Idaho firm Suing T-Mobile

[jones]

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/n...-6797575c.html
http://orange.advfn.com/news_T-Mobil..._17680291.html


Idaho firm seeks class-action status in suing cell phone company

By ALICIA P.Q. WITTMEYER, Associated Press Writer
(Published: November 14, 2006)
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - An Idaho law firm is suing cell-phone carrier T-Mobile USA over the company's early contract-termination fees.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court here Friday, claims the $200 flat fee that T-Mobile charges when customers cancel service before the end of a contract violates consumer protection laws in 13 states, including New Jersey.

If certified as a class action, the lawsuit would cover customers in all 13 states - potentially hundreds of thousands of people with damages in the tens of millions of dollars, attorneys said.

T-Mobile's fee is the same whether a customer cancels at the start or near the end of a contract, and is applied even if the customer is canceling because of poor service, according to the law firm Greener, Banducci, Shoemaker, the initial plaintiff. The firm is being represented by Boise attorney Curt McKenzie.

Under consumer protection laws in the 13 states, if Bellevue, Wash.-based T-Mobile, a U.S. subsidiary of the German company Deutsche Telekom AG, can figure out how much damage it incurs from a broken contract on a case-by-case basis, it can't charge a standard fee, the lawsuit says.

"You're not allowed to make up a penalty fee that doesn't bear any rational relation to the damages you supposedly incur when someone breaches a contract," said Ben Schwartzman, an attorney with the Boise firm.

T-Mobile spokesman Austin Stewart said the company does not comment on pending litigation.

The cancellation fee may be illegal when customers cancel because of inadequate service, Schwartzman said. The law firm canceled its T-Mobile subscription, and was charged termination fees, after its attorneys discovered they couldn't get service in remote parts of Idaho where they did business.

If the fee T-Mobile charges is deemed illegal, it could have repercussions for other wireless carriers with standard cancellation fees in their contracts, Schwartzman said. The lawsuit accuses T-Mobile of using the fees to lock in wireless subscribers and discourage them from looking at competing companies.

"It's something that - I think quite wrongly - the public has been forced to stomach for quite a long time and has been forced to accept as a part of doing business with a cellular carrier," Schwartzman said.

In addition to Idaho and Washington, the lawsuit seeks to include customers from Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina and Tennessee.

[Fire14]

Originally Posted by jones

"You're not allowed to make up a penalty fee that doesn't bear any rational relation to the damages you supposedly incur when someone breaches a contract," said Ben Schwartzman, an attorney with the Boise firm.


The cancellation fee may be illegal when customers cancel because of inadequate service, Schwartzman said. The law firm canceled its T-Mobile subscription, and was charged termination fees, after its attorneys discovered they couldn't get service in remote parts of Idaho where they did business.

If the fee T-Mobile charges is deemed illegal, it could have repercussions for other wireless carriers with standard cancellation fees in their contracts, Schwartzman said. The lawsuit accuses T-Mobile of using the fees to lock in wireless subscribers and discourage them from looking at competing companies.

"It's something that - I think quite wrongly - the public has been forced to stomach for quite a long time and has been forced to accept as a part of doing business with a cellular carrier," Schwartzman said.

This is going to be interesting to see what the outcome is & if they do get a class action suit started.
It is funny that because this happened to a "Law Firm" it's worthy of trying to sue, otherwise the rest of us just dealt with this.

I believe T-Mobile would win this, since they substitize the phones & the ETF basically covers them for the phones costs, but if they loose all customers can benefit.
At the least in the 13 states, pro-rated ETF's will be put in place & could be why Cingular use to have it in some area's of the country including NJ, and they could end up in a problem with doing away with it.

[bobolito]

So, what's the difference between T-Mobile charging an ETF and Cingular charging an ETF? I don't see any! You haven't finished your contract and you cancel service, and you pay what is stated in your contract. Plain and simple. I am surprised that they being lawyers didn't read their contracts and or are simply acting as if they didn't know about this.

T-Mobile can easily win this one. They don't have any leg to stand on. If they actually think they have any grounds on this case, I'd like to know their name and address to make sure I don't recommend them to anyone.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bobolito

So, what's the difference between T-Mobile charging an ETF and Cingular charging an ETF? I don't see any!

None, except that lawyers had TM service. Guess they didn't check those fabulous coverage maps TM provides online

[bobolito]

...neither they did it within their 15-day trial period. You'd think that being lawyers, they'd read the fine print before signing a contract.