Join 200,000+ other SprintUsers for free at the #1 online community for Sprint cell phone customers! Win cool prizes in our weekly contests. Talk about the newest phones or post your question in our forums! Become a premium member and get unlimited Focus Uploads to your Sprint phone.

All visitors must register before they can post questions, contact other members or search our database of over 127,000 threads and 1.7 million posts. So what are you waiting for? Register for free today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 12-19-2009, 10:15 PM   #1
austiniter
Telegraph User
 
austiniter's Avatar
 
Mood: Amazed
Join Date: Nov 15, '09
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 10
Phone: U300 & BB Tour
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My Mood: Amazed
SU$: 162
Lawsuit Filed Against Sprint Alleging Assessment of Improper Surcharges for Wireless

Besides the .20 per line to .40 per line increase, and a reported $4.99 Credit Management Fee (if you have a credit limit) per account, this is your opportunity to TERMINATE your Sprint Account as this is a Materially Adverse change whereby you can cancel without a Early Termination Fee. The fee sets to start 01/01/10. You have 30 days after that to terminate without a penality, furthermore:

Lawsuit claims that Sprint induces consumers to enroll in wireless calling plans by advertising monthly “flat rates” but then imposes improper surcharges on top of the agreed-upon rates.

Atlanta, Ga. (PRWEB) December 12, 2009 -- Atlanta-based law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit against Sprint Communications Company L.P. based on its bad faith imposition of “Sprint Surcharges” on its customers. The suit alleges that Sprint informs consumers through marketing and other promotional materials that it will provide specified wireless services in exchange for a set monthly flat rate. After inducing consumers to enter into a long-term contract, however, Sprint then imposes various fees and surcharges on top of the previously agreed-upon flat rate. These extra fees are not for extraordinary items, but rather for normal and predictable costs of doing business.
The suit claims that these fees and surcharges, which Sprint routinely labels “Sprint Surcharges,” are not adequately disclosed by Sprint until after a contract is entered. Further, the surcharges allow Sprint to recoup costs that all businesses face, such as “administrative” and “regulatory” costs. The complaint also notes that Sprint has given itself total discretion to set the amount of surcharges. The Plaintiff has brought claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and unconscionability. Based on these claims, the Plaintiff alleges that Sprint is liable for all damages that have resulted from its improper imposition of “Sprint Surcharges.”
austiniter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2009, 10:44 PM   #2
ZiggyZ
I'm Kind Of A BIG Deal...
 
ZiggyZ's Avatar
 
Mood: Amazed
Join Date: Jul 19, '05
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 3,107
Phone: Galaxy Note 3
Thanks: 38
Thanked 38 Times in 35 Posts
My Mood: Amazed
SU$: 11,551
WOW took someone long enough to figure that one out.
__________________
S|P Sprint "GOLD" Premier - Sprint Customer Since 3/24/1999. 15 YEARS!!

Actually, I recently cancelled my service. 15 years, 11 lines. Boom...Gone...
ZiggyZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2009, 12:38 AM   #3
Dan
Forever my Angel
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Mood: Relaxed
Join Date: Feb 6, '05
Location: western NY
Posts: 23,917
Phone: HTC ONE
Trades: 1
Thanks: 46
Thanked 745 Times in 611 Posts
My Mood: Relaxed
SU$: 128,899
They better file the same suit against Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and most every cable TV provider.

I pay a "franchise fee" to TWC which is what my city requires them to pay for being the cable provider here. In no way does the city require them to bill me for it, but they sure do!
__________________
My angel is now an angel in heaven. 5/25/2000 - 12/5/2010. Rest in peace Alaina.
Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 03:22 AM   #4
dlichterman
Super Moderator
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Mood: Sleepy
Join Date: Oct 2, '06
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,576
Phone: 3VO
Trades: 5
Thanks: 56
Thanked 247 Times in 172 Posts
My Mood: Sleepy
SU$: 18,688
If my memory serves me, sprint does not say it will only be the "flat rate". They do say there will be taxes and fees. Some of these are state and federal (Universal telephone, 911, etc) and some are not. Att seems to have won a similar case. It seems lawyers are being lawyers.

http://www.law360.com/registrations/...cy_check=false


If the taxes/fees/surcharges were included in the plan, ever county/state would have different plan rates as the taxes are not the same. For example, I only pay a few dollars in taxes/fees, while other states have over 10-15 dollars worth. It is all based on local costs.
__________________
If you see a post that violates our forum guidelines, click the button to let us know!
Check out the latest contest for SprintUsers via Facebook. You could win a year of Sprint for you and a friend!

Last edited by dlichterman; 12-26-2009 at 03:24 AM.
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 03:43 AM   #5
Bibbin
Cellular Phone User
 
Bibbin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 5, '08
Posts: 1,375
Phone: ATT,MPCS,S &TMO
Thanks: 180
Thanked 77 Times in 66 Posts
SU$: 14,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by austiniter View Post
Besides the .20 per line to .40 per line increase, and a reported $4.99 Credit Management Fee (if you have a credit limit) per account, this is your opportunity to TERMINATE your Sprint Account as this is a Materially Adverse change whereby you can cancel without a Early Termination Fee. The fee sets to start 01/01/10. You have 30 days after that to terminate without a penality, furthermore:

Lawsuit claims that Sprint induces consumers to enroll in wireless calling plans by advertising monthly “flat rates” but then imposes improper surcharges on top of the agreed-upon rates.

Atlanta, Ga. (PRWEB) December 12, 2009 -- Atlanta-based law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit against Sprint Communications Company L.P. based on its bad faith imposition of “Sprint Surcharges” on its customers. The suit alleges that Sprint informs consumers through marketing and other promotional materials that it will provide specified wireless services in exchange for a set monthly flat rate. After inducing consumers to enter into a long-term contract, however, Sprint then imposes various fees and surcharges on top of the previously agreed-upon flat rate. These extra fees are not for extraordinary items, but rather for normal and predictable costs of doing business.
The suit claims that these fees and surcharges, which Sprint routinely labels “Sprint Surcharges,” are not adequately disclosed by Sprint until after a contract is entered. Further, the surcharges allow Sprint to recoup costs that all businesses face, such as “administrative” and “regulatory” costs. The complaint also notes that Sprint has given itself total discretion to set the amount of surcharges. The Plaintiff has brought claims for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and unconscionability. Based on these claims, the Plaintiff alleges that Sprint is liable for all damages that have resulted from its improper imposition of “Sprint Surcharges.”
Impeccable timing. The climate is just right for a suit like this.
Bibbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 07:46 AM   #6
MadGasser
Life Is Good!!
 
MadGasser's Avatar
 
Mood: Lurking
Join Date: Mar 22, '08
Location: Urbana, IL
Posts: 1,004
Phone: BlackBerry 9650
Trades: 1
Thanks: 12
Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts
My Mood: Lurking
SU$: 3,244
Let's say someone wanted out of their Sprint contract but still wanted to keep their service, could they?
__________________
If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane.

pin:321EB4D0
MadGasser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 02:51 PM   #7
sfhub
Cellular Phone User
 
sfhub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 8, '02
Posts: 2,367
Thanks: 25
Thanked 212 Times in 162 Posts
SU$: 25,208
Don't know if they "better" file (against "Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and most every cable TV provider"), but they probably could file in some cases. Depends on what those fees are for and how they are set up along with whether you are signing a contract, possibly with termination fees.

Sprint could have avoided many of the complaints by simply delaying any increases until people are out of contract, like some of the other players do or they could dump contracts and termination fees altogether. I don't recall cable asking for a 2year agreement with termination fees. From what I can tell, they are mostly month-to-month while Satellite usually asks for a term agreement.

When you go month to month, you have one expectation. When you sign a two-year agreement there is another expectation (on both sides)
sfhub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 04:05 PM   #8
AllTeedUp
Cordless Phone User
 
AllTeedUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 27, '07
Location: Danvers, MA
Posts: 979
Phone: iPhone 4
Thanks: 20
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SU$: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan View Post
They better file the same suit against Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and most every cable TV provider.

I pay a "franchise fee" to TWC which is what my city requires them to pay for being the cable provider here. In no way does the city require them to bill me for it, but they sure do!
I thought Verizon waiting until you renewed your contract to apply increased fees?
AllTeedUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 06:50 PM   #9
lgmayka
Digital PCS User
 
lgmayka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 18, '02
Location: Aurora, IL, USA
Posts: 4,174
Phone: HTC Evo Shift4G
Thanks: 98
Thanked 133 Times in 103 Posts
SU$: 22,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlichterman View Post
If the taxes/fees/surcharges were included in the plan, ever county/state would have different plan rates as the taxes are not the same. For example, I only pay a few dollars in taxes/fees, while other states have over 10-15 dollars worth. It is all based on local costs.
False. The lawsuit, and the thread, is not about taxes, it's about Sprint's "surcharges" which are nothing more than a sneaky way to charge more than advertised. As the lawsuit correctly says, "administrative" and "regulatory" costs are simply the everyday costs of doing business that every company has, and it is deceptive to hide them in the fine print.

The closest analogy I can think of is the bogus "towel fee" and similar fees that some automobile repair shops charge--although some states may have banned such fees.

Here's an article in which the reporter actually tries to justifiy a bogus "shop supplies" charge.

Last edited by lgmayka; 12-26-2009 at 06:55 PM.
lgmayka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 07:02 PM   #10
dlichterman
Super Moderator
 
dlichterman's Avatar
 
Mood: Sleepy
Join Date: Oct 2, '06
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,576
Phone: 3VO
Trades: 5
Thanks: 56
Thanked 247 Times in 172 Posts
My Mood: Sleepy
SU$: 18,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgmayka View Post
False. The lawsuit, and the thread, is not about taxes, it's about Sprint's "surcharges" which are nothing more than a sneaky way to charge more than advertised. As the lawsuit correctly says, "administrative" and "regulatory" costs are simply the everyday costs of doing business that every company has, and it is deceptive to sneak them into the fine print.
Yes they are for the "cost of doing business", however that varries based on location. They are not the same everywhere except for the administrative charge and regulatory charge(.99 and .20), which I agree is pretty lame, but just how they are done. For example here is my bill:

Sprint Surcharges
Federal-Univ Serv Assess Non-LD......................... $0.51
California State-PUC User Fee ................................. $0.03

Administrative Charge ..................................... $0.99
Regulatory Charge .................................. $0.20
$1.73

Then of course taxes:

Government Fees & Taxes
Taxes and fees Sprint is required to collect from customers on behalf of the government.
California State-911 Tax .................................................. .... $0.07
California State-CA High Cost B & Adv Fund ............................ $0.06
California State-CA High Cost Part A .......................................... $0.02
California State-CA Relay Service Fund .................................... $0.03
California State-Tele Fund Charge ........................................ $0.01
California State-Univ Lifeline Serv Charge ................................. $0.12
$0.31
__________________
If you see a post that violates our forum guidelines, click the button to let us know!
Check out the latest contest for SprintUsers via Facebook. You could win a year of Sprint for you and a friend!
dlichterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2009, 08:03 PM   #11
alexm
Walkie Talkie User
 
alexm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 29, '04
Posts: 383
Phone: iPhone 5
Thanks: 7
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
SU$: 1,636
My taxes & fees are $10... pisses me off
__________________
SERO $50 + $30 = $80 + tax | "Pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Motorola StarTac (MCI) > Motorola v60 (ATT) > Sanyo VM4500> Sanyo MM7400 > Samsung A900 & LG LX350 > Blackberry Pearl & Samsung LX570 > Blackberry Tour & Sanyo SCP3820 > iPhone 5 & Samsung Array

alexm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2009, 12:21 AM   #12
Dan
Forever my Angel
 
Dan's Avatar
 
Mood: Relaxed
Join Date: Feb 6, '05
Location: western NY
Posts: 23,917
Phone: HTC ONE
Trades: 1
Thanks: 46
Thanked 745 Times in 611 Posts
My Mood: Relaxed
SU$: 128,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTeedUp View Post
I thought Verizon waiting until you renewed your contract to apply increased fees?
Verizon does, but the lawsuit was on the fact they charge them at all as opposed to including them into the base price of the service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lgmayka View Post
False. The lawsuit, and the thread, is not about taxes, it's about Sprint's "surcharges" which are nothing more than a sneaky way to charge more than advertised. As the lawsuit correctly says, "administrative" and "regulatory" costs are simply the everyday costs of doing business that every company has, and it is deceptive to hide them in the fine print.

The closest analogy I can think of is the bogus "towel fee" and similar fees that some automobile repair shops charge--although some states may have banned such fees.

Here's an article in which the reporter actually tries to justifiy a bogus "shop supplies" charge.
The problem is, Sprint has allowed people out of their contract ETF free each time these fee's have been increased. Filing suit over fee's that are disclosed in the contract is not gonna fly. Filing suit over fee's that are increased when Sprint lets you go ETF free wont fly either.

Simply put, these fee's are charged by more than just Sprint and for more than just the wireless industry. It would be great to have every industry include all their "fee's and only charge true taxes on the bill, but they will tell you that they need to offer national pricing and have the ability to inform you at the time you contract for service what the additional fee's are for your area
__________________
My angel is now an angel in heaven. 5/25/2000 - 12/5/2010. Rest in peace Alaina.
Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 09:30 AM   #13
AllTeedUp
Cordless Phone User
 
AllTeedUp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 27, '07
Location: Danvers, MA
Posts: 979
Phone: iPhone 4
Thanks: 20
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SU$: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan View Post
Verizon does, but the lawsuit was on the fact they charge them at all as opposed to including them into the base price of the service.



The problem is, Sprint has allowed people out of their contract ETF free each time these fee's have been increased. Filing suit over fee's that are disclosed in the contract is not gonna fly. Filing suit over fee's that are increased when Sprint lets you go ETF free wont fly either.

Simply put, these fee's are charged by more than just Sprint and for more than just the wireless industry. It would be great to have every industry include all their "fee's and only charge true taxes on the bill, but they will tell you that they need to offer national pricing and have the ability to inform you at the time you contract for service what the additional fee's are for your area
I wasn't allowed out of my contract without an ETF last year when the fees increased...
AllTeedUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 09:48 AM   #14
ned23
Walkie Talkie User
 
ned23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 12, '09
Posts: 342
Thanks: 8
Thanked 9 Times in 6 Posts
SU$: 2,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfhub View Post
Don't know if they "better" file (against "Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and most every cable TV provider"), but they probably could file in some cases. Depends on what those fees are for and how they are set up along with whether

There are such lawsuits already happening against all the carriers. Google terms like: class action lawsuit cellular, and you'll see.
ned23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 10:27 AM   #15
cakvalasc
Telephone User
 
cakvalasc's Avatar
 
Mood: Amused
Join Date: Jun 22, '09
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 155
Phone: HTC Hero
Thanks: 2
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
My Mood: Amused
SU$: 1,257
Yeah this will not get to far in the courts. People are dumb to listen to lawyers sometimes.
__________________
"I am a huge phone geek, thus the list of phones I own keeps growing. Obsessive Hobby? Why yes!
Sanyo SCP 2700 Blue - Palm Pre - Blackberry Curve 8330m - Blackberry Tour 9630 - Palm Treo Pro - Samsung Instinct s30 - LG Rumor 2 - LG Lotus - HTC Hero - Samsung Reclaim - Kyocera Echo
cakvalasc is offline   Reply With Quote
Go Back SprintUsers.com > General > Sprint Discussion > Lawsuit Filed Against Sprint Alleging Assessment of Improper Surcharges for Wireless

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Palm Pixi Available Nov. 15 for Just $99.99 Exclusively from Sprint garethhems Sprint Discussion 42 10-31-2009 12:28 PM
First Responder Solutions Make Sprint the Provider of Choice for Law Enforcement Andre Sprint Discussion 0 10-03-2009 07:14 AM
Sprint Loses Returned Phones... rdwing Rants, Debates, & Farewells - All Carriers 43 09-15-2009 12:04 PM
Sprint is fraudulent, untrustworthy and disgraceful… Barnacules Rants, Debates, & Farewells - All Carriers 115 10-13-2008 02:21 PM
Sprint early termination fees are illegal, judge rules MJordan23 Sprint Discussion 2 07-31-2008 03:29 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:28 PM.


- SprintUsers.com is not affiliated with or endorsed by Sprint PCS -