Two Sprint Corporation customers have filed a complaint against the mobile service provider in connection with the company’s Flex Lease Agreement program. The Central District of California lawsuit alleged that the Flex Lease program includes unfair, confusing, and ambiguous terms that ultimately gouge customers’ pocketbooks.
Last Friday’s filing explained that Sprint, which merged with T-Mobile US last April, offers the Flex Lease program to provide customers with a leased mobile phone device at a low monthly cost and the ability to cancel the contract after a set time period. However, consumers allegedly pay significantly more than the value of their devices due to Sprint’s ongoing monthly charges after the contract period concludes.
Specifically, when the lease ends, customers have the option to buy the phone from Sprint, though, by that time, they have reportedly already paid an amount greater than or equal to the phone’s value in lease fees. Customers’ second option is to cancel, which is an exercise in futility because when they try, they are unable to, according to the complainants. With no realistic option to own the device or cancel their lease, Sprint customers are reportedly left paying lease fees to Sprint “indefinitely.”
The putative class action complaint sought the certification of a nationwide class and a California sub-class. It asserted violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and the state’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act. In addition, the plaintiffs sought recovery for common law fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs are represented by Sauder Schelkopf LLC and Nye, Stirling, Hale & Miller LLP.
