|
|
CONSUMER NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
|
|
![]() |
Supreme Court Asked to Rule on One-Sided Cell Phone Contracts |
|||||
|
March 14, 2006
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 ActThe 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:
Report Your Experience
|
|||||
Back to the top | |
||||||
Advertisement
|
|
||||
|
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 Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOMEOWNERS & RENTERS 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
Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|