Learn what Sprint lawsuits are out there, and how to take action…
If you’re experiencing issues with Sprint, you’re may be able to receive compensation.
There are several current lawsuits and claims filed against Sprint. Most of these lawsuits are class actions. Take a look at this list of lawsuits against Sprint to see if you might be affected, and to learn about bringing your own claim.
There are multiple options when bringing a claim against a big company like Sprint. Watch our video on how to file an official claim against Sprint:
I was also told our bill would be about $190 per month plus taxes. Our September bill rolls around and the bill is approximately $240 because they did not apply the discount we were promised via writing to the two new phones.
According to Top Class Actions, a class action lawsuit was recently filed against Sprint alleging that Sprint charged customers without their authorization:
A recent class action claims that Sprint debits consumer bank accounts regularly without written authorization or other authentication.
Plaintiff Catherine Hosino allegedly experienced this issue in June 2018 when Sprint debited her account for an automated recurring withdrawal of $1,3989.94. Hosino says she had insufficient funds for this massive charge.
Hosino claims that she was not a Sprint customer when the company debited her account and she had no reason to believe she owed any sort of outstanding balance on her Sprint account that was closed in November 2017.
According to ARS Technica, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint have faced lawsuits in federal court for allegedly selling customers’ location data to third parties in violation of federal law:
The proposed classes would include all of the four carriers’ customers in the US between 2015 and 2019. In all, that would be 300 million or more customers, as the lawsuits say the proposed classes consist of at least 100 million customers each for AT&T and Verizon and at least 50 million each for Sprint and T-Mobile. Each lawsuit seeks damages for consumers “in an amount to be proven at trial.”
In June 2018, all four major carriers promised to stop selling their mobile customers’ location information to third-party data brokers after a security problem leaked the real-time location of US cell phone users. The promises came after revelations that prison phone company Securus offered a service enabling law enforcement officers to locate most American cell phones within seconds. Securus’ service relied on data from LocationSmart, a data aggregator that received location information from the carriers.
In a lengthy court and arbitration battle against Sprint for allegedly passing state excise taxes onto its customers, the case has finally been settled. The court battle began after an arbitrator ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the case. Prior to settling the case, a federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff denying Sprint’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. See excerpts from the judge’s ruling in 2016 below:
Emilio is a resident of New York and a customer of Sprint wireless telephone service. His customer agreement with Sprint contains an arbitration agreement. In January 2005, Emilio filed a demand for class arbitration, asserting that Sprint was unlawfully charging customers a monthly fee to satisfy its obligations to pay “New York State Excise Tax.” In December 2010, the arbitrator concluded that, while Sprint could not be compelled to proceed with class-wide arbitration, Emilio could not be compelled to proceed with bilateral arbitration and had to be “given an opportunity to proceed with his class claims in a court action.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 49.)
As this complex and lengthy procedural history demonstrates, Sprint has repeatedly sought to prevent Emilio from litigating his claims in this forum, and Emilio has diligently prosecuted those claims. Moreover, Emilio proceeds in this Court after initiating arbitration under a provision that was not only mandatory, but also penalized him if he filed in federal court solely to seek a stay—precisely the procedure that Sprint now asserts Emilio should have followed. Given the unusual circumstances of this case, Emilio’s diligence in pursuing his claims, and the fact that Sprint has been aware of Emilio’s allegations since 2005, the Court concludes that equitable tolling is warranted “as a matter of fairness.”
As reported by JDSUPRA, a recent class action lawsuit against Sprint for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act was recently sent to arbitration by a federal circuit court judge:
Ronald and Anna Andermann filed suit against Sprint Spectrum L.P., alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”), arising out of several service phone calls they received from Sprint regarding the termination of their cellular service. The Andermanns sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals.
Sprint moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the customer service agreement. The Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s denial of the motion, held that arbitration was compelled under the terms of the agreement. Andermann, et al. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., No. 143478 (7th Cir. May 11, 2015). Specifically, the Court held that although the original arbitration provision was between the plaintiffs and U.S. Cellular, Sprint had “stepped into U.S. Cellular’s shoes” when it acquired the contract. The plaintiffs argued that the actual assignee of the contract was Sprint Solutions, Inc., rather than the named defendant, Sprint Spectrum L.P. The Seventh Circuit likewise rejected this argument, noting that Sprint Spectrum was designated to be Sprint Solutions’s agent to hold the contracts assigned by U.S. Cellular.
Even if you aren’t able to cash in on these listed lawsuits, your complaint might qualify for arbitration with Sprint. We can help you file a claim and get you compensated–learn more here.