Cell Phone Lemon law in Illinois signed by house

[Fire14]

Illinois House passes handset lemon law


The Illinois House passed a cellphone lemon law, a measure that would allow consumers with defective handsets to break wireless service contracts without penalty.

The House bill, approved by a 72-to-43 margin Thursday, now heads to the Senate for consideration.

“When someone buys a cellphone that turns out to be defective, they have to go back to the provider for a repair or replacement,” said Rep. Susana Mendoza, a Democrat who represents Chicago. “When this happens repeatedly, it burdens customers both in terms of time and money lost, but also with increased frustration. Cellular providers have an insufficient incentive to be responsive because the consumer is usually locked into a long-term contract.”

Under the bill, subscribers whose cellphones must be repaired or replaced as a result of mechanical or manufacturing defects three times or more can cancel their service contracts without having to pay an early termination fees. Such charges range between $150 and $200 per line.

“For many people, a cellphone is their only means of communication,” Mendoza said. “Keeping consumers with faulty equipment locked into a long-term contract is just another example of big businesses trying to take advantage of the little guy.”

The lawmaker’s bill also offers consumers the option of upgrading or downgrading their phone model by paying or being refunded only the difference in cost based on promotional prices—also without incurring penalty charges. An amendment to the bill was approved to strike language that would have required a mobile phone operator to pay a consumer $25 for each day the handset is unavailable to the consumer or each day the consumer does not have full access to all of the contracted services.

The mobile phone industry said the Mendoza legislation is unnecessary.

“Wireless consumers have an abundance of choice when it comes to hand-held devices and surveys consistently show they are satisfied with both the operation and functionality of their handsets. It is the rare exception and certainly not the rule for a device to malfunction,” said Joe Farren, a spokesman for national cellphone association CTIA. “Because the market for wireless handsets is so competitive, every manufacturer has a huge incentive to produce an exceptional device. If they don’t, they won’t be in business for very long. I can’t imagine a greater ‘regulator’ than that.”

On a related front, the California Consumer Federation applauded a state Senate committee’s passage of a cellphone consumer protection bill.

“The cellphone industry ranks No. 1 among all industries in consumer complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau,” said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. “Consumers have put up with deceptive contract terms, poor phone reception, excessive early termination fees and inadequate customer service for long enough.”

The bill’s author claims industry consolidation is hurting consumers.

“Cellphone companies are merging, competition is decreasing, customer service is deteriorating, and yet California cellphone subscribers have little or no protection against industry abuses,” said Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D).

Some cellular carriers have voluntarily moved to enact to varying degrees some requirements in the Lowenthal bill.

The bill moves next to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The legislation comes in response to the California Public Utilities Commission’s decision in 2005 to replace the year-old telecom consumer bill of rights with a rule based on education and enforcement.

http://www.rcrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...7009/1005/FREE

[MOTOhooligan]

I agree that you should be able to get a phone that works but again, the phone is not manufactured by the wireless service provider. The service provider does not warranty the phone nor do they repair the phone.

It is more or less the consumer's responsiblity to ensure that they have a working phone to use the service provided by the wireless company.

I do think that the trial period for both phone and service should be extended to 30 days (some carriers have 30 days, some 15, some 14) and I don't think consumers should have to pay any fees associated with the 30 day trial period if they choose to cancel (unless they have an excessive amount of usage within the 30 day trial.)

Originally Posted by Fire14

“For many people, a cellphone is their only means of communication,” Mendoza said. “Keeping consumers with faulty equipment locked into a long-term contract is just another example of big businesses trying to take advantage of the little guy.”

Mendoza, of course, fails to mention the $150+ discount the customer received on the handset when it was initially purchased. The reason the customer has a long term contract is because he received a deep discount on the phone. If the customer had purchased a phone directly from the manufacturer's website, at full retail cost, without going through the provider, they would have to send it back to the manufacturer themselves without the convenience of having the carrier do it and without a loaner phone.

Wireless companies provide a courtesy to customers by sending the phones in to the manufacturer on behalf of the customer, rather than having the customer do it themselves. In many instances, the wireless company also provides a loaner phone for the customer to use while their phone is being repaired.

Think about it. The wireless industry is the only industry this happens in. If you buy a Panasonic television and it stops working one day, do you expect your cable company to give you a new TV? No. Do you expect your cable company to send it in to Panasonic for warranty repair? No. If you have had the TV longer than Best Buy's return period, do you expect Best Buy to replace it? No. Do you expect Best Buy is going to send your TV off for repair of provide you with a "loaner TV" while your TV is gone? No. You have to send your TV in to Panasonic and they will fix it. No one else is going to do that for you.

Another thing I believe is that if you repeatedly drop a wireless phone from an average height of 4-5 feet onto carpet, there will probably be no external damage (scratches, chips, etc.) but that is probably going to rattle a bunch of stuff around inside the phone and could cause damage. I'm not saying that all problems with phones are caused by stuff like this, I know that many, many defective handsets make it to market but I do believe that there are people who are careless with their mobile phones and then, when the phones start "acting up" they blame Nokia, LG, Kyocera or Motorola.

Originally Posted by Fire14

“The cellphone industry ranks No. 1 among all industries in consumer complaints filed with the Better Business Bureau,” said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California. “Consumers have put up with deceptive contract terms, poor phone reception, excessive early termination fees and inadequate customer service for long enough.”

The problem here is two-fold. For the most part, consumers are uninformed about the wireless industry. They don't take the time to understand it and so they, being ignorant, are surprised when they're taken advantage of or misinformed by unscrupulous sales reps and customer service agents who seek to exploit that ignorance (or by well-meaning but poorly trained sales reps and customer service agents.)

[Jay2TheRescue]

Originally Posted by MOTOhooligan

I agree that you should be able to get a phone that works but again, the phone is not manufactured by the wireless service provider. The service provider does not warranty the phone nor do they repair the phone.

It is more or less the consumer's responsiblity to ensure that they have a working phone to use the service provided by the wireless company.

I do think that the trial period for both phone and service should be extended to 30 days (some carriers have 30 days, some 15, some 14) and I don't think consumers should have to pay any fees associated with the 30 day trial period if they choose to cancel (unless they have an excessive amount of usage within the 30 day trial.)

Mendoza, of course, fails to mention the $150+ discount the customer received on the handset when it was initially purchased. The reason the customer has a long term contract is because he received a deep discount on the phone. If the customer had purchased a phone directly from the manufacturer's website, at full retail cost, without going through the provider, they would have to send it back to the manufacturer themselves without the convenience of having the carrier do it and without a loaner phone.

Wireless companies provide a courtesy to customers by sending the phones in to the manufacturer on behalf of the customer, rather than having the customer do it themselves. In many instances, the wireless company also provides a loaner phone for the customer to use while their phone is being repaired.

Think about it. The wireless industry is the only industry this happens in. If you buy a Panasonic television and it stops working one day, do you expect your cable company to give you a new TV? No. Do you expect your cable company to send it in to Panasonic for warranty repair? No. If you have had the TV longer than Best Buy's return period, do you expect Best Buy to replace it? No. Do you expect Best Buy is going to send your TV off for repair of provide you with a "loaner TV" while your TV is gone? No. You have to send your TV in to Panasonic and they will fix it. No one else is going to do that for you.

Another thing I believe is that if you repeatedly drop a wireless phone from an average height of 4-5 feet onto carpet, there will probably be no external damage (scratches, chips, etc.) but that is probably going to rattle a bunch of stuff around inside the phone and could cause damage. I'm not saying that all problems with phones are caused by stuff like this, I know that many, many defective handsets make it to market but I do believe that there are people who are careless with their mobile phones and then, when the phones start "acting up" they blame Nokia, LG, Kyocera or Motorola.
The problem here is two-fold. For the most part, consumers are uninformed about the wireless industry. They don't take the time to understand it and so they, being ignorant, are surprised when they're taken advantage of or misinformed by unscrupulous sales reps and customer service agents who seek to exploit that ignorance (or by well-meaning but poorly trained sales reps and customer service agents.)

Thank You Aaron, you said it very well.

-Jay

[CPR-CellPhoneRepair]

Good info!

[hf1khal]

I agree. But in way it can protect the consumer from the provider releasing a handset too soon to meet some set of finanacial guidlines. We all have known this to happen with a release of a phone with known issues but without ever telling the consumer about potential bugs.

[CPR-CellPhoneRepair]

The iPhone comes to mind...many returns going on with that.

[dionnfr]

Good there should be a lemon law for all states.