phone number to be released to caller ID boxes unless they dialed a special code first.

PacBell halted the practice after being criticized by consumer groups and regulators. But about 100,000 people had been switched to selective blocking as a result, and at least 26,000 customers wanted to be changed back to complete blocking.

“Customers have the right to make informed choices with complete information, and they are not getting complete information from Pacific Bell,” said Lydia Villarreal, deputy district attorney for Monterey County.