T-Mobile faces class action suit — contract “unconscionable”
Hi there! If you're new to the site, you may want to subscribe to the the feed.
Prepaid users, take solace: contract subscribers aren’t exactly happy with their service. After all, being locked in a contract means more than a commitment to use the service. It means abiding by any and all of the provisions set forth by the cellular carrier. This includes early termination fees and other dubious provisions — some of which may not be legal under state law. A class action suit against T-Mobile may change some of that.
Legal blog TortDeform explains his own frustration with his cell phone company:
And just when you think you’ve hit that boiling point and are ready to call it quits, it’s-not-you-it’s-me-style, the voice of wisdom tauntingly reminds you: “It’s cheaper to keep’er.”
Aaah!!!
There’s the early termination fees (ETFs); then there’s the fact that you might have to purchase a new phone to get new service; and then there’s the fact that switching to a new carrier is essentially a stab in the dark anyway. Who knows if the new company will provide better, worse, or equally bad service as who you’re with now?
With this class action suit, though, that might change. The allegations are that early termination fees and phone locking are unfair business practices. This is compounded by the mandatory arbitration agreements, which force a hearing between the provider and the company before the subscriber can take further legal action. California courts have deemed arbitration unnecessary in this case, calling the T-Mobile contract “unconscionable” and “unenforceable.”
Imagine if consumers win and T-Mobile is forced to pro-rate their early termination fees and issue unlocked phones. That will be a great victory, because the decision will set a precedent. This will surely lead to similar actions against the other major carriers. Can you say “unlocked iPhone”?
Loading ...
[...] appeals hearing that ruled the “mandatory arbitration” clause in cell phone contracts “unconscionable” and “unenforceable.” It was a victory for consumers everywhere, since class action suits win significantly more than [...]
Posted on July 30th, 2007 at 10:01 am
[...] last month, a judge ruled that the provision in T-Mobile’s contract that mandated arbitration was “unconscionable” and “unenforceable.” Last week, a judge ruled [...]
Posted on August 20th, 2007 at 10:30 am
[...] begins service. However, if you’ll remember back this summer, that agreement was ruled “unconscionable and unenforceable”. Uh oh. Looks like this might be a long winter for [...]
Posted on October 12th, 2007 at 9:02 am