Unlimited 4G/LTE Class Action Filed Against Cricket, AT&T

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.

On June 3, 2015, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court against Cricket Wireless LLC and its parent company AT&T Inc. with claims that the companies falsely advertised that they could provide unlimited 4G/LTE services to customers, when actual coverage was rare.

Lead plaintiff Flor Barraza hopes to represent unlimited 4G/LTE Class Members who, like her, relied on Cricket and AT&T to accurately represent their product and services but allege they were intentionally deceived.

The Cricket class action lawsuit claims that since 2012 the wireless cell phone company offered a 4G/LTE plan for a higher rate than their basic plan. However in order to use the 4G service, customers had to purchase a 4G/LTE capable phone which ranged in price from $399-$599. Barraza claims that despite Cricket advertisements throughout the state of California that they provided unlimited 4G/LTE coverage, actual coverage was limited to certain regions and nonexistent in some cities.

4G/LTE services are desirable for many customers as it gives the ability to download music, videos, media content with great speed. 4G/LTE plans also have practical functions like map features and GPS directions. These are just some of the services Barraza thought she was purchasing but claims that neither she or the proposed Class Members could have known that Cricket’s advertisement of unlimited 4G/LTE coverage was false.

The unlimited 4G/LTE class action lawsuit alleges that had Barraza been informed of the actual coverage Cricket provided she wouldn’t have paid for the higher costing 4G plan or purchased the 4G/LTE capable phone from the wireless phone company.

The Cricket class action was filed in a state court in San Francisco on April 27 but moved to a federal court this week. If approved, the unlimited 4G/LTE class action lawsuit would be open to Class Members in California who purchased a 4G/LTE capable phone or 4G/LTE service coverage from Cricket any time between May 1, 2012 to the present.

Barraza is seeking other potential unlimited 4G/LTE Class Members who were unaware that Cricket did not have the capability of providing any 4G/LTE services yet sold plans and phones to customers regardless. At least 1,000 Class Members are expected to be eligible to join the Cricket Wireless class action lawsuit.

The unlimited 4G/LTE class action lawsuit asks Cricket to cease its false advertising practices. Barraza has accused the wireless phone company of violating the California Legal Remedy Act, negligent misrepresentation and unconscionable conduct.

Barraza is represented by Keith Allyn Robinson, A. Scott Waddell of Waddell Law Firm LLC, Rex Sharp of Gunderson Sharp LLP, Scott Shachtman of The Shachtman Law Firm LLC, and Bryce B. Bell of Bell Law LLC.

The Cricket Unlimited 4G/LTE Class Action Lawsuit is Barraza v. Cricket Wireless LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02471, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.