BabaBooey

Lawsuit: Class Action: Cell users pursue claims
By D.R. STEWART World Staff Writer
3/3/2007

View in Print (PDF) Format

Former customers of AT&T Wireless say service quality fell after the Cingular merger.

Frustrated by dropped calls and deteriorating cell phone service, former customers of AT&T Wireless in nine states have filed a class- action lawsuit against Cingular Wireless and AT&T Wireless, which merged in a $41 billion deal in October 2004.

In the lawsuit, which was filed in July in U.S. District Court in Seattle, the plaintiffs allege that after Cingular's acquisition of AT&T Wireless, Cingular schemed to dismantle the AT&T Wireless network and degrade its services.

"Cingular did so in an effort to induce AT&T Wireless customers into "transferring" from their AT&T Wireless plan to a Cingular plan," the plaintiffs allege in their complaint. "The Cingular service contracts offer less favorable terms than the customers' previous contracts with AT&T Wireless.

"Cingular also induced AT&T Wireless subscribers to purchase new Cingular handsets and caused customers to incur significant additional charges including . . . an $18 "transfer" or "upgrade" fee as well as an $18 fee for the SIM chip which enables the Cingular handset to operate."

Plaintiffs in the case are seeking repayment of the fees with interest, including
"early termination fees," upgrade or transfer fees, punitive damages, a halt to the practices, attorneys fees and "corrective advertising."

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul L. Stritmatter of Seattle.

The lead plaintiffs, who are residents of Washington state and California, allege that AT&T Wireless customers who didn't transfer service to Cingular have experienced diminished service and dropped calls, as well as poor or no reception in areas where they previously received adequate re ception.

If consumers chose to drop AT&T Wireless services, they were required to pay an early termination fee of $175 to cancel service before the expiration of the 12- or 24-month contract, the plaintiffs allege.

Cingular, which became part of the new AT&T Inc. after SBC Communications merged with BellSouth Corp. last year, has filed motions with the court to compel arbitration of the disputes and to dismiss the lawsuit.

The new AT&T issued a writ ten statement on the lawsuit earlier this week.

"This lawsuit is completely without merit," AT&T said. "Cingular, now part of the new AT&T, has invested more than $13.5 billion in integrating and enhancing its networks in the almost 2 1/2 years since the merger was completed, leading to a significantly improved customer experience and the fewest dropped calls of any national carrier."

In its motion to dismiss, AT&T/Cingular said every wireless service agreement since July 1999 included an arbitration provision among its terms and conditions. AT&T/Cingular is represented by William Cronin, a Seattle lawyer.

"Although the exact wording of these provisions has changed somewhat over time, each has required customers to pursue their disputes with Cingular or AT&T Wireless in either individual arbitration or small claims court," the defendants allege in their motion.

"Cingular's arbitration provisions do not contain a prohibitive cost structure or otherwise impose disincentives on customers' ability to pursue their claims. . . . Accordingly, this court should issue an order compelling each plaintiff to pursue his or her claims in individual arbitration or in small claims court and dismissing this lawsuit."

Harvey Rosenfield, who is co-counsel for the plaintiffs and founder of the Los Angles-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, said the wireless phone contracts are representative of a range of contracts that limit consumers' rights.

"We have received an enormous amount of complaints from members of the public," Rosenfield said in a telephone interview. "According to Cingular, the lawsuit should be thrown out be cause every AT&T customer who moved to Cingular agreed to have every dispute handled by arbitration. According to Cingular, they forfeited their right to a lawsuit."

D.R. Stewart 581-8451
don.stewart@tulsaworld.com



View in Print (PDF) Format

NotSmellyPrepaid

Once again, sneaky arbitration clauses seem to ALWAYS work in favor of the Big Corporation, not the little guy.... Best of luck to the plaintiffs, though!

cingular53dp

yeah well i have never seen anybody read that terms of service booklet that i give to all the customers. i am sure most of those people too were on the tdma network that att wireless had. the problem was Cingular really want to migrate everyone so they would send promo flyers out in the bills and then they would want the cool new phones but they had to switch plans. well they didnt have to get the phone or switch if there was nothing wrong with the old phone. but they would claim they forced me...not really. Cingular has always had an $18 upgrade charge so anyone that had att wireless that wanted to upgrade had to pay the $18 but if someone complained they waived it and they stopped charging all together in a few months after the merger or buyout...which when the people that got it waived want to upgrade their Cingular phone to a new Cingular phone are gonna be like you didnt charge me last time and throw a fit. but anyway also most companies that have you sign a two year contract and you get past the one year warranty and you choose not to have the insurance and you dunk your cell in the toilet and you goto get a new one get no contract sticker shock...but the people that had att wireless could be at any length of that contract and get a new phone at the 2 yr price so that was kinda cool but yes they did have to get a new Cingular plan but i would say most people had a lessor or equal plan. well i am done for now.....whew/

Earl Camembert

TracFone has an arbitration clause in their Terms Of Service. They just lost a class action suit; some customers will get 20 units. The lawyers got $2,000,000.00

paddyoc_aka_godofsales

Units indeed.....

paddyoc_aka_godofsales

Like all carriers, they do not guarantee service in all areas.

Earl Camembert

Oh that is why there are so many lawyers, to figure out what was/wasn't in the contract. If it can be shown that at&t acted in a manner to force people to switch there may be punitive damages.

paddyoc_aka_godofsales

That is true. They were a lot nicer to the Canadians when it came to switching customers from TDMA to GSM. It would not suprise me to see AT&T lose out on this.

Earl Camembert

I have a phone that was originaly built in 1949 and it still works. I will work with FIOS too.

Aurora

People expect to much.

NotSmellyPrepaid

Earl, do you still have a landline?