Judge dismisses RICO class action alleging Cricket Wireless lied about 4G coverage

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Update:

• A California federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against Cricket Wireless over an alleged conspiracy that the company sold 4G phones to consumers who live in 3G zones.
• On May 4, U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled the plaintiffs wrongly relied on flawed expert reports for their case and granted summary judgment to Cricket.
• Judge Alsup’s order excluded opinions and reports of the plaintiff’s two expert witnesses in what he described as a case with a “tortured history.”
• In previous rulings Judge Alsup gave Cricket a series of wins decertifying a class of plaintiffs last July because their damages model evidence was flawed.

Cricket Wireless class action overview:

• Who: A consumer filed a class action lawsuit against discount cellular company Cricket Wireless.
• Why: The consumer alleges consumers were charged for Cricket Wireless plans with 4G even if 4G coverage was not available in their area in a scheme known as “4G-in-non-4G markets.”
• Where: The lawsuit is being heard in federal court in Northern California.

(Aug. 06, 2021)

A class action lawsuit alleging Cricket Wireless lied to consumers saying it could provide unlimited 4G coverage in areas where 4G did not exist and violated racketeering laws has been certified by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup certified the class action lawsuit in California federal court, rejecting Cricket Wireless’ argument that the class members did not share a uniform experience with the company’s wireless service, Law360 reports.

“In this case it would be acceptable for plaintiffs to try to prove that while not everyone relied on Cricket’s representations, on their fraudulent scheme theory, a critical mass of consumers relied on Cricket’s representations about 4G so as to artificially support a higher price for both phones and plans,” the Alsup wrote.

“Therefore, all customers paid more than they should have because they purchased 4G phones and plans supposedly worth more than they actually were.”

According to the class action lawsuit, consumers were overcharged on Cricket Wireless plans for 4G-enabled phones and wireless plans in geographic areas that did not have 4G coverage. The scheme is allegedly known internally at Cricket Wireless as “4G in non-4G markets” — and costs hundreds of thousands of consumers many millions of dollars, Law360 reports.

In June, Alsup dismissed the claims brought by the consumers under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, but allowed the consumers’ Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims to stay. In his latest ruling, consumers bound to arbitration agreements were cut from the class action lawsuit.

This isn’t the first time Cricket Wireless has faced legal action. The company, which was acquired by AT&T in 2014, faced legal action and settled claims over 4G false advertising in 2015.

And in July, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office ordered AT&T and Cricket Wireless to pay $3.25 million to customers in the state who purchased prepaid phones that the companies allegedly knew would stop working after they merged.

Have you bought a phone that offers 4G only to find you live in an area where 4G has not been established? Let us know your experience in the comments section!

The consumers are represented by Jonathan Taylor of Gupta Wessler PLLC and Tyler W. Hudson of Wagstaff & Cartmell.

Cricket Wireless is represented by Matthew D. Ingber of Mayer Brown LLP.

The Cricket racketeering class action lawsuit is Thomas, et al. v. Cricket Wireless LLC, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07270, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Do You Qualify: Florida Clothing and Retailers Coupon Text Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
• BREAKING: AT&T Sent Nearly Expired Reward Cards to New Customers, Alleges Class Action
• Grammy Winning Musician’s YouTube Copyright Fight for ‘Ordinary Creators’ Intensifies
• Video Gamers Waived Rights to Trial, Claims Valve in Plea to Move Steam Antitrust Class Action to Arbitration