NEWS    RECALLS    COMPLAINT FORM    SCAM ALERTS   RESOURCES  
Small Claims Guide   Class Actions   Lemon Laws   FAQ   Newsletters  
Share


Complain about a product or service

Automotive    Education    Employment    Electronics    Family    Finance    Health    Homeowners    Insurance    Pets    Shopping    Travel     Print This     Email This    



NEWS   Latest |  Archives |  Auto |  Cells, etc. |  Computers |  Financial |  Health |  Homeowners |  Parents |  Privacy |  Scams |  Seniors |  Travel

Supreme Court Asked to Rule on One-Sided Cell Phone Contracts





March 14, 2006
Nothing irritates wireless customers more than learning after the fact that their cell phone provider has unilaterally changed the terms of their service agreement. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to rule on the issue.

Virtually every cell phone contract gives companies permission to change service agreements. Most also require consumers to agree that they will not file suit to settle disputes but will submit to binding arbitration, using arbitrators appointed by the company.

There's not much individual customers can do about this, but at least one state is trying to go to bat for the lowly consumer: In 2004, Minnesota enacted a law that requires cell phone companies to provide notice and get customer permission before changing the terms of the customer's contract.

Not surprisingly, cell phone companies were unhappy, and just two weeks before the measure was to take effect, cell phone companies filed a lawsuit in United States District Court, arguing that federal law preempted the statute.

Under federal law, states are not permitted to regulate the rates charged by cell phone companies, but may regulate other terms and conditions of cell phone contracts.

In September of 2004, U.S. District Judge John Tunheim issued a decision siding with the state, finding that the new law was an appropriate consumer protection measure regulating the terms and conditions of cell phone contracts.

The cell phone companies appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed Judge Tunheim's decision in December of 2005. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the Act regulated the rates of cell phone services and, therefore, was preempted by federal law. Under the Eighth Circuit's decision, the Act cannot be enforced.

Now, Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch has filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court requesting review of the case.

"The Eighth Circuit's decision leaves citizens at the mercy of cell phone companies, which are now allowed to change the terms of a customer's contract, including the rates they charge, without the customer's knowledge or consent," said Hatch. "By requiring notification and permission from cell phone customers, our law provides basic fairness that is currently missing in the relationship between cell phone companies and their customers."

The Supreme Court will consider the petition and decide whether to hear the case. If it decides to hear the appeal, it will likely happen during the 2006-2007 term.

The Act

The Consumer Protections for Wireless Customers Act was enacted in May of 2004 after the legislature heard from cell phone customers that companies routinely changed the terms of their contracts, including the price, without their knowledge or consent.

Customers testified that when they found out about the changes, they tried to terminate their contracts only to be hit with a termination penalty of $150 or more.

The appeal raises critical questions about the rights of all 50 states to protect their citizens from the unfair business practices of a very powerful industry, hatch said.

In 2004, almost 185 million Americans had cell phones, and at that time the Attorney General's Office received more complaints about cell phone companies than against all local telephone companies and energy utilities combined.

The Act involved in the cell phone lawsuit includes the following provisions:

• Requires cell phone companies to provide customers with a copy of their contracts.

• Requires cell phone companies to give customers advance notice of contract changes which could increase the cost or extend the length of the contract.

• Cell phone companies must get consent from their customers before increasing the cost or extending the length of contract.

• If a customer proposes a change in service, such as adding night and weekend minutes, the cell phone company is required to notify the customer if the change will increase the cost or extend the length of the contract.



Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Share

Follow us on Twitter.

FREE CONSUMER NEWSLETTERS

The Daily Consumer
Afternoons M-F

Sign up now!


Consumer News & Alerts
Every Sunday

Sign up now!





CONSUMER NEWS

SAFETY RECALLS



Back to the top |

Advertisement


Custom Search
AUTOMOTIVE
• Dealers
• Manufacturers
• Service
• Extended Warranties
• Lemon Laws
• Recalls
• Tires
• Transporters

FAMILY
• Aging
• Children, Parenting
• Recalls
• Dating
• Education
• Entertainment
• Pets
• Weddings
FINANCE
• Annuities
• Banks
• Credit Cards
• Debt Collection
• Debt Counseling
• Insurance
• Investing
• Loans
• Mortgages
• Payday Loans
• Student Loans
• Tax Prep

HEALTH
• Doctors
• Drugs, Pharmacies
• Health Clubs
• Hearing Care
• Hospitals
• Nursing Homes
• Nutrition, Diets
• Vision Care
• Weight Loss
HOUSE & HOME
• Appliances
• Cookware
• Furniture
• Home Improvements
• Lawn & Garden
• Movers
• Pools & Spas
• Realtors, Rental Agents
• Recalls
• Utilities

ELECTRONICS
• Cable TV/DBS
• Cameras
• Cell Phones
• Computers
• Home Electronics
• Internet Access
• Local Phone Service
• Long Distance
• VoIP
SHOPPING
• In-Home
• Online
• Retail Stores
• Sporting Goods
• Supermarkets
• Telemarketers

TRAVEL
• Airlines
• Bus Lines
• Car Rental
• Cruises
• Hotels
• Travel Agents
• Trains

RESOURCES
• Class Actions
• Complaint Form
• Small Claims Guide
• Lemon Laws
CONSUMER NEWS
• Latest News
• Automotive
• Telecom
• Financial
• Health
• Homeowners
• Scams
• Seniors
• Travel
• More ...

RECALLS
• Automotive
• Children's Products
• Drugs
• Food
• Household Products
• Sporting Goods

ABOUT US
• FAQ
• Privacy Policy
• Advertise With Us
• Newsroom
• Syndication
• Terms of Use

Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use

Advertisements on this site are placed and controlled by outside advertising networks. ConsumerAffairs.com does not evaluate or endorse the products and services advertised. See the FAQ for more information.

Company Response Welcome If complaints about your company appear on our site, we welcome your response. Please see the Response Form for more information.

For more information, see the FAQ and privacy policy. The information on this Web site is general in nature and is not intended as a substitute for competent legal advice.  ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein provided and assumes no liability for any damages or loss arising from the use thereof. 

Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc.  All Rights Reserved.    The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission.