<![CDATA[Consumerist: customer rebellion]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: customer rebellion]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/customer rebellion http://consumerist.com/tag/customer rebellion <![CDATA[ Court Allows Lawsuit Against T-Mobile To Proceed ]]> con_giantt-mobilechainedtre.jpg On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court refused to review two earlier findings, which killed T-Mobile's final chance at blocking a lawsuit against its early-termination fees and practice of locking phones. This is the third time T-Mobile has tried to stop the case from proceeding, and both a state trial judge and a state appeals court have already rejected T-Mobile's claims that its customers were required by the terms of their contracts to submit to binding arbitration.

In June, the state appeals court said T-Mobile's contractual prohibition of class-action lawsuits was "unconscionable," which "rendered the arbitration provision unenforceable."

If the plaintiffs win, "the outcome could require cell phone carriers, at least in California, to unlock cell phones upon a customer's request." It could also have an impact on two class-action lawsuits that were filed last week in California against Apple and AT&T over their practice of locking the iPhone to a single network, and of possibly bricking rogue phones deliberately.

"Court Clears Way for Mobile-Phone-Unlocking Lawsuit Against T-Mobile" [Wired]
(Photo: Getty)

]]> Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:18:24 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=309881&view=rss&microfeed=true <![CDATA[ Class-Action Lawsuits Filed Against Apple, AT&T Over iPhone ]]> con_fakerebelalliance.jpg A class-action lawsuit was filed on October 5th against the unholy duo of Apple and AT&T, charging that they intentionally broke unlocked headsets via the last firmware update, and conspired illegally to monopolize parts of the mobile phone market by preventing consumers from using any services other than those provided by the two companies. The suit charges the two companies, either jointly or separately, with six formal counts, including "alleged violations of the California Business and Profession's Code, The Cartwright Act, The Sherman Act, The Federal Trade Commission Act, The Communications Act of 1934, and The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as rules and policies established by the FCC."

The particular issue is the nefarious 1.1.1 upgrade, which the lawsuit claims was designed solely to disable hacks and SIM cards that had been unlocked, and to damage phones with unapproved software installed, rather than to fix or improve any flaws in the device.

This is the second class-action lawsuit against Apple over the iPhone. The other one, which was also filed last Friday, claims that unlocking mobile phones is entirely legal based on existing law, and asks for an injunction against Apple to prevent any software locks on future iPhone sales.

"Class-action charges Apple, AT&T with unlawful business practices" [AppleInsider]
(Photos: moria and moria)

]]> Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:55:25 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=309423&view=rss&microfeed=true