Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph G. Sauder (pro hac vice forthcoming)
`jgs@sstriallawyers.com
`Lori G. Kier
`lgk@sstriallawyers.com
`Davina C. Okonkwo
`dco@sstriallawyers.com
`SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
`1109 Lancaster Avenue
`Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312
`Telephone: (888) 711-9975
`Facsimile: (610) 727-4360
`Alison M. Bernal (Bar No. 264629)
`alison@nshmlaw.com
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
`33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
`Santa Barbara, CA 93101
`Telephone: (805) 963-2345
`Facsimile: (805) 284-9590
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`TERESA GUTIERREZ and
`CASE NO.: 2:21-cv-03865
`
`MICHAEL CAMOU, individually,
`
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`situated,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`v.
`
`SPRINT CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Plaintiffs Teresa Gutierrez and Michael Camou, individually, and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated (the “Class”), bring this action against Sprint Corporation
`(“Sprint” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs make the following allegations pursuant to the
`investigation of counsel and based upon information and belief, except to the
`allegations specifically pertaining to them, which are based upon personal knowledge.
`//
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:2
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`This class action arises from unconscionable contracts entered into
`1.
`between Sprint and customers of Sprint’s Flex Lease Agreement program (“Flex
`Lease program” or “Flex Lease plan”).1 The Sprint Flex Lease program purports to
`provide customers options in order to obtain mobile phone devices (the “Devices”) at
`a supposedly low monthly cost, through monthly installment payments and the ability
`to cancel the contracts after a set time period. In reality, however, consumers pay
`significantly more than the value of their Devices due to Sprint’s ongoing monthly
`charges after the lease terms end, or are required to make additional payments at the
`end of the initial lease term for customers who want to own their devices, or are unable
`to cancel the program after the termination of the lease period despite attempting to
`do so.
`Customers report being told, at or around the initiation of their Flex
`2.
`Lease programs, that they would be notified when they were nearing the end of the
`plan periods and informed of their options.2 In fact, numerous customers claim that
`
` Sprint variously refers to this program by several different names, including
`“Sprint Flex program,” “Flex Lease Program,” and “Flex Lease Agreement”;
`regardless of name, all plans bear the characteristics that give rise to the claims
`alleged herein.
`2 One consumer entered into a Flex Lease plan in the summer of 2017 to obtain a
`new phone for her daughter, who was headed to college in the Fall. She was told by
`Sprint that the phone would cost about $800 and that she would be required to make
`payments of $42 per month for 20 months, which would cease in or around the
`Spring of 2019. She was also told that Sprint would contact her one month before
`the plan ended to offer her the opportunity to keep the phone and to end the monthly
`payments. In or about November 2018, she contacted Sprint to cancel her plan after
`Sprint’s coverage in her area became unreliable. The Sprint CSR offered to “move”
`her to a T-Mobile plan but did not disclose that there was cost associated with the
`move. Within a few hours after the call, she was charged a $1,200 termination fee;
`she immediately called Sprint to have her plan reinstated to which Sprint agreed –
`and charged her a $45 reconnection fee. Subsequently, in 2020, she contacted Sprint
`to see how many payments remained before the phone would be paid off. She was
`advised that she had “missed” her opportunity to cancel – despite having never been
`2
`
`
` 1
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:3
`
`
`they were never notified—either before or after the exhaustion of the initial Flex
`Lease plan—of the option to pay off the Device at the end of the lease term so that
`they continue making monthly payments indefinitely.
`Other customers who notify Sprint after their leases end that they want
`3.
`to own their Devices report being unaware or misled when they learn that their
`ongoing monthly payments have not applied to the price to own the Devices so that
`they are required to make an additional payoff payment (either in one lump sum or on
`a monthly basis) to own the Devices, which results in consumers’ payments to Sprint
`in amounts well over the value of the Devices -- after consumers have already paid
`their full value.
`Customers who attempt to cancel their contracts by returning their
`4.
`phones find that their efforts are intentionally frustrated.3
`Customers who call to exercise their option of paying off their Devices
`5.
`or cancelling their leases by returning their phones are sent to the website, and
`customers who have gone to the website to pay off their Devices are asked to call or
`use the chat function. Customers have reported being sent to confusing webpages
`where the links to purchase the Devices are hidden, or receiving emails from Sprint
`that are sent by a third-party, such as “InfoRequest,” and thus overlooked. Customers
`
`
`
`notified of the opportunity. As of February 2021, she had made over 30 monthly
`payments for her Device, paying over $1,000 over the purchase price and continued
`to make those monthly payments given a lack of options.
`3 One consumer who leased three phones from Sprint through the Flex Lease
`program called Sprint and asked to purchase his phones after the lease expired, but
`was told that he could only do so online. When he went online to purchase his
`phones and end the lease, the web page was slow and the link to purchase was
`hidden in various menus. He was unable to accomplish the purchase of his leased
`phones. When he later realized the lease payments were not going toward the payout
`cost of the devices, he went back onto the website where he was advised that he had
`to call Sprint or use the chat function to cancel his lease. He spent 45 minutes in the
`Chat function with Sprint, but the customer service representative (“CSR”) was
`unable to facilitate the purchase and had to escalate his case.
`3
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:4
`
`
`have had issues with contacting Sprint’s customer service, being told they would
`receive a call back that never came.4 Customers have also been forced to wait on hold
`on a call or in the chat function for lengthy wait times.5
`Flex Lease plan customers have also experienced Sprint’s refusal to
`6.
`accept Devices for return – even if they have minimal wear -- or have been told that
`they were ineligible for the buyout option.6 Customers have been told that they were
`a poor credit risk, making them ineligible for upgrade so the only remaining options
`available to them were to pay the buyout costs or to continue to rent the Device.7
`7. Without a realistically available option to own their Devices or cancel
`their leases, customers are left paying to lease their Devices indefinitely.
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action to redress Sprint’s violations of
`8.
`California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et
`seq.), California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750
`
` Another consumer entered into two Flex Lease agreements in 2016 that he
`understood would expire in 2018. He was not advised by Sprint that, if he did not
`take action, his payments would continue indefinitely without applying toward the
`cost of the phone. As of January 2021, he had contacted Sprint multiple times
`seeking a resolution – each time being told by Sprint CSRs that his calls were being
`escalated and that someone will return his call in three to five days. His calls have
`not been returned. He has continued to be charged more than $38 per month per
`phone for over four years.
`5 See supra note 3 (customer reported spending 45 minutes in the chat function and
`being unable to reach a resolution).
`6 An additional consumer entered into a Flex Lease that extended until November
`2019. Since November 2019, she has paid more than $494 and been told she needs
`to pay an additional $111.66. She has contacted Sprint but was advised that it will
`not accept the phone as a return because it has a small crack, though it remains in
`working condition.
`7 A California resident entered into a contract with Sprint for a Galaxy Note in 2018.
`She understood she would pay $39 per month for installment payments and would
`have the option of upgrading within six to nine months. More than nine months
`later, she contacted Sprint seeking an upgrade in April 2020. She was told that she
`was a poor credit risk, despite that she had always paid her cell phone bills on time,
`and was ineligible for upgrade. She was told she could instead buy her phone
`outright and lower her monthly payments to $14 per month. She agreed to do so, but
`it took three months for the lowered monthly charge to come into effect.
`4
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 5 of 36 Page ID #:5
`
`
`et seq.), and to seek recovery for common law fraud, conversion and unjust
`enrichment.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS
`Plaintiff Teresa Gutierrez
`Plaintiff Teresa Gutierrez is a resident of Downey, California.
`9.
`10. On or about December 7, 2017, Plaintiff Gutierrez leased two 64GB
`iPhone 8 Devices through Sprint’s Flex Lease program.
`11. From approximately December 2017 to May 2019, or 18 months,
`Plaintiff Gutierrez paid $36.76 per month for each Device (including taxes and fees)
`for a total payment of $661.68 per Device.
`12. Plaintiff Gutierrez understood that after she had made 18 monthly
`payments on her Devices, the payments would represent the value of the Devices, or
`approximately $661.68 per Device.
`13. Plaintiff Gutierrez further understood that after making 18 monthly
`payments for each Device, she would own both of them outright.
`14. On or about May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Gutierrez received an email from
`Sprint indicating that, “It’s time to choose your next move!” and that “Sprint Flex
`gives you flexibility and puts you in control. It’s time to ‘Flex’ your potions – buy it,
`upgrade, return it or continue leasing.” To own the Device, she was told:
`Love the phone you have? Buy it in one lump sum or in six monthly
`payments any time after your 17th month is billed. Tap Buy now and
`sign in. Find the phone, click the 3 dots to the right and choose View
`agreement. App users tap Next steps for your device.
`15. Plaintiff Gutierrez wished to own her Devices, but because she
`understood that she had already paid more than their full value at the time she received
`the email from Sprint, she declined to pay the proposed “one lump sum” of $199.87
`or “six monthly payments” of $33.31/month.
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 6 of 36 Page ID #:6
`
`
`16. So, Plaintiff Gutierrez continued making monthly lease payments of
`$36.76 per month from May 2019 through the date of this Complaint.
`17. As a result of Sprint’s unconscionable Flex Lease program, Plaintiff
`Gutierrez has been harmed and suffered damages, including, but not limited to
`overpayments for Device leases, excessive purchase prices for Devices, termination
`fees, and inconvenience.
`Plaintiff Michael Camou
`18. Plaintiff Michael Camou is a resident of Paso Robles, California.
`19. On or about June 7, 2019, Plaintiff Camou leased a Samsung Galaxy
`S10E through Sprint’s Flex Lease program.
`20. From approximately June 2019 to December 2020, or 18 months,
`Plaintiff Camou paid $33.52 monthly (including taxes and fees) for a total payment
`of $603.36 for his Device.
`21. Plaintiff Camou understood that after he had made 18 monthly payments
`on his Device, the payments would represent the value of Device, or approximately
`$603.36.
`22. After Plaintiff Camou finished paying the installments on his Device, he
`contacted Sprint because he wished to own it outright. He was advised that he could
`not own it until he completed an additional nine monthly payments of $20.84, or
`$187.56 total.
`23. Because Plaintiff Camou wishes to own his Device outright, he is
`currently paying nine additional payments of $20.84 after having already made 18
`monthly payments for the Device and paying the full amount of its value.
`24. As a result of Sprint’s unconscionable Flex Lease program, Plaintiff
`Camou has suffered and been subjected to various damages, including, but not limited
`to overpayments for Device leases, excessive purchase prices for Devices, termination
`fees, and inconvenience.
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 7 of 36 Page ID #:7
`
`
`DEFENDANT
`the state of Kansas and
`in
`incorporated
`is
`25. Defendant Sprint
`headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. Sprint sells and leases phones, entertainment
`devices, and related accessories.
`26. On or about April 1, 2020, Sprint merged with T-Mobile US, but the
`Sprint brand continues to exist presently and upon information and belief Sprint users
`have not yet experienced a change to account maintenance.8
`III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`27. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the
`Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because: (i) there are 100 or more Class
`members; (ii) there is an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000,
`exclusive of interest and costs; and (iii) there is minimal diversity because at least one
`plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of different states.
`28. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`29. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sprint because it has conducted
`substantial business in this District, and intentionally and purposefully placed Devices
`under its Flex Lease program into the stream of commerce within California and
`throughout the United States.
`30. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391
`because Sprint regularly transacts business in this district, is subject to personal
`jurisdiction in this District, and, therefore, is deemed to be a citizen of this district.
`Additionally, Sprint advertises in this District and has received substantial revenue
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`
` See https://www.t-mobile.com/support/account/t-mobile-sprint-merger-faqs (last
`visited March 5, 2021);
`https://www.sprint.com/en/support.html?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D71497888640700
`623583522160713689070718%7CMCORGID%3D1358406C534BC94D0A490D4
`D%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1615921654 (last visited March 16, 2021).
`7
`
`
` 8
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 8 of 36 Page ID #:8
`
`
`and profits from its sales and leases of Devices under its Flex Lease program in this
`district. Therefore, a substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving rise to the
`claims herein occurred, in part, within this district.
`IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Sprint’s Flex Lease Program
`A.
`31. Sprint offers a variety of wireless and mobile broadband products,
`including wireless and wireline operations, internet services, ethernet services, web
`services, telecommunications relay services, wireless voice and data services, and
`mobile devices and broadband for the home. Sprint offers wireless and mobile
`broadband products from a range of manufacturers, including Apple, BlackBerry,
`HTC, Kyocera, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sharp, Sonim, and ZTE. Sprint sells and
`leases its wireless Devices through retail stores located throughout the United States
`with retail prices ranging from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.
`In July 2017, Sprint introduced its Sprint Flex program,9 which—
`32.
`according to Sprint—“gives customers the opportunity to enjoy their phone before
`deciding what option (upgrade, continue leasing, return or buy) works best for their
`lifestyle.” Further,
`Depending on device type, certain leases carry an option to upgrade to a new
`device annually prior to expiration of the lease. The terms of our lease and
`installment billing contracts require that customers maintain service otherwise
`the balance of the remaining contractual obligation on the device is due upon
`termination of their service. The subsidy program, which has been de-
`emphasized, requires a long-term service contract and allows a subscriber to
`purchase a device generally at a discount. In our non-Sprint branded postpaid
`plan, we offer devices through an installment billing program while requiring
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`
`
` See supra note 1.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 9 of 36 Page ID #:9
`
`
`service to be purchased on a prepaid basis. The majority of Sprint's current
`postpaid handset activations occur on our Sprint Flex leasing program.10
`33. With the Sprint Flex Lease, “Sprint owns the phone.” Customers may
`“lease it with affordable monthly payments and at the end of [their] agreement [their]
`options are to: (1) Upgrade it, (2) Own it by paying the remaining balance, either in
`one payment (contacting the online chat agent may be required for this) or in nine
`monthly installment payments, (3) Continue leasing month-to-month (these payments
`do not apply to the purchase of the [Device]), (4) Return it.” The Flex Lease plan
`purports to have “low out-of-pocket costs and an annual upgrade option.”11
`34. Sprint markets and advertises that “[i]t’s easy to get your lease details
`online or in the My Sprint mobile app.”12
`35. Sprint also markets and advertises that “[i]t’s easy to get your upgrade
`details online or in the My Sprint mobile app.” However, customers are unable to
`easily find lease details regarding the terms of the Flex Lease and are unable to easily
`find or understand details regarding their upgrade options under the Flex Lease
`program.13
`
`
`
`10 Sprint, Annual Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019 at p. 2 (available
`at:
`https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/101830/000010183019000022/sprintcorp2
`01810-k.htm#s8925A97DDFA55204808914F6529AC721 [last visited March 10,
`2021]).
`11 https://www.sprint.com/en/support/sprint-flex-lease.html#1 (last visited March
`10, 2021).
`12 https://www.sprint.com/en/support/sprint-flex-lease.html#1 (last visited March
`10, 2021).
`13 Plaintiff Gutierrez was never told that the monthly lease payment would continue
`after the original 18-month lease agreement. To date, she has paid over $1,400 for
`her two phones, which she does not yet own—and has been advised by Sprint that
`she would need to pay $187 per phone to own them.
`9
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 10 of 36 Page ID #:10
`
`
`36. Sprint markets and advertises that customers have the following options
`regarding their Devices when their Flex Lease ends. Sprints’ Lease & Flex Lease page
`includes the following “Popular questions and answers”:
`What is Flex Lease and how does it work?
`
`With Flex Lease, Sprint owns the phone. You lease it with affordable monthly
`payments and at the end of your agreement your options are to:
`
`• Upgrade it
`• Own it by paying the remaining balance, either in one payment (contacting
`the online chat agent may be required for this) or in nine monthly
`installment payments
`• Continue leasing month-to-month (these payments do not apply to the
`purchase of the phone)
`• Return it14
`
`37. However, at the time of purchase, the end-of-lease options under the
`terms of the Flex Lease program are not clearly communicated to customers by Sprint
`representatives.15 In particular, customers are not advised that they will have to pay
`
`
`
`14 https://www.sprint.com/en/support/sprint-flex-lease.html#1 (last visited March 10,
`2021). One the same page, Sprint includes another discussion of “What happens
`when my lease ends?” which contains similar – but not identical – options and
`which tells consumers that they may be required to contact the online chat agent to
`pay of
`15 A New Jersey resident contacted Sprint on February 19, 2021 when he noticed
`that discounts on his plan had expired after the eighteenth month of his Flex Lease.
`He was told by representatives that his only options were to continue the lease
`(though payments would not apply toward the cost of the phone), send the phone
`back, or upgrade. However, when he first signed up for the Flex Lease program and
`spoke with a Sprint representative, he inquired specifically about what his obligation
`would be after the expiration of 18 months. He was assured then that he would only
`be responsible for paying the monthly charge for six more months, after which he
`10
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 11 of 36 Page ID #:11
`
`
`an additional amount to own their devices as a “remaining balance” once they have
`fulfilled the requirements of their lease and paid the value of their Devices.
`38. Customers who attempt to understand the terms of their Flex Lease plans
`at a later date are unable to find details pertaining to the options they have under the
`Flex Lease through Sprint’s website. Customers who contact Sprint seeking to
`understand the terms of their Flex Lease are left further confused because they are
`told conflicting information about their end-of-lease options.16
`39. Nor are customers informed at the time they purchase their Devices
`regarding the purported requirement to contact Sprint at the end of the lease to select
`an option, or that – if they did not contact Sprint – that Sprint would deem them to
`have chosen to make indefinite monthly payments for their Devices. This requirement
`is not listed under “What happens when my lease ends?” on the Sprint Lease & Flex
`Lease Popular questions and answers webpage.17
`40. Despite Sprint’s reference to apparently straight-forward options for
`ending consumers’ monthly payments when their Flex Lease agreements end, the
`options are in fact confusing and difficult for consumers to utilize so that they
`continue being charged monthly payments for the Devices.
`41. When customers realize that their leases have ended but that Sprint has
`not notified them of their options – so that they are deemed to have accepted the
`default indefinite monthly payments imposed upon them -- they have contacted Sprint
`
`
`
`would own the phone.
`16 See supra note 3. Further, An individual in New Jersey was told by
`representatives that his only options were to continue the lease (though payments
`would not apply toward the cost of the phone), send the phone back, or upgrade.
`However, when he first signed up for the Flex Lease program and spoke with a
`Sprint representative, he had inquired specifically about what his obligation would
`be after the expiration of 18 months. He was assured then that he would only be
`responsible for paying the monthly charge for six more months, after which he
`would own the phone.
`17 https://www.sprint.com/en/support/sprint-flex-lease.html#1 (last visited March
`10, 2021).
`11
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 12 of 36 Page ID #:12
`
`
`to complain about the lack of notification. In response, Sprint customer service
`representatives advise customers that they had been notified when, in fact, they had
`not been.
`42. For customers who are aware that their leases have ended and who opt
`to own their phones by pay the “remaining balance,” they expect that they have
`already paid the full balance on their Devices because their monthly payments during
`the lease term approximate the full value of the Devices. Sprint does not advise
`customers at the point of sale that their monthly payments will not be sufficient to
`cover the payoff amount for the Devices, or that there will be a remaining balance at
`the close of the 18-month Flex Lease agreement.
`In fact, customers who have made monthly installment payments on their
`43.
`Devices in excess of 18 months, and who seek to own their Devices, are told that they
`must pay hundreds of dollars to buyout their Devices—even after their payments
`exceed the value of the Devices.18 Other consumers who seek to own their phones
`outright are instead persuaded to move to new plans which require ongoing payments
`for the Devices, and are presented with obstacles when trying to end the lease.19
`
`
`
`18 A Missouri resident entered a Flex Lease for a phone from Sprint in 2018. She
`understood that, beginning in August 2018, she would pay a monthly lease fee of
`$33.34 for 19 payments, or a total of $600.12. Then after 18 months, she would pay
`a flat fee of $199.88 and own the phone. Together, the 18 monthly payments and the
`$199.88 fee would pay off the $800 cost of the phone. The 18-month term of the
`Flex Lease expired in or around February 2020. Later in the year 2020, when
`looking into purchasing devices for his children, he realized he had been paying the
`$33.34 per month for the phone. He calculated that he had paid over $934. When he
`contacted Sprint seeking resolution, he was told he still had to pay the fee of
`$199.88 in order to end the contract.
`19 For example, when a California resident contacted Sprint in July 2020 to end his
`lease and pay the buyout fee, Sprint instead moved him to a new plan that put a $30
`cap on his monthly calling and texting charges; however, this change adversely
`affected his service. So, one month later, he again called Sprint back and requested
`to pay off his lease and cancel his contract. This time, he was told that his contract
`12
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 13 of 36 Page ID #:13
`
`
` Customers who decide to return their phones and terminate their
`44.
`ongoing payments to Sprint following the end of their leases are often unsuccessful
`in canceling their leases. For example, some customers are told that they are required
`to return their Devices using Sprint’s return kits, but do not receive the kits in the mail
`despite repeated requests for them.20
`45. Customers who have made installment payments in excess of 18 months
`and entered into the month-to-month period of the Flex Lease may pay indefinitely
`for Devices that have a market value of much less than the total of their payments.
`Indeed, a recent account statement for Plaintiff Gutierrez’s Devices
`46.
`indicates that her plans are both called: “Apple iPhone 8 Plus 64GB Forever” Leases
`(emphasis added).
`47. The time limitations and notification requirements contained in Sprint’s
`Flex Lease program’s end-of-lease options are unfair, unconscionable and inadequate
`to clearly communicate the responsibilities of Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
`Among other things, Plaintiffs and Class Members had no meaningful choice in
`
`
`would be canceled if he clicked on an email that would be sent to him by Sprint.
`Because the email was sent by “InfoRequest” rather than by Sprint, it took him
`several days to locate it before he was able to click on it and – finally – end his
`monthly payments.
`20 One Texas resident who had been a Sprint customer since 1999 leased an iPhone
`from Sprint in 2017. She understood her monthly payment was about $40 and that she
`would have paid it off after about 18 payments. In September 2019, she purchased a
`new phone from the Apple store and called Sprint to terminate service on her prior
`phone. Sprint verbally agreed, but continued to charge her $40 monthly. In December
`of 2020, she realized that Sprint had failed to discontinue the monthly charge as
`promised, so she called Sprint to notify them that she was being overcharged. During
`the call, Sprint verbally agreed to credit her for the months she had paid since she had
`canceled the plan and to send a return kit for the old phone. By March 2021, she had
`not received a return kit from Sprint, so she contacted them once again and they
`promised to mail a return kit. On or about April 4, 2021, she received a call from
`Sprint asking for more information in order to be able to send the return kit and was
`told that it would be sent after another seven-to-ten days.
`13
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-03865
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER
`
`SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93101
`33 WEST MISSION STREET, SUITE 201
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03865-FLA-PVC Document 1 Filed 05/06/21 Page 14 of 36 Page ID #:14
`
`
`determining these time limitations or notification requirements, the terms of which
`unreasonably favored Sprint. Customers report that attempts to contact Sprint to
`negotiate the terms of the Flex Lease are unsuccessful. A gross disparity in
`information and bargaining power exists between Sprint and the Class Members, and
`Sprint knew or should have known that the terms of the Flex Lease program
`agreement were unfair and ambiguous at the time of contracting and would lead to
`confusion and unfair overpayments with respect to the value of the Devices in
`question and excessive fees.
`48. Th