Can a Buggy Software Upgrade Free a Customer from a Wireless Contract?

The current trend in mobile phones indicates a transformation from feature phones to smartphones. Consumers are now more able to purchase smartphones while the smart handsets are beginning to offer high-end consumer features. However, this trend also comes with an implication that is related to mobile phone contracts.

Smartphones require software updates that are supposed to keep them up to date with the latest technology, fix bugs and add enhancements. However, new versions of software can be buggy and break things that worked perfectly well with the previous version of software. This can be a problem for smartphone owners since the next software upgrade can take several months before release.

So can a problematic software upgrade free one from a smartphone contract?

Well, it's unlikely. The a buggy software update is not covered by the relevant section of most carrier's terms and conditions. This means that you can terminate your contract but you will be required to pay an early termination fee.

Finding ways to fix the bugs might be a cheaper choice than terminating a contract.

Since most of the ETF offered by carrier are pro-rated there's a chance that you wont pay a high fee as long as you do not have a ot of time left in our contract.

That's it for this week. Tune in for more mobile phone contract news and updates.

T-Mobile 'Unlimited' Data Plan Results in Class-action Lawsuit

Here's a wireless contract dispute that involves T-Mobile USA. A consumer from California has filed a class action lawsuit against the 4th largest US wireless carrier for offering unlimited data but imposing caps data use once consumers are locked into a wireless contract.

The class action lawsuit against T-Mobile was brought in Superior Court in Yolo County, California.

The complainant, Trent Alvarez, alleges that advertisements for T-Mobile's “Unlimited Web & E-mail” plans falsely offer promise the consumer access to an “unlimited” amount of data.

Alvarez received a message that stated: “Your data usage in this billing cycle has exceeded 10GB; Data throughput [speed] for the remainder of the cycle may be reduced to 50kbps or less.” He was unable to do anything with his handsets except make or receive phone calls and text messages.

This cap on T-Mobile's 'Unlimited' Data Plan was only mentioned on a statement “on the very last page of the carrier's brochure. It was reportedly buried in minuscule type barely readable and states: 'Your data session may be slowed, suspended, terminated, or restricted if you use your service in a way that interferes with or impacts our network or ability to provide quality service to other users …'”

Well, this isn't the first time that a US carrier hit with a class action suit based on false advertising of its 'Unlimited' Data Plan. Other complainants have filed cases against other carrier's as well.

That's it for this wireless contract news. Tune in for more information, news and updates on mobile phone contracts.

Benefits of Settlement Agreements on Mobile Phone Contract Disputes

Many consumers turn to class action suits in times of disputes over violations of a mobile phone contracts. Many hope to win a settlement agreement with a wirless carrier who has violated terms of a contract. but what are the benefits of seeking a settlement agreement over a wireless contract dispute?

Well, the benefits of wimming a settlement is varied. Monetary compensation is a common reward for a class member and will be awarded o those who have fulfilled the requirements. This usually includes an Approved Claim Form. Of course, you have to be qualified to be included in the complaint.

Another common benefit offered by a settlement agreement is a phone card that provides a few hundred minutes of state-to-state calling.

Keep it mind that you may only receive one benefit per line.

That's it for this quick post on settlement agreements of wireless contracts. Tune in next week for more info, news and updates on wireless contracts.

Settlement Proposal for AT&T Wireless Contract-related Lawsuits

AT&T has proposed some benefits as settlement for wireless contract-related lawsuits. Perhaps after witnessing Verizon paying a substantial sum to a class action suit, the carrier has decided to take pro active actions.

This proposal was made to consumers who sued AT&T for unfair billing practices. A hearing to consider the fairness of the proposed settlement will be held Nov. 15.

AT&T Wireless customers who signed wireless contracts after March 1, 1999 and who submit the appropriate forms may be eligible for the following benefits:

• $8 for mMode data service
• $10 for ENH Discount International Dial
• $8 or a 250 minute AT&T phone card for out of cycle billing
• $7 for Universal Connectivity Charge.

If you wish to participate in this settlement, then you must mail or submit a claim form by Feb. 13, 2011.

Click Here to get more info on settlements with AT&T.

That's it for this post. Tune in to this wireless contract blog to get more news and updates on related topics.

Verizon Wireless to Pay $21 Million for Wireless Contract ETF Settlement

Here's a great update for those who have a score to settle with Verizon Wireless. The nation's largest wireless carrier will pay for a class action lawsuit in California over early termination fees. Verizon Wireless will pay a total of $21 million to the 175,000 members of the class.

Each person in the class-action claim is estimated to receive $87.50 after challenging the carrier's practice of charging a $175 fee for breaking a wireless-service contract early.

The carrier will be made to pay after appeals court in California ruled that the class-action settlement should be upheld.

This Verizon Wireless contract settlement ends all litigation over how early termination fees were applied. However, this should not be applies to its current early termination fee policy. Verizon Wireless has increased ETF from $175 to a pro-rated $350 for "advanced devices" like smartphones and netbooks.

Scott Bursor, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the case commented,

"Yesterday's ruling by the Court of Appeal confirms that this is a terrific settlement for Verizon Wireless customers, and now more than 175,000 of those customers will get a substantial refund"

This case was filed in 1999 and centered on a flat $175 ETF.

Tune in for more details on this wireless contract news and update.

Proposal to Ease ETF's of Wireless Contracts

Here's some more interesting wireless Contract news. CNN.com reported that the government is quietly negotiating to help cell phone customers avoid expensive early termination fees when they decided to cancel their wireless contracts.

Verizon Wireless has submitted a proposal to the FCC after the carrier consulted with other leading mobile phone service providers. The wireless contract proposal to the Federal Communications Commission states that the wireless industry would give consumers the opportunity to cancel service without any penalty. This would only apply up to 30 days after customers sign a cell phone contract or until 10 days after they receive their first mobile phone service bill. The proposal ton the FCC also suggests that the fees should be capped and and be reduce month by month over the course of a contract based on how long customers have left.

The article posted on CNN.Com reports that cell phone companies will be freed from suits filed in state courts by angry customers, in exchange for the government's approval. The proposal ,made by Verizon also request that the authority of states to regulate the charges, known as early termination fees should be taken away. Interestingly, the Federal Communication Commission declined to release any comment on this issue.

However, there have also been reports that the proposal is doomed even before it was filed to the FCC. Those who are close to the issue have suggested that the negotiations are on the verge of collapsing. Key stakeholders are continuing to negotiate on an ETF compromise but there are indications a deal remains an uphill battle. Two consumer groups approached by Verizon Wireless appears not to believe that the concessions offered by industry are adequate when consumers could surrender the ability to take legal action against mobile-phone operators.

I have blogged several times about wireless contract complains arising from ETF's or early termination fees. The wireless industry is currently facing a series of long-running, class-action lawsuits in state courts. If this proposal is unsuccessful, then I don't see the class action suits beign filed against carriers decreasing any time soon.

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.

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.

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.

Ad Targeting and Wireless Phone Privacy

A mobile phone is an important tool of communication and is considered by many as a necessity in this day and age. However, most of us do not realize that our cell phones are also valuable for marketers.

A cellphone contains a wealth of information about the owner that are important for advertisers. It can give them an idea of your location as well as your preference for games or music. In fact, limited targeting based on users' age, gender, ZIP code and other characteristics is being done today. However, advertisers and marketers must first deal with privacy policies before they can gain more access to mobile phone users' personal information.

Major mobile phone carriers want to protect their customers' privacy because annoyed subscribers might defect to rivals if they did a sloppy job. of course, there is also the danger of contracts disputes or lawsuits that may come after any violation of privacy.

However, marketers may be able to target ads to a potential customer's location and actions through mobile phones. After all, the carriers can also benefit from the lucrative mobile phone advertisement business. Some researches also project that U.S. spending in mobile ads will grow more to nearly $4.8 billion in the next three or four years.

Furthermore, both technology companies and privacy advocates have also been making speculations about the availability of phones' location information to commercial services and advertisers. The Federal Communications Commission ruled in 1996 that wireless carriers must help 911 dispatchers identify a caller's location may pave a way for this development.

Many advertisers have also experimented with mobile ads in anticipation of a possible opening in this niche. it makes perfect business sense to take advantage of location information with the success of GPS devices and location services like maps and child tracking.

However, privacy red flags will be flown due to mobile phones' highly personal nature. Some marketing associations have started to develop guidelines on how to deal with the issue of consumer privacy. For instance, finding an ethical and legal way of getting a customer's permission and periodically reminding them of any tracking.

I think that all the sides of this mobile advertising equation will eventually come to a common ground. There will be problems and the possibility of disputes over privacy violations are inevitable but the potential of mobile advertising is just too hard to pass up. Cell phone carrier's, customers and advertisers will eventually reach an agreement and mobile advertising will flourish.

The Discover Bank Decision and Wireless Phone Contract Disputes

About a couple of years ago, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that has a significant impact on wireless phone contracts. This decision was well anticipated because of the increasing number of wireless contract disputes.

The case was widely known as Discover Bank v. Superior Court resulted in a decision that class action and class arbitration waiver clauses in consumer contracts are not enforceable "at least under some circumstances.” With this decision a window of opportunity for the use and enforcement of class action and class arbitration waiver clauses in the employment context was opened.


Case Background

Let us explore the events behind this ground breaking decision.

The case was all about a credit card holder filing a class action claim against Discover Bank in California. The person accused the bank of imposing a late fee of $29 on payments that were received on the payment due date, but after the bank's undisclosed 1:00 p.m. “cut off” time therefore breaching the cardholder agreement.

In response to this accusation, the accused moved to compel arbitration on an individual basis and to dismiss the class action. The bank argued that class arbitration and class actions are expressly prohibited in the arbitration provision of the cardholder agreement. It also contained of law clause stating that Delaware law governed.

However, the plaintiff argued that the class action/arbitration waiver clause, as stated in the cardholder agreement, is unenforceable under California law because it was unconscionable.


The Impact

The decision strike down the class action/arbitration waiver clause in the Discover Bank case may have nationwide implications. The presiding also noted that California could now become a magnet for class actions because the majority decided to ignore the choice of law provision in the arbitration agreement.

The decision can also affect the contracts of wireless phone service providers because these contracts requires the customer to accept a form of class action waiver. Take a look at this condition in Sprint's Terms and Conditions:

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.

It's clear that the Discover Bank decision has affected the formation of this condition. The discover bank decision was also applied in a contract dispute between a customer and a wireless phone carrier. The California Federal Court denied the motion to compel arbitration under the agreement barring class action lawsuits made because the clause was held unconscionable. The motion was made by the defense in the Winig v. Cingular Wireless-Class Action Defense cases.

Changes to Sprint's Monthly Fees

Wireless company, Sprint will be changing some of the fees it charges its customers. Some sources say that it is the result of because of legal pressure for their alleged long-standing and industry-wide practice of misleading consumers into thinking certain fees are government mandated.

The company's phone and data customers will receive notices that will inform them that three fees from their bills will be removed. The Federal Programs Cost Recovery (FPCR) fee, the Federal E911 surcharge and the Wireless Local Number Portability (WLNP) will no longer be charged next year.

However, these charges may also be replaced. An Administrative Charge and a Regulatory Charge will be the replacement of the fees to be removed next year. This statement from Sprint's notice explains these changes:

"Sprint Nextel is charging the Administrative Charge to help defray various costs imposed on us by other telecommunications carriers, including, but not limited to, charges imposed by local telephone companies for delivery of calls from our customers to their landline customers and for certain network facilities and services we must purchase from them. The Regulatory Charge is being assessed to help defray the costs of various federal, state, and local regulatory programs. These charges are not taxes and are not amounts we are required to collect from you."

Many analyst comments that these changes are indeed a response to criticism that Sprint have been masking these fees as being required by the government. There may be truth to this analysis since Missouri's Attorney General sued the company for for misleading consumers into thinking these fees are government mandated about five years ago. As of now, the case has not been settled.

The important thing is that the consumer will have less fees to pay and will not be anymore lead to believe that they are paying for taxes or any government fees. Maybe these changes will also be rereflected in the company's contracts or temrs and conditions in the near future.

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.