More Class Action Suits Filed against Sprint and T-Mobile

Here we go again. This certainly seems to be the year of class action suits against mobile phone carriers. New just a few days ago. Both of these companies have already been hit with class actions suits this year, and the new complaints are sure to bring new problems.

Let us begin with the complaint against Sprint. This is the third class action suit filed against the wireless network this year. The first complaint filed against the company was based on complaints that Sprint illegally extended the wireless contracts of customers after they made minor changes to their service. In the second complaint, Sprint was accused of misleading consumers by improperly charging roaming fees in connection with two “fair and flexible” plans.

The third complaint against the carrier this year is also on roaming charges. The complaint that subscribers were charged for roaming charges after being told they would not incur such fees under a major calling plan were filed in Florida and in North Carolina. The suit states that,

Sprint knew or reasonably should have known that these representations were materially false, deceptive or misleading because it not only routinely charged PCS Free and Clear Plan customers roaming rates for calls made and received ‘on the network,’ Sprint even charged these customers roaming rates for calls in their home cities where the plan was sold and where Sprint purportedly provided comprehensive network coverage. In fact, Sprint not only charged its customers roaming charges for calls made on the Nationwide Sprint PCS Network, it even charged them roaming charges for calls received on the Nationwide Sprint PCS Network.”

Roaming charges are certainly controversial. People have questioned how carriers were calculating these charges and it often results in class action suits or wireless contract disputes. This recent complaint against Sprint accused the company of charging customers even if they were making calls in the location where they purchased their plans. Customers claim that they were even charged for roaming even if they only received the calls.

Let us take a look at the company's s wireless contract. Maybe we can get some info on how the carrier charges customers for roaming. Here is the statement from the wireless contract of Sprint.

"Roaming" typically refers to coverage on another carrier's network that we make available to you based on our agreements with other carriers. These agreements may change from time to time and roaming coverage is subject to change. Your ability to receive roaming coverage depends on the radio transmissions your Device can pick up. You can pick up roaming coverage both within and outside our network coverage areas. Your Device will generally indicate when you're roaming. Depending on your Services, separate charges or limits on the amount of minutes used while roaming may apply. Certain Services may not be available or work the same when roaming (including data Services, voicemail, call waiting, etc.).

Interestingly, the terms and conditions of Sprint affirms that customers may pick up roaming coverage within and outside of their coverage areas. however, the customers claim that they were told that they will not incur these fees because they were under a major wireless plans. I guess we'll have to leave it to the authorities to figure this mess out.

Let us move on the complaint against T-Mobile. The wireless company also faces a class action suit filed in California federal court. The complaint accuses the company of not providing enough information on an “upgrade fee” that are applied on current subscribers who want to get new mobile devices.

T-Mobile’s use of wireless contract clauses that impose mandatory arbitration and waive the right to participate in class action suits was also attacked. here is a sample of this type of clause taken form T-Mobile's terms and conditions:

CLASS ACTION WAIVER. WHETHER IN COURT, SMALL CLAIMS COURT, OR ARBITRATION YOU AND WE MAY ONLY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST EACH OTHER IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE OR A CLASS MEMBER IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION. NOTWITHSTANDING SEC. 22, IF A COURT OR ARBITRATOR DETERMINES IN A CLAIM BETWEEN YOU AND US THAT YOUR WAIVER OF ANY ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS IS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT WILL NOT APPLY, AND YOU AND WE AGREE THAT SUCH CLAIMS WILL BE RESOLVED BY A COURT OF APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION, OTHER THAN A SMALL CLAIMS COURT.

All the wireless contracts I've read has their own version of these clauses but a federal circuit court in San Francisco ruled that T-Mobile’s terms and conditions are unenforceable. I guess we'll have to see the lawyers of both parties duke it out. Perhaps the new consumer bills being drafted in congress will provide a way to solve these disputes.