Android Update Delay Causes Class Action Suit Against Samsung and T-Mobile

It's has been some time since we featured class action suits in this blog. The last one was on November of last year. But here's a new one filed against the 4th largest US carrier. This new class action suit filed against T-Mobile also involves Samsung and one of the manufacturer's most popular handsets.

If you own a smartphone, then you probably know that software update releases can take a long time. Now, were not talking about fix updates but new versions of operating systems. The Samsung Galaxy S has been notorious for delays in software updates. In this case it's T-Mobile's versin of the Galaxy S, the Samsung Vibrant.

It appears that one user has finally had enough and has filed a filed a class action lawsuit against T-Mobile and Samsung. This complainant claims that both companies have violated the law concerning Unfair and Deceptive Consumer Business Practices. The suit argues that these telecom companies have the deceived users regard ing the hardware, and software reliability of the Samsung Vibrant.

So do you think that this class action suit is valid?

I think that it shows that smartphone users are concerned with OS update delays. After all, no one wants to be stuck with a device with outdated and defective software.

Tune in to this blog for more issues on mobile phone contracts and related topics.

AT&T Settles In Class Action Suit Over Fees and Taxes

Here's some good news for Cingular/AT&T customers who paid for mobile internet services between November 1, 2005, and September 7, 2010. The carrier has decided to settle the conflict over collected taxes on mobile data plans.

The carrier was hit with a class action lawsuit filed over the improper collection of some taxes and fees. Apparently, AT&T collected the fees and taxes even after some states and local governments ceased requiring the payment of certain taxes on mobile data plans. Thus, a class action suit was filed.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug. 11, 2010, and the carrier has requested the judge to issue a final approval of the settlement.

AT&T denied any wrongdoing in a statement to the folks at Phonescoop,

"AT&T Mobility collected only those taxes that we believed we were required to collect, and turned them over to the appropriate taxing bodies. We strongly deny any wrongdoing, and no court has found that AT&T Mobility committed any wrongdoing. However, we agreed to settle these cases to avoid the burden and cost of further litigation, and to facilitate any tax refunds that we may be able to obtain for our customers."

So what is the result of this settlement?

Well, AT&T will no longer charge some taxes and fees on data plans. The carrier will refund its customers from whatever monies are reimbursed by the state and local governments involved.

Do you think that you deserve a piece of this settlement? Consumers that take Data Connect Plans (wireless Internet on your PC), Smart-phone Data Features bolt-ons, smartphone data plans, iPhone data plans, personal Blackberry plans, or enterprise smartphone plans are all potentially included in the settlement.

That's it for this update. TUne in o more wireless contract related news and updates.

Class Action Suit Against Verizon Wireless Now Allowed

Here's some good news for consumers who have some wireless contract grievances against the nation's largest carrier. Last month, a federal appeals court has ruled that Verizon Wireless customers can resolve disputes over alleged fraudulent cell phone charges on wireless contracts as a class.

The former ruling only allowed consumers to dispute fraudulent cell phone charges on wireless contracts individually through arbitration.

Verizon's wireless contract states that disputes should only be arbitrated individually. However, various consumer advocates say this can unreasonably favor companies since it makes arbitrations, especially small claims, very expensive.

This decision made by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia is more consumer friendly towards those who wish to dispute any wireless contract problems a s a class.

That's it for this wireless contract update on class action suits. Tune in next time for more on the latest happenings in the world of cell phone contracts.

AT&T Terms of Service Bans Class Action Suits?

I've recently read about some news that AT&T has made changes to it's terms of service. Apparently, the carrier's wireless contract now discourages class action suits.

AT&T's wireless contracts apply to both new and existing customers. Consumers who sign the agreement agrees to waive the right to right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action.

If AT&T and the consumer cannot agree on a dispute then the customers are forced into arbitration. In this situation, the case presented as a forum in which neutral arbitrators dispense the same legal implications as a lawsuit in court. However, some experts contend that consumers face disadvantages at arbitration.

Here's the statement from AT&T's terms of service:

“You agree that, by entering into this Agreement, you and AT&T are each waiving the right to a trial by jury or to participate in a class action. This Agreement evidences a transaction in interstate commerce, and thus the Federal Arbitration Act governs the interpretation and enforcement of this provision. This arbitration provision shall survive termination of this Agreement”

AT&T has gotten wind of this wireless contract information and has released a statement via SlashGear to counter it. The carrier expressed that the arbitration clause in its terms of service has been this way since January 2001.

Here is AT&T's response:

AT&T has not recently made any changes in its terms of service regarding our arbitration clause. This approach has been in effect since Jan. 2001. We have made changes to our arbitration clause – most recently in Jan. 2009 – but those changes have been to the benefit of the consumer. It is worth noting that this approach – an arbitration clause with a class action waiver — is standard for the wireless industry.
We continue to believe that a consumer is better off pursuing a claim under our arbitration clause, rather than pursuing a class action. Arbitration is typically a fast, cost-effective, and pro-consumer way to address disputes, and AT&T’s arbitration agreement is among the most consumer-friendly in the nation.
A federal judge in West Virginia, even before recent improvements to AT&T’s arbitration policy, praised it as “unusually consumer-centered.”
Our current arbitration clause calls for the company — if it does not settle a consumer complaint and the consumer receives an award that is greater than the company’s settlement offer — to pay the greater amount of either the arbitration, or $10,000. This is what changed in Jan. 2009; previously the amount was $5,000.
Likewise, if the consumer has used a lawyer in winning an arbitration case and is awarded more than the company’s settlement offer, the company would pay two times the lawyers’ fees. Finally, we pay the entire cost of the arbitration, except if a customer is claiming $75,000 or more.
In short, we are confident our approach is both fair and in the best interest of our customers.

Well, this is certainly interesting. AT&T contends that it has done nothing wrong to its customers. Some experts also say that this clause is ineffective in preventing class action suits. Some state courts have decided to dismiss this waiver but it has also been upheld in some states.

That's it for this post on T&T changing its wireless contract. Tune in to this blog to get more news and info on mobile phone contracts.

US Carriers Respond to Rising Text Messaging Rates Concerns

Here's an update to the concerns over the rising rates of Text Massaging that are being charged by Wireless carriers.

A few weeks ago, I made a post about Sen. Herb Kohl, chair of the antitrust subcommittee sending a letter to the four major U.S. wireless network providers. The letter conveyed the senator's and consumer's concerns about the doubling of the rates for sending text messages even though the cost involved with sending them remained constant. The letter was sent ot the offices of AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless.

Now, these carriers have expressed their response to Sen. Kohl's letter on the doubling of the rates for sending text messages. According to an RCRWireless article, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Wireless have denied that anything illegal was involved in the doubling of the rates for sending text messages.

According to the carriers, they have offered competitive bulk texting plans that have actually made the costs of sending text messages more affordable for mobile phone to consumers. They also would like to express that thay have suffered an increase in antitrust class-action lawsuits due to the congressional questions about the rising text messaging charges.

T-Mobile's representative defended his company by declaring that charges for text messages charged by the carrier has even dropped by half. He also expressed that the concerns over the rising cost of text messaging are exaggerated and untrue. Sprint and AT&T have also released public responses to Sen. Kohl's letter. Interestingly, Verizon Wireless requested that its response remain confidential.

The wireless carriers want to make an effective response to the inquiry because a number of class-action lawsuits have been filed against them citing Sen. Kohl's letter as the foundation for the complaints. They want to clear up this problem as soon as possible since text messaging is a major part of their revenues.

Well, I expected the major US carriers to respond effectively to this inquiry. Text messaging has steadily grown in popularityover the years so they have to take it seriously. Of course, the antitrust class-action lawsuits that have been filed against them also needs to be taken seriously. Tune in to this blog for more updates on this wireless contract issue and other related news.

Courts Hand Different Rulings on Carriers Billing Litigation

Here's an update to the complaints that have been filed against a few mobile phone carriers. According to a RCRWireless.com article, various federal courts made different decisions on the billing litigation against Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility. The article also indicated that the number of antitrust class-action texting lawsuits filed against major US carriers have increased steadily. All of these factors indicate that the mobile phone industry will continue to face challenges from frustrated customers and plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Let's look at the various federal courts decisions on the billing litigation. Verizon Wireless scored well when a U.S. District judge ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts New Jersey law. This means that Verizon's motion on the enforceable arbitration clause was granted. However, the story doesn't end there.

Verizon Wireless did not scroe well with other courts including the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. These courts ruled in favor of consumers by deciding that class-action complaints cannot be necessarily foreclosed by individual arbitration clauses.

AT&T also faced some rough waters in the decisions made on the litigations and suits that they are facing. For instance, a federal court in San Diego did not rule in favor of the top US mobile phone carrier. The case filed against AT&T and other carriers including T-Mobile for charging customers for unauthorized mobile content on their monthly bills was not dismissed. The judge in charge of this case has temporarily ordered that AT&T cannot settle the class action case in Georgia.

However, AT&T Mobility has not yet raised the flag of surrender even though, the judge ruled in favor of the consumers. The company is currently reviewing and considering their next course of action.

Well, it seems that the battle is till raging. Class action suits are still being filed against carriers despite the waivers on the wireless contracts they require from their customers. We just have to wait and see who gains the upper hand on this one. Weill it be the consumers or will the carriers win at the end of the day. Tune in to this blog to find out.

Two Carriers Defy Class-Action Suit over Credit Privacy

I've blogged about disputes and conflicts between customers and Mobile Phone carriers in this wireless contract info blog. Most of these disputes originate from problems over wireless contract polices.

Now it seems that plaintiffs’ lawyers have found a new weapon to pursue class-action consumer litigation against the mobile-phone industry. It's known as the "Fair Credit Reporting Act". After doing a bit of research I found out that the Fair Credit Reporting Act is an American federal law that regulates the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer credit information.

Amendments made to the FCRA about five years ago, orders that account information on printed receipts given to customers should be significantly limited by businesses that accept credit cards or debit cards for payment. This new guidelines have been imposed by early December 2006.

Recently, class-action lawsuits have been filed against Verizon Wireless and Alltel Corp. because of alleged noncompliance with the law. The financial implications of the class-action suits are potentially massive because both companies have millions of subscribers.

If a court finds willful noncompliance with the law, then the consumer is entitled to a maximum of $1,000 in statutory damages, plus actual damages, punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

The lawsuit against Alltel states that:

“Although defendants had up to three years to comply, defendants have willfully violated this law and failed to protect plaintiff and others similarly situated against identity theft and credit card and debit card fraud by continuing to print more than the last five digits of the card number and/or the expiration date on receipts provided to debit card and credit card cardholders transacting business with defendants,

In court filings, Alltel and Verizon Wireless have denied allegations in the lawsuits. Let's see the wireless contract policies of both carriers when it comes to credit information. I have posted on this topic before but this should refresh you minds.

Here is Verizon Wireless contract policy on customer credit information.

Further, you’ve authorized us to investigate your credit history at any time and to share credit information about you with credit reporting agencies and our affiliates. If you ask, we’ll tell you the name and address of any credit agency that gives us a credit report about you.

This is a very interesting piece of news because of its possible impact. Verizon has a lot of customers so this may be a big blow for them. The same goes for Alltel. It's a smaller company so it would be interesting to see how they handle themselves if the court rules for the plaintiffs.

Suit Attacks Class Action Ban on AT&T's Wireless Contract

Recently, a class action suit against AT&T was filed in the federal court in Washington state. This complaint wants to invalidate the class-action ban AT&T Mobility’s wireless contracts.

Mobile phone service providers usually place class-action bans or waivers in their wireless contracts as a form of protection against legal action. However, these policies have been criticized by consumer rights groups and by subscribers. These policies have also not prevented angry and dissatisfied customers from filing suits and legal complaints against mobile phone carriers.

Harvey Rosenfield, a lawyer with the non-profit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights made a statement regarding the significance of this complaint. He explains that, “At stake here is the right of AT&T customers to get a fair hearing and obtain justice. If the court rules that AT&T and Cingular's customers cannot join together to sue these companies, then the companies will never be held accountable.”

According to the plaintiffs, that Cingular Wireless promised regulators and the public that customers would continue to enjoy the same quality service when it merged with AT&T Wireless. Problems began to surface when Cingular allegedly degraded the quality of the AT&T network. It was alleged that this move was designed to force AT&T customers into moving to Cingular's network, paying an $18 upgrade fee, buying new phones and signing up for new two-year plans. To make matters worse, early termination fees of $150 or more were charged to dissatisfied consumers who wanted to move to a different Mobile phone service provider.

In response to this complaint, AT&T released statements regarding the way the handle consumer complaints and grievances. The company stated,

“We continue to believe that a consumer is better off pursuing a claim under our arbitration clause, rather than pursuing a class action. Arbitration is typically a fast, cost-effective, and pro-consumer way to address disputes, and AT&T's arbitration agreement is among the most consumer-friendly in the nation. “In fact a year and a half ago we changed our arbitration clause to make it even more consumer friendly. Our current arbitration clause calls for the company -- if it does not settle a consumer complaint and loses arbitration -- to pay the greater amount of either the arbitration or the state's statutory definition of a small claim (commonly $5,000). Also, if the consumer has used a lawyer in winning an arbitration case, the company would pay two times the lawyers fees. Finally, we pay the entire cost of the arbitration.”

This is certainly interesting. AT&T responded to the complaint when carriers facing class action suits decline any comment. I hope that this dispute will be resolved and end in a compromise that will be fair for both parties.

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.

Second Class Action Suit Filed Against Sprint Nextel

It seems that 2008 is not a good year for Sprint Nextel.

A few days ago, the major wireless network was just hit with another class action suit. The first complaint the company received involves customers accusing the network of deceiving customers by illegally extending their wireless contracts after they made minor changes to their service. This time, Sprint Nextel is being accused of misleading consumers by improperly charging roaming fees in connection with two “fair and flexible” plans.

Well, Sprint is not the only carrier that has been hit with class action suits this year. A few months ago, Verizon Wireless was sued for charging unjust early termination fees while T-Mobile was accused charging customers for receiving unwanted text messages. Consumer Rights groups and other activists have been on the offensive to condemn some of the less consumer-friendly policies of wireless contracts.

However, the year has been very tough for Sprint Nextel. The major adjustments began last year when the company appointed Dan Hesse as the new CEO to curb the significant subscriber losses that has hit the company. The uncertainty about the WiMAX plans also brought negative effects to the company and decreased its stock value. There were also rumors of a lay-off involving thousands of employees as a result of the company trying to keep up with their rivals.

Last week, Sprint Nextel also announced that they have decided to consolidate the company's operational headquarters and corporate headquarters at its Overland Park, Kan., campus. They are abandoning their traditional campus in Reston, Va. The reasons for this decision involves
improving operational performance, cutting travel expenses and optimizing the real estate assets of the company.

Anyway, the point is that Sprint Nextel does not really want to hit more bumps as the company is trying to recover from its losses suffered at the final quarter of last year. The class action suits that they are facing will slow them down. Let's take a look at some of the details of this new lawsuit.

Here is a statement from the 20-page suit filed in the U.S. district court in Charlotte, N.C.

“All roaming fees assessed to [Myra] Johnson were wrongful because defendant Sprint did not know and/or failed to ascertain her physical location at the time the calls were place or received to determine whether roaming charges could be properly assessed against her, which is a breach of the terms of the contract,”

And hereis the Roaming statement in Sprint Nextel's wireless contract,

"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.).

However, the allegations against Sprint is related to their billing process. The complaints is on the company's ability to determine the location of the caller and thus they may be charging them unfairly. The roaming policy does state that roaming coverage may be picked up even within the network so customers have to be wary when they make roaming calls.

When asked to comment about this latest class action suit, Sprint Nextel representatives responded that, “We’re still reviewing the complaint, so we can’t comment on the specific claims. We take great care to ensure that our customers understand the scope of service offered through their plans with Sprint.”

I hope Sprint can sort out these suits that were filed against them. they have been suffering a lot of losses and they can ill afford any wireless contract disputes or any major problems.

Sprint is the Next Target of Class Action Suit

The Class Action Suit menace has struck again.

In this early part of the year, major wireless carriers have been hit with class actions suits for a variety of reasons. Verizon Wireless was sued over the unjust early termination fees they charge in exchange for freedom from their wireless contract. Some consumers also filed a class action suit against T-Mobile for being charged with receiving unwanted text messages. This week the victim is Sprint Nextel Corp according to this RCR News article.

The complaint against Sprint Nextel Corp. stems from allegations that they are defrauding their wireless consumers. The complainants assert that the wireless network has misled and deceived them by extending their wireless contracts without their consent.

This statement from the plaintiffs in the 23-page complaint that was filed in Illinois federal court will explain,

“Defendants have misled and deceived consumers by extending consumers’ contracts for up to two years without providing adequate notice or obtaining meaningful consent to a contract extension when consumers made small changes to their telephone service, such as adding extra minutes or purchasing a new telephone; when they responded to solicitations by defendants for additional products and services; and when the consumer received ‘courtesy discounts’.”

This is a serious charge indeed. I guess you realize that being locked in a wireless contract without your consent is a problem. You will be forced to commit to that contract for at least two years and you will have to pay a fee to opt out of the contract. But the biggest issue here is the alleged deception and fraud of customers.

Being accused of deceiving customers is costly because the competition in the mobile phone industry is intense. If customers associate Sprint with shady practices and deceptive techniques then they will do business with other wireless networks. However, Sprint has protection from class action suits. The wireless contracts they require customer to sign have statements that guard against class action suits. Sprint Nextel's terms and conditions state that,

We each agree not to pursue arbitration on a classwide basis. We each agree that any arbitration will be solely between you and us (not brought on behalf of or together with another individual's claim). If for any reason any court or arbitrator holds that this restriction is unconscionable or unenforceable, then our agreement to arbitrate doesn't apply and the dispute must be brought in court.

And another wireless contract statement from Sprint also expresses that,

TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, WE EACH WAIVE ANY RIGHT TO PURSUE DISPUTES ON A CLASSWIDE BASIS; THAT IS, TO EITHER JOIN A CLAIM WITH THE CLAIM OF ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY, OR ASSERT A CLAIM IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY ON BEHALF OF ANYONE ELSE IN ANY LAWSUIT, ARBITRATION OR OTHER PROCEEDING.

These statements clearly indicate that Sprint has anticipated that they might be under sieged from class action suits. The complaints that have signed the contract may be bound to these conditions. However, the law will decide what will happen in the end.

So far, 2008 has not been great for mobile phone networks. Class action suits have been filed against them and they stand to lose a lot if the complainants emerge victorious. Verizon for instance may have to shell out billions in early termination fee refunds. The bad publicity these suits generate can also have negative effects on the networks.

I hope that this complaints will move them into initiating fair business practices and more customer friendly programs.

T-Mobile also Gets Hit with Class Action Suit

A few days ago I made a post about the class action suite that has been certified against Verizon wireless. Now it seems that its T-Mobile turn to be nailed with a complaint. Nobody has told me that this is the season for class action suits or prosecute your Wireless carrier month.

The complaint against Verizon Wireless ordinated from the Early Termination fee they charged their customers. Their wireless contract or terms and conditions prohibits a customer from transferring into another carrier or wireless plan without paying a fee. On the other hand, the class action suit filed against T-Mobile involves text messages.

Enraged T-Mobile subscribers want justice for the charges that they have been made to pay for unwanted text messages. The class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Seattle. They are accusing their carrier charges for text messages regardless of whether customers want the missives.

Here is a statement from plaintiffs who are representing the complainants,

"T-Mobile refuses to disable the texting messaging feature on its customers’ accounts, even when the customer has no interest in sending, or, more importantly, receiving text messages. Moreover, T-Mobile requires each of its customers who have not subscribed to one of T-Mobile’s Messaging Value Bundles to pay for each and every unsolicited text message they receive. In sum, T-Mobile, the party with the superior bargaining power, has carried out a wrongful business scheme regarding text messaging to deliberately cheat a large number of consumers out of individually small sums of money.”

This seems like a very serious accusation. Of course, I can sympathize with the sentiments of the subscribers. After all, nobody wants to be cheated. However, T-Mobile also has a policy concerning class action suits that is stated in their wireless contracts or Terms and Conditions. Check out this statement from their Terms and Conditions,

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.

This statement is actually a waiver that is a part of the T-Mobile contract. However, with the certification of the complaint against Verizon Wireless, this complaint may also cause problems to T-Mobile. They may be forced to pay back the customers they have charged for these unwanted text messages.

The events in these recent weeks have certainly been interesting. Will the wireless contract disputes and other conflicts between wireless and customers continue to escalate? Well, I guess we'll see in the upcoming weeks. The consumers seems to be putting a lot of pressure on their carriers and we will see how they will respond.

So far, the spokespersons of the networks have released no comments regarding the class action suits they are facing. We'll just have to sit back and observes as the opposing groups go at it and hope that verything will still be fine when the dust settles.

News: Class Action Against Verizon has been Certified

I found an interesting article concerning Verizon Wireless today.

Apparently, a huge class action against the wireless network has been certified by an arbitrator. How huge? Well, the RCR News article says that Verizon may be forced to pay nearly a billion bucks in refunds for the early termination fees they have charged over the years.

This article caught my interest because Verizon wireless as well as other mobile phone carriers have class action policies stated in their wireless contracts or terms and conditions. Here's the statement from the wireless contract or terms and conditions of Verizon:

THIS AGREEMENT DOESN'T PERMIT CLASS ARBITRATIONS EVEN IF THOSE PROCEDURES OR RULES WOULD. IN EXCHANGE FOR YOUR AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, WE'RE PROVIDING YOU A FREE INTERNAL MEDIATION PROGRAM. MEDIATION IS A PROCESS FOR MUTUALLY RESOLVING DISPUTES. A MEDIATOR CAN HELP PARTIES REACH AGREEMENT, BUT DOESN'T DECIDE THEIR ISSUES. IN OUR MEDIATION PROGRAM, WE'LL ASSIGN SOMEONE (WHO MAY BE FROM OUR COMPANY) NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE DISPUTE TO MEDIATE. THAT PERSON WILL HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS OF A MEDIATOR. NOTHING SAID IN THE MEDIATION CAN BE USED IN A LATER ARBITRATION OR LAWSUIT.

Well, I'm not really an expert in law but it seems that the fact that this arbitration has been certified is not favorable to the beleaguered wireless network.

The arbitrator who made the decision is Eugene I. Farber, a former federal judge and senior arbitrator-mediator for the American Arbitration Association in White Plains, N.Y. He explained his decision in this statement,

“I find the claimants have complied with the criteria for class certification. My decision is also motivated by my conclusion that as a matter of equity and fairness, millions of class members are entitled to adjudication of the central common questions of fact or law in this arbitration related to whether the $175 early termination fee imposed by respondents Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless … is based upon an unenforceable liquidated damage clause.”

Farber's decision to certify the class action has historical significance as well as financial implications. Financial because the refunds that Verizon make hand out is estimated to be worth nearly a billion bucks. Historical because with approximately 70 million members of the subscriber class it is the largest class ever certified in arbitration. This class action suit is also the largest class ever certified on a contested motion in any type of forum, litigation or arbitration.

The implementation of early termination fees have always been a controversial issue. Consumer groups and customers have complained that it is an unfair practice and they have succeeded in forcing some carriers to make their ETFs pro-rated. In fact, Verizon Wireless was the first carrier to announce that their ETF will be prorated.

If this class action suit succeeds then Verizon Wireless consumers will gain a great advantage. They will be able to seek a refund worth nearly a billion dollars. And maybe this ruling will also trigger similar suits in other wireless networks because they too have been imposing early termination fees on their consumers. It may also change some of the statements in the wireless contracts and terms and conditions that will be signed by subscribers.

I'll continue to monitor the progress of this development. I'll also make sure that I post any updates of this class action suit as well as other related incidents in this blog.