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.
Sprint is tricking customers into phone lease agreements that see them trapped into paying much more than their devices are worth, a new nationwide class action lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiffs Teresa Gutierrez and Michael Camou filed the complaint against Sprint Corporation in a California federal court Thursday, alleging the telco company has committed fraud and violated state consumer protection laws with its Flex Lease Agreement program.
The program claims it offers customers options to get phones at a supposedly low monthly cost, the class action alleges, through monthly payments and the ability to cancel the contracts after a set time period.
In reality, consumers end up paying significantly more than the value of the device due to Sprint’s ongoing monthly charges after the lease terms end, the claim contends.
In some cases, consumers have been forced to make additional payments at the end of the initial lease term in order to own their devices, or are even unable to cancel the program after the termination of the lease period despite trying to do so.
“Without a realistically available option to own their Devices or cancel their leases, customers are left paying to lease their Devices indefinitely,” the class action states.
Gutierrez said she leased two 64GB iPhone 8s through Sprint’s Flex Lease program in 2017.
For 18 months, she paid $36.76 per month for each device for a total payment of $661.68 for each phone. The class action says she understood that after she made 18 monthly payments, the payments would represent the value of the iPhones, and that she would own both of them outright.
However, when she contacted Sprint, it told her she had to pay an extra lump sum of $199.87, or six monthly payments of $33.31 per month on top of the lease amount. Not wanting to pay more than the value of the phone, she continued making just the monthly lease payments.
“As a result of Sprint’s unconscionable Flex Lease program, Plaintiff Gutierrez has been harmed and suffered damages, including, but not limited to overpayments for Device leases, excessive purchase prices for Devices, termination fees, and inconvenience,” the class action states.
Camou had a similar experience, leasing a Samsung Galaxy S10E through Sprint’s Flex Lease program in 2019. Over 18 months, he paid $33.52 monthly for a total payment of $603.36 for the phone. However, when he finished paying the installments, Sprint allegedly said he couldn’t own the phone until he completed an additional nine monthly payments of $20.84, or $187.56 total.
The class action also alleges customers were not told when they were nearing the ends of their plans, leaving them to continue making monthly payments indefinitely. It says customers who tried to cancel their contracts by returning their phones found their efforts intentionally frustrated by confusing website links, odd emails, promised call backs that never came, and long wait times on chats.
Some people also allegedly had their devices refused for return, even if they had minimal wear, or were told that they were ineligible for the buyout option.
The consumers are looking to represent anyone who purchased or leased one or more devices under the Sprint Flex Lease Program, plus a California subclass. The class action is suing under California’s Unfair Competition Law California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and is seeking recovery for common law fraud, conversion and unjust enrichment.
Gutierrez and Samou are seeking certification of the Class, damages, interest, fees, an injunction and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, a $7.6 million settlement agreement has been proposed to resolve a case filed by several retail workers against Sprint, alleging it may have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act in addition to other worker protection laws.
What do you think of Sprint’s phone lease contracts? Let us know in the comments!
The plaintiffs are represented by Alison M. Bernal of Nye, Stirling, Hale & Miller, LLP and Joseph G. Sauder, Lori G. Kier and Davina C. Okonkwo of Sauder Schelkopf LLC.
The Sprint Phone Lease Class Action Lawsuit is Teresa Gutierrez and Michael Camou, et al., v. Sprint Corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-03865, in the U.S. District Court Central District of California.
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
1,267 thoughts onSprint Phone Lease Plans Trap Customers in Endless Contracts, Class Action Alleges
Add me please. I figured that out years ago but was not sure
Yes, this is me…Add me.
ADD ME, I JUST WENT THROUGH THIS
Add me
Add me
Add me
Add me
Sprint was a vicious circle of payments changing, terms changing, cancel fees even though I was way beyond the contract date. THEN THEY reported me to credit bureau which was difficult to get off…not only that they reopened my acct after 10 years to collect again. And sent my info to credit bureau. Call after call i tried to contest this. They charged me over 250.00 for early cancellation fees.
Add me
This is the same situation I am in. I have one payment left for the lease and I have to pay $84.06 to get out of this program.