Sprint is accused of forcing customers into contracts that can last up to two years, and then charging them for early termination fees.
The sprint 18 month lease vs 24 installments is a legal issue that has been going on for a while. Sprint has been accused of trapping customers in endless contracts, and the company denies the claim.
(Photo credit: DepositPhotos.com/wolterke)
According to a new national class action complaint, Sprint is deceiving consumers into signing phone leasing agreements that bind them to paying much more than their handsets are worth.
Plaintiffs Teresa Gutierrez and Michael Camou filed the lawsuit against Sprint Corporation in federal court in California on Thursday, claiming that the telecom company’s Flex Lease Agreement scheme is fraudulent and violates state consumer protection laws.
Customers may obtain phones for a purportedly cheap monthly cost via monthly payments and the opportunity to terminate contracts after a certain amount of time, according to the class action.
Due to Sprint’s continuing monthly costs after the lease periods expire, customers wind up paying considerably more than the device’s worth, according to the lawsuit.
Consumers have been compelled to make extra payments at the conclusion of the original lease term in order to own their gadgets in certain instances, or they have been unable to terminate the program after the leasing time has ended despite their best efforts.
Customers are stuck paying to lease their Devices forever without a genuinely accessible alternative to purchase their Devices or terminate their leases, according to the class action.
Gutierrez claimed she used Sprint’s Flex Lease program to lease two 64GB iPhone 8s in 2017.
She paid $36.76 each month for each gadget for 18 months, totaling $661.68 for each phone. She knew, according to the class action, that after making 18 monthly payments, the payments would equal the worth of the iPhones, and she would own both of them entirely.
When she contacted Sprint, however, she was informed she would have to pay an additional $199.87 in a single sum or six monthly installments of $33.31 on top of the leasing cost. She continued to pay just the monthly lease payments since she didn’t want to spend more than the phone was worth.
Plaintiff Gutierrez has been injured and incurred damages as a consequence of Sprint’s unreasonable Flex Lease scheme, including, but not limited to, overpayments for Device leases, exorbitant purchase prices for Devices, termination fees, and inconvenience, according to the class action.
Camou had a similar experience with Sprint’s Flex Lease program in 2019, when he leased a Samsung Galaxy S10E. He paid $33.52 each month for the phone over the course of 18 months, totaling $603.36. When he finished paying the installments, Sprint reportedly told him he couldn’t possess the phone unless he made nine more monthly payments of $20.84, for a total of $187.56.
Customers were also allegedly not informed when their plans were approaching the conclusion, allowing them to continue paying monthly payments forever, according to the class action. Customers who attempted to terminate their contracts by returning their phones were deliberately confused, according to the report, via unclear internet links, strange emails, promised callbacks that never arrived, and lengthy wait periods on chats.
Some individuals claim that their gadgets were rejected for return, even though they were hardly used, or that they were informed they were disqualified for the buyout option.
Anyone who bought or leased one or more smartphones under the Sprint Flex Lease Program, plus a California subclass, is being represented by the customers. California’s Unfair Competition Law is being used in the class action lawsuit. Recovery is sought under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act for common law fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
Gutierrez and Samou are seeking class certification, damages, interest, costs, a preliminary injunction, and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, a $7.6 million settlement deal has been suggested to resolve a lawsuit brought by numerous retail employees against Sprint, claiming that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and other labor regulations.
What are your thoughts on Sprint’s phone leasing agreements? Let us know what you think in the comments!
Alison M. Bernal of Nye, Stirling, Hale & Miller, LLP and Joseph G. Sauder, Lori G. Kier, and Davina C. Okonkwo of Sauder Schelkopf LLC are representing the plaintiffs.
Teresa Gutierrez and Michael Camou, et al., v. Sprint Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-03865, is a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
The sprint settlement checks 2021 is a lawsuit that Sprint has been accused of. Customers are trapped in endless contracts, and they have no way to get out of them.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the Sprint lease plan a ripoff?
What happens if you dont return a leased phone Sprint?
If you do not return your leased phone, Sprint will charge an early termination fee of $350.
What happens after 18-month lease with Sprint?
After 18-month lease with Sprint, you will be charged a prorated amount for the remaining months on your contract.
- sprint lawsuit flex lease
- sprint lawsuit 2020
- sprint lease termination fee
- cancel sprint lease and return phone
- sprint monthly installments vs flex lease