Sprint Class Action: Customers Overcharged in Automatic Withdrawals

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 Tuesday, Sprint Communications Inc. was hit with a class action lawsuit accusing it of overcharging customers through automatic withdrawals in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff Nadene Moore says she was repeatedly overcharged for monthly payments for wireless service for her tablet computer, which she purchased from Sprint in 2015.

According to the Sprint class action lawsuit, Sprint agreed to withdraw $5 per month but actually withdrew $7 every month.

As a result of this alleged overcharge, Moore says she experienced an overdraft of her bank account and incurred fees. She says the unauthorized debits by Sprint from her bank account continued until at least April 2016.

Moore asserts she never provided Sprint with any authorization to withdraw the extra $2 per month from her bank account. The Sprint class action lawsuit claims that these unauthorized charges violate the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

“In multiple instances, Defendants have debited Plaintiff’s and also the putative Class members’ bank accounts on a recurring basis without providing a copy of a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated by Plaintiff or the putative Class members for preauthorized electronic fund transfers, thereby violating [the Electronic Funds Transfer Act],” the Sprint class action lawsuit alleges.

Sprint subsequently attempted to collect outstanding debt from Moore, even though she made all payments for the originally agreed-upon amount, according to the Sprint class action lawsuit. Moore claims Sprint deceptively told her that she had not paid in full and that she was behind in her payments. She asserts this conduct is a violation of the FDCPA.

According to the Sprint class action lawsuit, Sprint violated the FDCPA in several ways. Moore alleges Sprint falsely represented the character, amount or legal status of her debt and used deceptive practices in order to collect the debt. Further, she asserts Sprint violated the FDCPA by collecting on an amount that was not expressly authorized in the agreement.

Moore has filed the Sprint class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all others in the United States whose bank accounts were debited on a recurring basis by Sprint without Sprint first obtaining authorization for electronic fund transfers within the past year. She believes that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of potential Class Members.

The Sprint class action lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $1,000 per Class Member for each violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the FDCPA. She has also asked for actual damages, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. She has demanded a trial by jury.

Moore is represented by Todd M. Friedman of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman.

The Sprint Automatic Withdrawal Class Action Lawsuit is Nadene Moore v. Sprint Communications Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00188, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.