Sprint Class Action Challenges ‘Cut Your Bill In Half’ Promotion

A class action lawsuit filed on Feb. 13 against Sprint Communications Inc. alleges that the wireless phone company misleads consumers with its “cut your bill in half” promotional advertising.

According to the complaint, Sprint promised that if customers of competing telecommunications companies would switch to Sprint, then it “would pay for the consumer’s termination bill, have their current cellular telephone bill cut in half, and get prepaid visa cards.”

However, Sprint “falsely advertis[ed] its services in order to falsely induce consumers to switch to [Sprint’s] telephone service,” the class action asserts.

Plaintiff Sylvia Nixon of Los Angeles says she purchased a cell phone plan from Sprint in November of 2014. Nixon claims that a Sprint sales representative told her that if she switched to Sprint: 1) “she would pay half of what she was currently paying for the same telephone services;” 2) Sprint would pay for Nixon’s early termination fee with her current company; and 3) she “would get three $350 prepaid visa cards.”

Nixon asserts that Sprint did not fulfill any of these three promises. According to the complaint, Nixon was billed by Sprint far more than half of her previous phone charges. In addition, she received only two of the visa gift cards, and was charged by Sprint for them.

Nixon also contends that she had to pay roughly $1,500 in fees to her previous telephone provider, which Sprint never paid or reimbursed Nixon for. Finally, Nixon claims that Sprint “unilaterally cancelled” her telephone services around May of 2016.

The Sprint class action alleges that Nixon’s experiences “were part of a common scheme to mislead consumers and incentivize them to purchase telephone services in spite of the inhibition brought about by the difficulty of installing them.”

Nixon states that she relied on Sprint’s representations, and that she would not have signed up for Sprint telephone service had she known the truth. The complaint argues that Nixon’s reliance on Sprint’s deceptive tactics was “reasonable due to the unequal bargaining powers of Defendant and Plaintiff.”

Based on these misrepresentations, the class action asserts that Sprint committed multiple violations of the California False Advertising Act and the Unfair Business Practices Act.

The false advertising lawsuit requests certification of a Class of “[a]ll California Citizens who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, purchased one or more Class Services in the State of California, and whose telephone service was advertised such that (a) Defendant would pay for the termination fees, (b) provide telephone services for half the price, or (c) provide prepaid visa cards.”

The class action seeks full restitution, including statutory and punitive damages. In addition, the lawsuit wants Sprint to “engage in corrective advertising” and notify all consumers of its deceptive conduct.

Nixon is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC.

The Sprint Misleading “Half Price” Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Sylvia Nixon v. Sprint Communications Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01149, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.