Wireless Phone Contract Disputes

There seems to have been an increase of contract disputes when it comes to mobile phone plans. Customers have began to question some of the conditions of their wireless contract and the contracts have responded to their demands.

One of the ways carriers have used to settle disputes is by making or changing contract conditions that deal with possible contract disputes. The contracts or terms and conditions of wireless service providers now have passages that are aimed towards dispute resolution. Take a look at this section from Verizon's Customer agreement,

WE EACH AGREE TO SETTLE DISPUTES (EXCEPT CERTAIN SMALL CLAIMS) ONLY BY ARBITRATION. THERE'S NO JUDGE OR JURY IN ARBITRATION, AND REVIEW IS LIMITED, BUT AN ARBITRATOR CAN AWARD THE SAME DAMAGES AND RELIEF, AND MUST HONOR THE SAME LIMITATIONS IN THIS AGREEMENT, AS A COURT WOULD. IF AN APPLICABLE STATUTE PROVIDES FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES, AN ARBITRATOR CAN AWARD THEM TOO.

This section is just the introduction. You can read the rest of the Customer Agreement if you want to learn more. Maybe the alarming number of court cases questioning a wireless carrier's right to block consumers from suing or filing class-action claims has triggered this changes in the contracts.

Earlier this year, an appeals courtin California reaffirmed a lower court's order that a wireless phone service carrier could not enforce a clause requiring arbitration of disputes with customers. AT&T's prohibition against subscribers banding together in class actions was also ruled unenforceable by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California.Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote:

"In this case, we consider whether a class arbitration waiver in New Cingular Wireless Service Inc.'s standard contract for cellular phone services is unconscionable under California law, and whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a holding that the waiver is unenforceable. We hold that the waiver is unconscionable, and, thus, unenforceable, and that the invalidation of the contract provision is not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order compelling arbitration."

The holes in the contract language, which generally seeks to steer every dispute away from court and into arbitration have exposed by these lawsuits. A landmark 2005 ruling in a California court, known as the Discover Bank decision has also proven useful in these lawsuits. The decision states that which allows class actions to proceed under certain conditions even when such suits are prohibited by a contract.

These disputes also brought about some positive changes in the contracts and the carriers attitude towards customer satisfaction. Some carriers have altered their contract to provide more freedom for their customers and some have announced programs that will keep their customers happy and satisfied with their services. Hopefully, these conflict will result in more positive changes and provide balance in the relationship between wireless service providers and customers.