08-22-2012 04:20 PM
47 12
tools
  1. gatorlee's Avatar
    I found this the other day, and think any without 4g service should give this attorney a call. I have heard rumors heard at xda, that service where I live in Omaha, NE won't arrive until 2014. This is unacceptable.



    Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor, Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor, is investigating claims that these charges may be improper.

    If you purchased a Sprint EVO 4G or EPIC 4G cellphone, we would like to hear from you so we can investigate whether you incurred this charge, how many customers have been affected, and whether there may be valid legal claims for a refund. Please contact us by responding to this email or by calling us directly at (646) 504-7781.

    About Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor

    Scott A. Bursor, has represented plaintiffs in class action lawsuits against Sprint and other wireless carriers since 2002. Many of these cases are discussed in detail at Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor.

    Contact:
    Scott A. Bursor
    Email: info@bursor.com
    Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor

    courtesy of PhyscoAssassinx over at ppcgeeks
    02-22-2011 09:36 PM
  2. Droid800's Avatar
    Won't have merit. The fees were charged to users as a 'smartphone tax', not for 4G.
    02-23-2011 02:50 AM
  3. DEman19901's Avatar
    Yes, the $10 charge was for unlimited data. All of these foolish class action lawsuits need to stop. The sticker on my car lists the EPA MPG @ 25 MPG and I am only getting 18 MPG. It is time for me to file a law suit. People just need to stop.
    moosc, Tarpit_Carnivore and paul-c like this.
    02-23-2011 03:23 AM
  4. ls377's Avatar
    The extra fee was obviously for 4G, but there is no legal claim to that, since Sprint never said it was.
    02-23-2011 08:23 AM
  5. Bujin#IM's Avatar
    The extra fee was obviously for 4G, but there is no legal claim to that, since Sprint never said it was.
    Actually, they specifically said it was not for 4g. People can be free to consider that to be inaccurate, but considering that they are now charging for all smartphones, and their message has been very consistent on this issue, a class action would go nowhere.

    I think someone tries to file a class action on every single phone... it's pretty silly.
    02-23-2011 09:59 AM
  6. ls377's Avatar
    Actually, they specifically said it was not for 4g. People can be free to consider that to be inaccurate, but considering that they are now charging for all smartphones, and their message has been very consistent on this issue, a class action would go nowhere.

    I think someone tries to file a class action on every single phone... it's pretty silly.
    They said it, but I don't believe it lol. Its a moot point now since they changed it for everyone, but the only two smartphones that had it were the 4G phones. Now they just need the money, so they expanded it.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk
    02-23-2011 10:04 AM
  7. DNicolasL's Avatar
    This is such a joke

    Sent from my HTC EVO with Tapatalk Pro
    02-23-2011 11:32 AM
  8. dekcufi's Avatar
    Yes, the $10 charge was for unlimited data. All of these foolish class action lawsuits need to stop. The sticker on my car lists the EPA MPG @ 25 MPG and I am only getting 18 MPG. It is time for me to file a law suit. People just need to stop.
    Some of us already had unlimited data as part of their phone package
    02-23-2011 05:20 PM
  9. gatorlee's Avatar
    Yes, the $10 charge was for unlimited data. All of these foolish class action lawsuits need to stop. The sticker on my car lists the EPA MPG @ 25 MPG and I am only getting 18 MPG. It is time for me to file a law suit. People just need to stop.
    Come on now, what is the difference, if the sticker on your car said 100 mpg and you got 1 mpg you would be pissed. My phone says evo 4g and talks how bad a$$ it is because of the 4g. If the phone is outdated before 4g is even attained in my market then the phone should not be sold and advertised in this market. Also, I had a pre previously to having an evo and was charged a "premium" fee when I got an EVO. There are clearly some ambiguity in the law here in advertising measures, and a lawsuit will clear these up. You people need to go back and do some basic legal reading to see how class actions proceed and the nature at which they are prescribed.
    02-23-2011 06:27 PM
  10. charlie hustle's Avatar
    wtf is this mess?? How bout sprint is now charging every phone the extra $10 fee. So this lawsuit is moot. So, if you get a 4g phone smartphone or just a smartphone, you will be charged for unlimited data. Still cheaper than any other carrier.
    02-23-2011 07:45 PM
  11. Jalarm's Avatar
    .. unbelievable
    02-23-2011 08:42 PM
  12. Droid800's Avatar
    Come on now, what is the difference, if the sticker on your car said 100 mpg and you got 1 mpg you would be pissed. My phone says evo 4g and talks how bad a$$ it is because of the 4g. If the phone is outdated before 4g is even attained in my market then the phone should not be sold and advertised in this market. Also, I had a pre previously to having an evo and was charged a "premium" fee when I got an EVO. There are clearly some ambiguity in the law here in advertising measures, and a lawsuit will clear these up. You people need to go back and do some basic legal reading to see how class actions proceed and the nature at which they are prescribed.
    No there isn't. This lawsuit is ridiculous.

    There is one simple question that torpedoes this suit: "If you were of the understanding that the fee was for 4G, and you knew you did not have 4G, why did you sign the contract willingly in the first place?"

    No one forced them to sign. No one forced them to choose the Evo. The consumer made the choice knowing perfectly well that they were not in a 4G area, AND with the understanding that choosing the Evo would cost them $10 more a month.

    Simple as that. And that's why this suit will get laughed out of court.
    El Jefe and NicoleW78 like this.
    02-23-2011 09:21 PM
  13. El Jefe's Avatar
    No one wins in a class action lawsuit except for the attorney anyway.

    It seems to me that the OP knew they weren't getting 4G for at least a large part of their 2year contract..maybe not the WHOLE 2year contract, but that is beside the point. Fact is that they chose the 4G phone KNOWING they didn't have 4G in that area & they won't find anything in the contract saying they were going to get it...if at all.
    02-24-2011 09:08 AM
  14. JamesKBoyd's Avatar
    Actually, they specifically said it was not for 4g. People can be free to consider that to be inaccurate, but considering that they are now charging for all smartphones, and their message has been very consistent on this issue, a class action would go nowhere.

    I think someone tries to file a class action on every single phone... it's pretty silly.
    Actually, I bought my Evo 4G about a week ago, and was specifically told that the extra $10 charge was for 4G access. Anyway, I think this class-action is stupid and won't go anywhere. If you live in an area that is not covered by Sprint's 4G service (which you can find on a map in the store) and you still choose to buy a 4g smartphone, well then that's just a dumb move.
    02-24-2011 09:14 AM
  15. El Jefe's Avatar
    Actually, I bought my Evo 4G about a week ago, and was specifically told that the extra $10 charge was for 4G access.
    What a sales rep says wouldn't hold up though. They will say & do anything to get the sale.

    If you live in an area that is not covered by Sprint's 4G service (which you can find on a map in the store) and you still choose to buy a 4g smartphone, well then that's just a dumb move.
    Bingo!
    02-24-2011 11:17 AM
  16. Analog's Avatar
    Actually, they specifically said it was not for 4g. People can be free to consider that to be inaccurate
    ...and so can a jury.
    02-25-2011 12:28 AM
  17. Bujin#IM's Avatar
    ...and so can a jury.
    I sincerely doubt any jury would ever come back and say: "Sprint specifically said it wasn't for 4g phones consistently, prior to release. In fact, they charge the $10 for phones that don't have 4g. There is no evidence that the charge was actually for 4g, except for anecdotal stories of individual sales people making this claim. However, we think that this $10 charge should guarantee 4g service against all evidence to the contrary, so we're going to find for the plaintiff".

    Class action lawsuits have to be about actual impropriety, not wish fulfillment.
    02-25-2011 10:41 AM
  18. Chris Kerrigan's Avatar
    My opinion on the matter is that this would get laughed out of the court. Why? Because people signed the contract. A contract is a legal binding document, and the only way out of it is if Sprint makes a change to your agreement, thus breaching the contract. In which case, Sprint has to give you 30 (might even be 45 now) days to cancel your contract without penalty.

    Bottom line is, people knowingly signed up for the service fully aware that they were being charged a $10 premium, regardless of whether or not they had 4G service. If that person claims that they weren't told by the rep, it's in your contract. There is no law requiring Sprint to go any further than writing in the contract your terms. Technically, that's the purpose of the contract anyway. It's not Sprint's fault if someone didn't take the proper procedures to cover all of the terms of their contract.

    With that being said, do I agree with the $10 premium? Absolutely not. I think it's a complete scam, but Sprint isn't going to be losing class action lawsuits over it.
    02-25-2011 11:03 AM
  19. TheEngineer's Avatar
    I hate these class action lawyers. They get rich off the cases. We get a coupon for something.
    02-25-2011 11:10 AM
  20. dekcufi's Avatar
    My opinion on the matter is that this would get laughed out of the court. Why? Because people signed the contract. A contract is a legal binding document, and the only way out of it is if Sprint makes a change to your agreement, thus breaching the contract. In which case, Sprint has to give you 30 (might even be 45 now) days to cancel your contract without penalty.

    Bottom line is, people knowingly signed up for the service fully aware that they were being charged a $10 premium, regardless of whether or not they had 4G service. If that person claims that they weren't told by the rep, it's in your contract. There is no law requiring Sprint to go any further than writing in the contract your terms. Technically, that's the purpose of the contract anyway. It's not Sprint's fault if someone didn't take the proper procedures to cover all of the terms of their contract.

    With that being said, do I agree with the $10 premium? Absolutely not. I think it's a complete scam, but Sprint isn't going to be losing class action lawsuits over it.
    not all of us sign a new contract, some buy our phone at full price to not be locked into a contract
    02-26-2011 08:01 PM
  21. Chris Kerrigan's Avatar
    not all of us sign a new contract, some buy our phone at full price to not be locked into a contract
    Not to sound crass...but in that case, Sprint's defense will be that you knowingly purchased a 4G phone in a non-4G market, or knowing that there is a $10 "premium". I'm not trying to sound like a smart guy, but there's no way these lawsuits are going to last. Not in my opinion.
    02-26-2011 08:24 PM
  22. dekcufi's Avatar
    Not to sound crass...but in that case, Sprint's defense will be that you knowingly purchased a 4G phone in a non-4G market, or knowing that there is a $10 "premium". I'm not trying to sound like a smart guy, but there's no way these lawsuits are going to last. Not in my opinion.
    I am not arguing here, just making a point. I have much better thing to do with my time then **** and moan over $10 a month. I have gotten mail in the past regarding class action law suites against sprint. The only class action suite I have been a part off was against a bank I got like $300 and it took a year to get it lol

    If people truly want to waste their time with this they must have no life of be bored. They are not magically going to get their hard earned $ back
    02-27-2011 01:23 PM
  23. dchawk81's Avatar
    This wouldn't fly. No one has been forced into the fee against their will or without their knowledge.
    02-28-2011 06:50 AM
  24. Chris Kerrigan's Avatar
    I am not arguing here, just making a point. I have much better thing to do with my time then **** and moan over $10 a month. I have gotten mail in the past regarding class action law suites against sprint. The only class action suite I have been a part off was against a bank I got like $300 and it took a year to get it lol

    If people truly want to waste their time with this they must have no life of be bored. They are not magically going to get their hard earned $ back
    Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to be argumentive or anything myself. I just seriously doubt this lawsuit is gonna go anywhere. Who knows, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again, but that's just my opinion on the matter.
    02-28-2011 12:09 PM
  25. dekcufi's Avatar
    Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to be argumentive or anything myself. I just seriously doubt this lawsuit is gonna go anywhere. Who knows, I could be wrong. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again, but that's just my opinion on the matter.
    No Worries man!

    constructive criticism is always welcome, well on my part anyways lol
    03-01-2011 10:22 PM
47 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD