Just after his lawsuit failed to settle last week, aggrieved former Comcast customer Conal O’Rourke filed an amended civil complaint that stemmed from a year-long billing dispute with the ISP.

But this time, he's now raised the demanded amount to more than $5 million. Previously, he had asked for "all damages legally and/or proximately caused to Mr. O’Rourke by Defendants totaling more than $1 million" when the suit was first filed in October 2014.

The new March 27, 2015 amended complaint is largely identical to the original one, except that it also adds a new "cause of action" against Comcast, listed now as number six of seven: "Invasion of Privacy (Public Disclosure of Private Facts)."

O’Rourke met with Ars in early October 2014 in Oakland, California, with an astonishing amount of documentation detailing each step of this saga.

Comcast did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment late Sunday night nor Monday, but Jenni Moyer, a company spokeswoman, recently told the Philadelphia Inquirer: "We believe Mr. O'Rourke's claims are without merit, and we expect to be fully vindicated."

Moyer also commented on the recent promotion of Lawrence Salva, who is personally named as a defendant in O’Rourke’s case.

"Larry Salva has been promoted to executive vice president because he is one of the most outstanding and respected chief accounting officers and controllers in corporate America," Moyer said on March 20. "While we don't normally comment on pending litigation, the decision to promote Larry was not affected by a baseless allegation, which has developed into frivolous litigation."

“Offensive and objectionable”

The privacy breach that O’Rourke refers to is the instance where Comcast characterized his phone call to the company in a way that was unflattering to say the least.

"We don’t normally comment on pending litigation and as we have said, there were clear deficiencies in the customer service that we delivered to Mr. O’Rourke," Moyer told Ars in a statement on October 17, 2014, the same day the lawsuit was filed.

"Comcast had nothing to do with PricewaterhouseCoopers’ decision to terminate Mr. O’Rourke. Once again, we apologize to Mr. O'Rourke for his service issues. We said we were determined to get to the bottom of exactly what happened with Mr. O’Rourke’s service and we are doing that. As part of this investigation, we have listened to recorded calls between Mr. O’Rourke and our customer service representatives and his treatment of them and language is totally unspeakable. Mr. O'Rourke's claims are without merit."

That was where the company newly stepped over the line, as his lawyers argue in the new amended complaint:

At no time did Mr. O’Rourke give his consent for Comcast to release or in any way characterize the contents of his customer service calls to the general public. … Comcast’s public disclosure of the existence and nature of Mr. O’Rourke’s private calls to Comcast customer service—which disclosure falsely portrays Mr. O’Rourke as an individual lacking in decency, ethics and integrity—is offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.

Harmeet Dhillon, O’Rourke’s lawyer, wrote that she believed the case would drag on for "another two years."

"That’s how long hard-fought federal lawsuits are taking in this district these days, and Comcast will be opposing it hard," she e-mailed late Sunday night. "I can’t say on the record why it didn’t settle, but you can see from Comcast’s public statements that they want to be ‘vindicated.’"