Sprint Forces Subscribers To Pay More Than Phone’s Actual Amount Via Deceptive Lease Contracts
Telco company Sprint is charged with a class action for allegedly tricking their customers into availing a phone lease agreement that leaves them endlessly trapped in the company’s contracts through their Flex Lease Agreement Program.
Sprint Sued By Dissatisfied Customers
A nationwide class action lawsuit was filed by complainants Michael Camou and Teresa Gutierrez in a federal court in California. It contended that Sprint Corporation has been defrauding their customers via their Flex Lease Agreement program.
Sprint’s Flex Lease program is the company’s offering to their customers who are looking to get a phone for lower costs. Customers are reportedly able to pay lower monthly fees and are allowed to cancel their contracts with the company after a set period of time as well.
However, customers end up being charged more than the actual value of the mobile device they have purchased with Sprint as the company reportedly continued to charge subscribers monthly fees though their contract has already ended.
There were also reported instances of cases wherein Sprint subscribers have been coerced into paying more at the end of their initial lease term before they are given ownership of the device.
Some could not terminate the contract altogether even though their lease period ended long ago.
Because of this, the class action argued that consumers have no choice but to make the additional payments in order to be given official ownership of their mobile devices.
Allegedly Deceptive Lease Program
The plaintiffs to the case are no stranger to the allegedly deceptive terms set forth by Sprint to their Flex Lease Agreement holders.
Camou and Gutierrez both availed their mobile phones of choice through the aforementioned monthly program. The two shared that they were not provided device ownership though they have already finished their initial lease period contracts.
Furthermore, Sprint reportedly asked them to make more additional payments in the succeeding months before being allowed to own their phones. This led the two to allegedly pay more than the phone cost promised by the agreement set forth by Sprint.
The class action lawsuit contended that customers like Camou and Gutierrez were only informed of the additional payments when their contracts are about to expire. This supposedly forced them to make additional payments in the succeeding months in order to own their phones.
It is also said that customers who attempted to end their contracts had a hard time reaching the company’s official customer support line and other services.
Meanwhile, others were not allowed to return their devices, and some were not given a chance to avail the company’s device buyout option.
The Sprint Flex Lease Class Action is seeking to create and represent to court a nationwide class consisting of members who have leased or bought a phone under Sprint’s Flex Lease Program.
Plus, a California subclass is being proposed. The lawsuit is arguing the Sprint has committed different counts of conversion, unjust enrichment, and common law fraud affecting their customer base.
The plaintiffs are also seeking to prove to the court that the telco company has violated different laws such as the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the like.
Editor’s Note on Sprint Flex Lease Class Action Lawsuit:
This feature aims to give you the latest news on the class action lawsuit plaguing Sprint regarding their allegedly deceptive Flex Lease Program.
Case Name(s) & No.(s): Teresa Gutierrez and Michael Camou, et al., v. Sprint Corporation ; Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
Jurisdiction: United States District Court Central District of California
Products/Services Involved: Sprint’s Flex Release Program
Allegation(s): Sprint subscribers end up paying more than their phone’s value after the company forces them additional monthly fees long after leases are up.
What are your thoughts on this piece? Please send us a message by clicking the ‘Contact Us’ button below! We’d love to hear back from you.
Suggested Article: Tesla Solar Roof Price Increase Lawsuit.