digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at mercurynews.com —

BREAKING: Sprint's early termination deemed illegal...

mercurynews.com — In a preliminary ruling Monday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw said Sprint Nextel must pay California mobile-phone consumers $18.2 million as part of a class-action lawsuit challenging early termination fees. Though the decision could be appealed, it's the first in the country to declare the fees illegal...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • larryjr88, on 07/31/2008, -8/+43Finally
    • jbenson2, on 08/01/2008, -1/+17Don't be so happy.
      The cost of buying a new phone or replacing an out of warranty phone is going to skyrocket.
      • carlosos, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1And the price for the monthly contract will decrease...
    • melipaisa, on 08/01/2008, -6/+0i am a sprint costumer and i want to finish my plan i have to pay 200 for canceling my phone thats f up im tired of sprint they stole so much money from us
      • smacksaw, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Do you costume them in robber outfits?
      • insertAliasHere, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Well, it's your own dumbass fault for signing up for a contract that you -knew- had an early termination fee! And if you didn't know about it, you should have read it. They didn't steal anything from you, you willingly opened your wallet and gave it to them.

        Also, punctuation ftw.
    • jabberwolf, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4California mobile-phone consumers $18.2 million = Most of it will go to attorneys.
      Consumers will get $1.27 check in the mail !!
      Plus now more expensive phones with the same high cost service.

      Seriously, I think that attorneys should have a much higher qualification for creating all these CLASS ACTION lawsuits!
  • SHUUTOBI, on 08/01/2008, -12/+97Now phones and/or their plans will cost more to offset their losses. gj. :|
    • cosinezero, on 08/01/2008, -7/+16Seriously. This is not a win.
    • minorthreat, on 08/01/2008, -6/+17you guys are suckers... they just tell you that etf's are used to cover the cheap phones.. With plans costing $100, they are bringing in plenty of revenue.
      • captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+14They may be bringing in "plenty of revenue" but he still makes a valid point.

        Whether the companies are lying about the purpose/necessity of the termination fees, it doesn't change the fact that when you take away those fees, the company will be bringing in less money than before. They may still be making ridiculous profits, but the whole point is to make MORE profits than before, not suddenly less.

        They'll definitely be finding new, more obnoxious ways to restore that influx of money.
      • Lounger540, on 08/01/2008, -1/+8The ability for people to transfer to another carrier without worrying about an EFT will force more competition though. So maybe they'll use those profits for better service in an industry notorious for only being concerned with ripping off it's customers.
      • captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5All I think it would force is more carrier-exclusives.

        There won't be cheaper phones or plans, really, but "Get exclusive access to this content" or "You can only buy this phone model from us".

        They won't make the things we already have cheaper, but they'll give us new things to buy that we'll "OMG WANT" that competitors don't have. And then someone will try to patent text messaging or something equally stupid and everything will go to hell.
    • campbeln, on 08/01/2008, -6/+9Yea... it's not like the companies have any reason to lie about the termination fees... It's not like their main goal is to keep customers, nor is it like that even with a change like this everyone will be on level field and have to compete for business... No, it's better to mindlessly believe that these fees have ZERO profit built in and are 110% necessary for their going concern.

      Now, I have no idea why I'm complaining... it's mindless morons such as yourself that allow me to get better/loss-leader deals because these companies are busy ass-***** you. So, actually, THANKS!!

      Cn
      • captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -1/+6I've read your comment four times and still cannot understand your point, besides being a jerk.

        Do you agree or disagree with Shuutobi? How would company honesty/dishonesty about the termination fees matter? It won't change the fact that all they want is money, so taking money away from one area means they have to add it to another. Or is that what you were trying to say?

        Unless I'm entirely misinterpreting Shuutobi's comment. I thought he meant "Oh, you're taking away their money from these fees, and they don't want to lose money (whether still profiting or not, more money is better than less money), so they're going to take our money via phones and plans because they're greedy".

        Did you interpret it as "oh, without the fees they can't afford to sell us cheap phones/plans, because they're just trying to make enough to get by and continue providing these services."?
      • campbeln, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Sorry, to simplify my point: The way I read Shuutobi's logic, there is never a reason to fight any charge levied against you by a company because said company will simply extract said monies from you another way. Therefore, extrapolating the logic (which does not necessarily mean that it's Shuutobi's as intended, mind you) all charges are "necessary" so shut-up and just pay them.

        These charges do indeed have a profit motive, but they are not necessarily driven by the fees themselves. They are driven (in my opinion) by the "encouragement" to keep you with their service by using this "stick" if necessary. If these charges are ruled to be illegal, then the services will be forced to rely solely on the "carrot", or to put it more simply again, to keep customers the "ole fashioned" way: thru good customer service. If not, their competitors will.

        This is a positive development in the industry, not a bad one. The view of "oh, they'll lose money and will simply make it up elsewhere" is simplistic and I believe wholely incorrect.

        The Jerk part was just to have a bit of fun along the way.

        Cn
    • willynilly, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6The law should give telcos a choice:

      YES early termination fee, NO locked phone
      NO early termination fee, phone locked until contract is up, then it MUST be unlocked

      With CDMA carriers Verizon and Sprint, the phone-locking doesn't apply. But the law should be enacted to put an end to this ***** from here on out.
    • shadowman99, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4Or the rates will nosedive now that the telcos no longer have a trapped audience. If you piss off your customers, you can't say "tough *****" to them for two years. They will walk.

      A win for the little guy is actually sometimes a win for the little guy.
    • Transporter2000, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0that's exactly the first thought that popped in my head. "Great, now we're goping to have to pay full price for phones". ugh
  • gkovar, on 08/01/2008, -5/+219Breaking?
    "In a preliminary ruling Monday..."
    I don't know what day it is in CA but in these parts it is Friday...hard to call this a breaking story.
    • HarryTruman, on 08/01/2008, -5/+3The earthquake did it. Just go with it...!
    • ImOscar, on 08/01/2008, -4/+4BREAKING: I buried as innacurate, because this is old news...
      • lalindsey, on 08/01/2008, -7/+3Breaking or not the freaking article information is correct. How is that inaccurate? I'm so tired of all the bury snobs on here burying stories because of inane and ridiculous reasons. Oh it didn't load so I buried as "inaccurate". Oh, the title said "breaking" but it really happened a few days ago .... so that's a bury! Oh, Mr. XYZ submitted this story, bury as spam because I don't like him!

        What the hell happened to reading the stories and judging the content not the freaking blurbs and titles digg submitters put in?

        And not only do people like you bury a story for retarded reasons, you go on to announce it in the comments furthering the retardedness of the whole situation.
      • JaronDiggGuy, on 08/01/2008, -2/+1BREAKING: Oscar just got pwned. :)
    • Handonam, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2BREAKING: Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays
  • shockwavedave, on 08/01/2008, -14/+6I hope this is in effect in September, was going to split them early anyways for a super jesus phone.
    • ZachSka87, on 08/01/2008, -4/+1What's a super jesus phone? Sounds mexican.
      • shockwavedave, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Well the iPhone is the jesus phone, but now that it's 3g it's the super jesus phone.
  • 3fingersalute, on 08/01/2008, -5/+38Breaking news? I read this days ago......
  • darkane, on 08/01/2008, -8/+116BREAKING: Submitting a story over 37 hours -after- the original article was published automatically implies that the story is -not- breaking news anymore. Aside from that fact, adding BREAKING before a title or ellipses afterward adds absolutely nothing to the submission.
    • jemka, on 08/01/2008, -1/+5Great point. Now what?
      • darkane, on 08/01/2008, -0/+17My job is done. Now we sit back and wait for people to get smarter.
      • jemka, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Well I know; that was my point. People won't stop, no matter how many times they're told.
    • rishid, on 08/01/2008, -2/+1The whole point of news is that it is supposed to "BREAKING". It wouldn't be called news if it was old.
      • jmkiii, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1news: informal information of any kind that is not previously known to someone; "it was news to me"
  • bdsams, on 08/01/2008, -3/+7their customer service should shot.....never have I had so much frustration over paying a single bill
  • Gonthim, on 08/01/2008, -1/+26I like how the jury said the fee's were acceptable, but the judge basically said they were too stupid to understand it correctly and overruled them. Never knew a judge could do that.
  • Song0330, on 08/01/2008, -5/+61Buried for inaccurate headline of "breaking"
    • hurricanewane, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2dugg for use of the word "sprint" and "illegal" in the same sentence.
  • prleet, on 08/01/2008, -5/+21Sprint blows *****...
    • spaceshipsix, on 08/01/2008, -0/+4All telecommunications companies do.

      Text messaging still costs money on many plans. Text messaging should have naturally become free on all networks if the system was a perfect competitive market. A text message takes up essentially no bandwidth compared to a phone call.
  • ibeetle, on 08/01/2008, -1/+15What do they mean "... the decision could be appealed..."? Could be? That should read will be.
    Sorry, Sprint customers, there is no way that a multibillion dollar international company with $1,000 an hour lawyers are just going to pony up nearly 20 million dollars and start letting people out of there contract early, costing them millions more in revenues.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 08/01/2008, -1/+920 million in California. Wait until every other state piles on.
  • rrife, on 08/01/2008, -4/+12So does this mean they're going to start selling unsubsidized phones for $500+?
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 08/01/2008, -1/+6Nah, its just easier to sell the same crappy phones that die before the contract's up.
    • ccanni1028, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Yes.
    • jmkiii, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1They will probably finance them.
    • i38warhawk, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1Seeing as that's roughly the price of an unsubsidized iPhone, no.
  • jarofclay, on 08/01/2008, -6/+52I'm not a fan of early termination fees either, but this is crazy. This reminds me of the government bailing out all those homeowners who bought a home, couldn't afford it, and then let the government save them.

    If I sign up for a contract that says 2 years and there is a fee if I terminate that contract then that is the way it is. This ruling has far reaching implications for contract breaking worldwide, I don't see this making it through the appeal process.
    • kingp, on 08/01/2008, -6/+4The only folks that have been bailed out of anything are the mortgage companies.

      The mortgage companies are getting tax breaks and credits, but they still have the discretion to choose whom they will allow to refinance. So they could still get all the money (from the Gubm't) and not use a penny of it to help homeowners.

      To get back on track, ETFs are fine as long as they are PRO-RATED (and pro-rated properly based on the length of contract). There is no reason why I should have to pay a 200 dollar ETF if I end my contract on month 23 of 24.
      • Midtowner, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3But that's not what you contracted for. I haven't read the actual holding, but I would be very interested to see what sort of law this is based upon. I can think of no contractual theory which would compel a judge to hold in this manner.
      • TheMajikMan, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6I agree with you whole heartedly. All of those Apple fanboys who break contracts after 3 months because they hear they can get an iPhone elsewhere should have to pay those charges, but if I need to switch for work or to get on the same plan as my wife then I don't want to pay $200 in month 20 of 24. Contract breaking fees should be pro-rated. That just makes sense.
      • captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6Thanks for your last-paragraph. If that is, in fact, why the case was brought, I can get behind that.

        I'm all for protecting consumers and whatnot, but I had to agree with jarofclay: buying a cell phone isn't a 1 second task. You have to fill out a lot of paperwork, read a lot of crap, listen to the salesperson tell you a lot of crap. It says "You will have this for this long and pay us for this long. If you don't want to, you will pay this fee as a consequence." Alternately you could just not buy that service. There are pay-as-you-go options for cell phones which don't have lock-in contracts. So I have trouble feeling sympathy for anyone who's like "wah wah, I broke my contract and they dared to penalize me for it, my life is pain."

        But not pro-rating, then yeah, the company is being a dick and the consumers are right to be fighting it. Makes the article make more sense (I know they'd mentioned pro-rating briefly in there, but it didn't really explain that it was the basis of the problem).
      • piesforyou, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Exactly. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. If you don't like the ETF policy of the contract you are about to enter, don't enter it! It's not forced upon you! It's your CHOICE to enter that contract or not. If the other companies are offering EFTs that reduce with time, then go with them.

        If I wanted to, I could sell a phone with a contract that, after 6 months, you have to give me your house and car. Would anyone buy my phone? NO.
    • qaelith2112, on 08/01/2008, -0/+17To clarify, there will still be a fee, and no one is being let out of a contract completely. The implication is that the fee cannot be the same with 2 months to go in the contract as it was with 24 months to go. A fee pro-ration is prescribed. This makes sense. The extent of the carrier's injury lessens as the contract progresses, so there really isn't much justification for seeking a level recovery at all stages. Either the fee is about fair compensation for injury, or it is about taking punitive measures. The former only justifies a pro-rata fee, the latter justifies more. But is punishment itself a justifiable objective?
      • cnot3, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I have T-Mobile and they already pro-rate their contracts. It's just common sense, it would be extortion otherwise.
    • GinaJuice, on 08/01/2008, -6/+3California rocks. Overall I think this is a good thing:
      1- This whole service lock in is complete *****. And it is becoming more and more prevalent in many industries.
      2- There's no way a ***** RAZR costs $250 unsubsidized [Which is what many would end up paying, should they break a contract]. This applies to similar phones.
      3- This is one step closer to getting rid of ***** REBATES.
      4- If people payed up front the entire phone, they wouldn't upgrade/dispose of their phones as often, and is better environmentally.
      5- ***** all the cellphone companies.
      • ImOscar, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Dugg your comment, but there's nothing wrong with charging $250 for a RAZR. Companies can't sell things for what they cost, they can charge whatever they want to ensure they can profitably run a company. If they are charging too much, people won't buy it.
    • MicahT0078, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Buried because of your massive ignorance on the subjects at hand. Way to quote the rethug talking points verbatim. And on the phone issue, if they would just go to a pay as you go system, or at least offer it, then they would not have the problem in the first place. There is no choice because no one offers anything besides 2 year contracts. This monopolizes the consumers decision making power thereby rendering it illegal. Sure the phones may cost more, but at least we will see the true cost per minute of usage. This is called more transparency and has a handy way of exposing hidden fees and charges. Take a look at how Europe does it. You buy the phone and top it up with the company of your choice. You base the decision on coverage, price, and reputation. Simple, easy, transparent.
      • Tabris, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1T-Mo offers one-year contracts if you set it up over the phone. I've been out of contract for over a year, and to get a new phone and lock into a contract, the phone costs an extra $60 for one year contract over the two-year...great deal imho.
    • bryceman111, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Same with credit cards, for the most part. If you get one, and you ***** up by not paying, when you should have learned about all the interest rates, it is your fault.
    • addiktion, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Your wrong about the government only bailing out mortgage companies. Every time we have a bubble that pops the government comes rushing in to save companies. Save with the .com boom. The fact is people don't want to be held responsible for their failures. As a business you have choices to make and if you make yourself top heavy with to much risky debt you need to feel the consequences if things go sour.

      Like others said if the phone company says "you need a 2 year agreement" to buy this phone for a cheaper price I'm fine with that. I have the option to buy the phone without a 2 year agreement as well. If they forced 2 year agreements out then I'd be stuck with the higher paying prices for phones which I don't want.
    • tidejwe, on 08/02/2008, -0/+1The main problem I have with sprint's contracts is they pretend the contract is about subsidizing the phone, but then they renew the contract without telling you they did so every time you change the minute plan. If you sign up with 1,000 minutes and 1 yr down the road you upgrade to 2,000 minutes, Sprint renews your entire contract to start over as soon as you changed your plan. You are stuck for another 1 or two yrs since the date you changed it. If you complain enough and call several reps, some rep who agrees the policy is ridiculous will eventually let you out of the renewal contract, but it's still annoying to go through that.

      It was also mentioned that ETF's should be prorated similarly to how satellite TV companies prorate their ETFs...because the company can't justify losing an equal amount of money for a customer only 2 months in as a customer who only has 2 months left to go. It will be nice to have prorated cancellation fees come to cell phone companies too.
  • rrife, on 08/01/2008, -4/+12I just don't get it, when you signed up for service you're clearly told that if you quit the service before the contract is over you'll have to pay $$$. If you don't like those terms then don't sign up. And to top it off they give you money off on the price of the phone for agreeing to the terms.....it's not like they're lying to you to get you to sign up.
    • shauncorleone, on 08/01/2008, -1/+8I believe the ruling is stating that putting that in the contract is what is illegal, not that it's illegal to charge them ETFs without telling them.

      Nonetheless, I wonder if this is going to lead to major carriers turning focus to developing their own handsets, basically crippling innovation from third parties. I doubt it, but what long-term responses will telcos have?

      Don't want to get roped into a 2-year contract? Pay full price, up front for what is typically an expensive piece of electronic equipment. This is what I did mid-contract. This sense of entitlement has been growing for years now, and it's staggering how much people think they deserve for nothing. And the way the courts system is being misused to find ways out of legal agreements is equally disturbing.
    • stonebone4, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2There are circumstances sometimes...like with me, I renewed my Sprint contract while still living in a heavily populated area. I got a new job and moved to a much more rural area where my phone barely worked even though I live in the main part of town. It took me two months and lots of phone calls (from my new provider that actually works here) to get them to waive the $150 for early termination even though I could barely use the service at all.
    • ivantalboys, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Just because something is in a contract doesn't mean its legal. What if the ETF was loss of your left arm? Clearly that wouldn't be legal and you couldn't enforce it in a contract.

      In the UK You are only allowed to recover lost revenue/expenses if you break a contract early, any more than that and his has to go through court. It may be similar in the US but I'm not sure. When you first take out your contract and get a subsidized phone the ETF may very well be reasonable to cover the handset cost and the time/expense to set up your account. As the contract nears its end though this becomes a different matter.
    • beerncheese, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Almost all states have laws that say punitive early-termination "fees" are illegal. If a party breaches a contract, the non-breaching party is only entitled to actual damages (for example the NET profit they would have received if the contract had not been breached.)

      When Verizon does business in a state with one of these laws why don't they make the contracts conform to the law?
    • 12340987, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1not lying to you huh?
      my "unlimited" data plan is unlimited in the sense that I can only use it in ways they approve of, and if I use too much data I get charged by the kilobyte.
      my $39.99/mo voice plan works out to $45.00 after undisclosed fees.
      they are out for your money and nothing more, a few lies in the business process only helps their bottom line.

      And really, telecoms are more like oligopolies that deserve to be hacked and slashed to little bits.
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2569847575 ...
  • TheHayze, on 08/01/2008, -0/+6I look forward to the FCC forcing the issue even further, and imposing any (if any) early term fees for the telecos. We gave the telecoms their chance to play fair, and nice, and they blew it. Time for our great government regulate the fees for us!
    /sarcasm
    • captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5But if the government doesn't regulate it for us, we'll have to rely on personal responsibility and common sense!

      And THEN how will I get my brand new, top-of-the-line, $500 dollar phone/instant messenger/e-mail/MP3 player/camera/address book/video game/mirror/satellite radio/personal massager/telescope/alarm clock/calendar/GPS/portable internet/instant gratification device (now with EXTRA POPULARITY!!) only 6 months after buying the first one??

      Pay full price? Unfair! I *NEED* this thing to survive and it's not right the companies aren't just handing them out like candy at Halloween.

  • Kison, on 08/01/2008, -6/+16Buried for BREAKING header.
  • staeiou, on 08/01/2008, -1/+13Some AP writer completely blew this out of proportion. The fees weren't declared illegal - civil judges can't even do that. The judge tentatively ruled that Sprint's lawyers did not do enough "damage control" in the courtroom showing how these fees were part of their revenue stream and how much money they would lose and how bad their service would be without these fees. This line of argumentation is required because of FCC guidelines that strictly determine what providers can and cannot charge. But this isn't even permanent: the article even said that "Sabraw's ruling was tentative and that she has given Sprint Nextel's attorneys the opportunity to file a rebuttal before she considers making it permanent."
    • Midtowner, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Thanks for that.

      I disagree with you that a civil judge can't make a finding that a contract is illegal though. They could do just that, just not impose a criminal punishment for it. It's not too commonplace, but it's pretty well known that civil judges can declare contracts to be for an illegal purpose, thus void.

      I'm sure if the judge knew that the contract was evidence of a crime, they'd make a referral to the relevant prosecutorial authority.
  • Chimone, on 08/01/2008, -4/+1Score one for us finally! Now if they just implement this in AZ, I can be with Verizon by next week. Even though they suck too.
  • itsthebrod, on 08/01/2008, -4/+11A more inappropriate use of "BREAKING," I'd be hard to find. Buried with pride (perhaps the tough love will convince people to stop labeling every damn news story with "BREAKING"?).
  • rrife, on 08/01/2008, -0/+12They won $18.2M from Sprint, so after the lawyers are paid, the people who paid the $200 ETF will get a $10 check.
    • JackSchittt, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0No, they'll get 10 bucks off their next month's bill.............IF they upgrade their policy to a PREMIUM package.......
      • Bosoxmrkn, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0Are you an idiot? People who paid an ETF are no longer with the company.... so they can't possibly pay anything on their next month's bill.

        Instead, they'll probably get a $10 coupon off activation fees if they were to re-sign.
  • jayhawk, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5this likely won't even affect the state of California, let alone the rest of the nation. like staeiou noted, it's blown way out of proportion (no thanx to digg).
  • A2007HokieAlumn, on 08/01/2008, -4/+3Does this mean I can cancel my plan now?
    • ccanni1028, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1No.
    • nkstn, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3why digg him down? that is a good question! but as of right now.. no. but it is one step closer.
  • opethlike, on 08/01/2008, -2/+9Somebody needs to "BREAK" your fingers.
  • lotusflwr, on 08/01/2008, -6/+0Hope this gets applied to my state. Had a huge scrap with ETF's myself with an AT&T subsidiary here (SunCom). About 5 years ago, I had a plan for 2.5 years, because my call quality and signal had crapped out dramatically, and my phone was old, cheap and cheesy (I had gotten it for maybe $30 when I signed up originally). I came to find out later that it was an analog phone and they were phasing out analog and switching to digital (never notified, never called offering to upgrade me if I extended a contract, NOTHING), meaning my calling area was shrinking day by day. So I ported my number to T-mobile (that was new then) and figured I was good to go since I'd been with SunCom well over a year, never changed my plan or gotten a new phone from them, so no ETF, right?

    WRONG. I could hear the snotty "customer service" rep's *****-eating grin as she condescendingly yelled at me as to why I'd have to pay them $250 when I'd kept my contract for well over a year, more than paid off any subsidizing of my ***** worthless analog phone. Thanks to their "evergreen" contracts, meaning they automatically renew unless you tell them otherwise, I had to pay the ETF. Nice. You can tell the rep's were coached how to piss leaving customers off because all of the ones I talked to were belligerent from the get-go about not waiving it and blaming me for not reading the contract. Funniest part is, I kept everything they set me and had it all laid out in front of me while on the phone with them. Not a word about when my contract renewal date was, no evergreen clause, not even a god damn contract! ***** biggest rip off of my life, and I'll never give another dime to AT&T or any other company that passes their bucks up to them. So sorry iPhone, mama will wait for you on the outside.

    I'll gladly pay a higher price for a phone up front to avoid getting screwed on my way out the door when they no longer give two ***** about me as a customer because I'm leaving anyway. You wouldn't tolerate a waitress demanding to be tipped as though you had bought dinner & dessert if you decided to leave a restaurant after having just drinks and an appetizer. Especially if the waitress is rude and incompetent. Penalizing customers prohibitively so they cannot leave a service provider who is no longer fulfilling their side of the contract is illegal and I'm glad some court SOMEWHERE is realizing this. There are so many better options than blanket EFT's like prorating or, I don't know, ACTUALLY CHARGING FOR THE PRODUCTS & SERVICES YOU PROVIDE WHEN YOU PROVIDE THEM??! Perish the ***** thought.
  • AboveandBeyond, on 08/01/2008, -1/+40BREAKING: I just posted this comment...More soon.
    • Schreck1, on 08/01/2008, -1/+11dugg for "more soon"
    • hhmmmm, on 08/01/2008, -1/+11buried for broken promises
      • mhuggins, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5Patience! It's not a broken promise. If 4 days is considered "breaking", then "soon" could be 2 years from now.
  • Residents, on 08/01/2008, -4/+1This is great! I currently have an early termination fee on my account. I live in PA though, however, they did just call me and leave a message that they need me to call and discuss my bill but it sounded non-threatening (Since I'm not late on anything) maybe I'm getting a break? Please god. lol.
  • ZombieSociety, on 08/01/2008, -5/+1I knew about this months ago when I read about it and actually put it to use.

    Hint: Simply mentioning the fact that ETFs are basically being outlawed to your phone company and they'll waive it immediately. At least, T-Mobile will, but I also accused them of racketeering.
  • CielChocobo, on 08/01/2008, -1/+5I didn't know California was a country
    • captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1First *IN* the country, not the first country.

      I misread it at first, too.
    • knowitman, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1It would be nice if we made them their own country.
      • shindrak, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0speaking as a Californian, I completely agree.
  • jeremyduffy, on 08/01/2008, -5/+2Damned straight. Contracts are one of the sneaky ways that these companies hide the actual costs of their plans. It's like when Best Buy offers 3 years no interest financing, but if you accidentally make one late payment ever, you get smacked with 24% interest on the FULL balance no matter how much you actually paid. Even when people read it, they still don't understand the implications.
    • TheMajikMan, on 08/01/2008, -2/+1Buried for failing to read things, and falling for marketing gimmicks. Read and understand everything you sign, or don't complain about it later.
      • jeremyduffy, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Right... because companies don't mislead or hide things behind legalese...
    • johnholling, on 08/01/2008, -1/+0I see... so it's the companies being "sneaky" and not your signing something without understanding what it means. Boo frickin' hoo.
      • doyoumrjones, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2i understand your point, but they definitely do take advantage of people.
      • jeremyduffy, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Right... Because I could only have meant that ALL companies are scum and villains instead of just some of them.
  • gtrunner, on 08/01/2008, -3/+7This makes sense. Even though the person signed a contract doesn't make the contract itself legal, much less legally binding.

    Sprint, and other carriers, are through a contract charging punitive damages against the party who breaks the contract. And in most legal decisions, the level of punitive damages that would be awarded do not rise to the level that a wireless carrier charges.

    Point in case.

    You have a 2 year contract on a subsidized phone. You cancel your contract after 23 months. You have, in fact, paid 23/24ths of the $200 early termination fee (ETF). But the carrier retroactively charges you for all 24 months of the subsidy.

    Most any judge in the country would not award the plaintiff that level of judgment after the person already clearly paid 23/24ths of the contract penalty. Sprint could make a case that you caused them loss revenue of 1/24th of the ETF, but clearly not all 24ths of the ETF.

    Remember, you can't contract/sell yourself into slavery. Even if you sign a contract with whomever buys you as a slave, the contract itself is unlawful. Just like in the case of Sprint.
    • drjimm, on 09/12/2008, -0/+0This is exactly what happened to me I transfered my # with 36 days left. I thought I would pay my normal fee for the last month. But know I got charged $200 by Sprint. I have had sprint for 8yrs and only got one phone during that time the rest I bought. My wife still has sprint but I will strongly urge her to switch. I will never go back. Does this make business sense to alienate your customers? Prorating ET would save a lot of anxieties.
  • ethanpeirce, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1 I had Sprint service years ago and they tried to charge me an early termination fee, which was unethical because my contract was up. After months of them harassing me with bill collectors and such, I filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau and they cleared my account, apologized, forgot about the fee and never contacted me again. If you have any issues with Sprint, contact the Better Business Bureau. Sprint with buckle!!!!!
  • minorthreat, on 08/01/2008, -6/+1digging me down is defending corporations. Do you know what a corporations one and only goal is? To provide maximum amount possible of income to it's shareholders.. If you feel it's worth $100 for a cell phone with a data plan then you should pay that much. I feel like a fair deal would be $30. $30 is more than enough to maintain maintenance, CS and provide shareholders and CEO's with a modest income. But people will pay 3x that much just filling up shareholders pockets with 3x times as much money. It's a scam for the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer... Now do you see what side of the game you should be on?
    • Midtowner, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1The "poor" can afford a cell phone with a data plan??

      I'm sure a "poor" person in Zimbabwe would find your comment to be utterly hilarious.
    • captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I do, thank you.

      Where do I submit my resume to become a telecom CEO?
    • johnholling, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0Right... "The rich are bad. Let's all hate the rich." If you want a society that's not based on free enterprise and capitalism, go somewhere else. Who do you think supports all the charities you love? Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Target Corp. and countless other corporations... Any idea how many billions of dollars they contribute to help the "poor" every year? Why don't you BECOME a shareholder and then see if you're on the same "side."
  • LiveWire530, on 08/01/2008, -0/+34I cancelled Sprint almost a year and a half ago, they still send me a bill every month for $0.00

    Idiots
    • removesstains, on 08/01/2008, -0/+8Thats awesome.
    • captainanndor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+8Out of all the comments on this article, yours is my favorite.
    • kingp, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Best comment right there.
    • ccanni1028, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2I opened an account with T-Mobile but changed to Sprint within the first month. They refunded me the charges from the "Trial Period" but told me I would likely be getting bills for $0.00 every month until my (no longer existing) contract expired in 24 months.

      I ended up getting those blank bills for the first 6 months (Jan-June 2007) and also one in February 2008 with an account upgrade option.
  • LZeppelinJ0, on 08/01/2008, -5/+8Buried for BREAKING.
  • arizonagroove, on 08/01/2008, -4/+7BREAKING: What people think about doing to your fingers when you use 'BREAKING' in a story title.
  • thedogfatherx, on 08/01/2008, -6/+9***** you and your "BREAKING" title.
    • jreinstedler, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1buried and reported. have a nice day.
      • robbh66, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Oops, meant to say that you're the douche bag, not thedogfatherx.

        So ***** you, douche bag. Have a nice day.
      • thedogfatherx, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1That's fine but don't take it to seriously. It's FRIDAY!
      • jreinstedler, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1aww true... why dont people tell me these things earlier... :P
    • robbh66, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2God you're a douche bag.
  • nuentendu, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2Down with corrupt corporation.
  • sandiegodude, on 08/01/2008, -1/+4Hmmm, makes me wonder if Sprint will have to rework their ETF system now, since apparently this judge just invalidated all the contractual ETF's currently in affect for California.... Not that I mind, I have no qualms with my Sprint service, haven't for the 3+ years I've had cellular service through them. As tasty as the IPhone looks, I just can't bring myself to go with AT&T, who ***** me over more than 15 years ago over a single long distance charge I didn't make and refused to pay for.
  • Calibas, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2I'm sure the telecommunications companies are already in Washington trying to get a federal law passed that will overrule this. Of course, the Constitution clearly states things like this are supposed to be left for the individual states to decide, but as many of you have noticed, the government stopped following the Constitution some years ago.
    • psdabfm, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1I hope this gets overturned, it's an outrage to anyone who values private agreements.
  • MrFurious2k, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1If contracts start becoming unenforceable, then you can expect your "providers" to increase the fees they levy on you monthly. They're certainly not going to reduce the cost of hardware for you and they're not going to eat it if you decide they suck.
  • joecool88, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Hey I know Judge Bonnie. Way to go Judge Bonnie! Can't wait until I get to watch her on daytime TV.
  • stevegasm, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Will the same go for Helio? (They use Sprint's network) I really need to switch this crap. Buddy Beacon is useless when there's only one other person in town with Helio, and it was the waitress at Chili's.
  • medieval, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2I hope you Californians are okay with unsubsidized cellphones. Without an ETF and carrier subsidy the Jesus-phone would cost like $600.
    • gemmakicn, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2I have to point this out, the first iPhone was sold without subsidy for $400 (it was worked out that it was a $200 profit for apple for each one sold), phone manufacturers have been massively inflating the price for years...
      • RadioVibes, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1Truth Hit! When a cell phone costs as much as a laptop, it's pretty obvious the prices are way inflated. But people continue to be stupid sheep.
    • BrandonAbell, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1You guys aren't thinking very clearly about this. . . They've just structured their contracts in a way that incorrectly assesses liquidated damages (and that's the actual legal term you need to look up, "liquidated damages"). They can offer an interest free loan or take a deposit on the subsidized portion of the phone, and offer a rebate on that portion after 2 years. That way the phone remains subsidized, but they aren't in violation of long-standing contract law.
    • drjimm, on 09/12/2008, -0/+0Funny you think your not paying for the phone. They are not giving you anything for free. I would rather pay up front
  • Jsnllnd, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1Cheers for the judge and Sprint getting slapped in the face for sucking at everything = gg.
  • Br3ach, on 08/01/2008, -2/+3A good thing no doubt, but ***** off with that BREAKING bs.
  • britblogger, on 08/01/2008, -3/+6BREAKING: Another yawnworthy digg article using the word BREAKING to give it some oomph.
    • RSterkenburg, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1It's been said. A billion ***** times. Hours before you posted your comment.
  • utexas112, on 08/01/2008, -2/+1These fees are liquidated damage agreements, which are just a predetermined amount of damages one party will pay in the event of a contractual breach (e.g., not finishing out your cell phone contract). I've always thought they were illegal. To be enforceable, the amount of actual damages must be difficult to calculate and the chosen liquidated amount must be a reasonable approximation of damages. They cannot be used as a penalty.
  • duceolsen, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1Mmmm... makes me wounder if this "California" is the one in Russia

    ... probably get better reception there
  • springboks, on 08/01/2008, -5/+5half the people who have posted "What Breaking, this is old" didn't even know about this story. You're just picking on the use of the word Breaking. Yes it is breaking for the public:

    Monday (7-28): Court Makes decision
    Wed (7-30): When this article was written by mercury news
    Fri (8-1): so the article got popular today and was more prominent on Digg

    Getting back on subject, this is great news. Sprint has screwed me and many friends.
  • kenedamick, on 08/01/2008, -3/+10Stop saying ***** "BREAKING"
    • RSterkenburg, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1Yes, I'm sure if he reads the comments he'll know. We get it. Breaking is bad.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.