Complain about a product or service

Michigan Challenges One-Sided Cell Phone Contracts

35 Other States Join Michigan Supreme Court Filing

May 22, 2006

• How to Avoid Early Termination Fees • Site Offers Cell Phone Contract Swapping --- News • Judge Rules Sprint Termination Fees are Illegal • Verizon Pays $21 Million to Settle Termination Fee Lawsuit • Washington Power Grab May Be Price of Lower Cell Phone Termination Fees • U.S. Cellular Settles 'Free' Phone Complaint • Cell Phone Industry Losing Its Treasured Arbitration Clauses • Wireless Firms Face Pressure On Termination Fees • Verizon, FCC Cook Up Termination-Fee Plan • FCC Not Ready to Pry Open Wireless Networks • Sprint Removes Three Fees, Adds Two New Ones • Sprint, T-Mobile Prorate Termination Fees • AT&T Changes Contract Policy • California Supreme Court OKs T-Mobile Class Action • Verizon Wireless Changes Contract Policy • FCC, Congress May Limit Cable, Cell Phone Termination Fees • Cell Phone Consumers Win Court Victory • Text Messaging Charges Surprise Cell Phone Users • Cell Phone Customers Held Captive by Termination Fees • Poll Finds Cell Phone Users Want Stronger Consumer Protection • Michigan Challenges One-Sided Cell Phone Contracts • New York Considers Tough Cell Phone Consumer Protection Law • California to Try Again With Telecommunications Bill of Rights • California Suspends Wireless Bill of Rights • California Adopts Wireless Consumer Bill of Rights

Michigan has opened the latest skirmish in the widening battle to protect consumers from one-sided and unfair cell phone contracts.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue of permitting states to protect consumers against one-sided cell phone contracts.

Thirty-five other state Attorneys General joined Cox's request.

"States have a constitutional right to protect their citizens from unfair contracts," said Cox. "This case is important to consumers throughout Michigan and the country. States should be allowed to vigilantly protect their citizens from unfair cell phone contracts."

The case, involving Verizon Wireless, arises out of an 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down a Minnesota law which gave consumers certain rights prior to unilateral changes being made in their cell phone contracts.

The Minnesota legislature had passed a law which required cell phone companies to provide basic consumer protections such as advance notice of rate increases or extensions to their contract length.

One Minnesota resident had testified during legislative hearings that his month-to-month contract had been extended to a one-year contract without his knowledge. When he tried to cancel, he was charged a $150 early termination fee.

In Michigan, cell phone complaints to the Attorney General are up 50% over last year.

The Court will consider the request and decide whether to hear the case in its 2006-2007 term.

Report Your Experience
If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.

Back to the top |