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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`
`JOSE LUIS GARCIA MORENO, individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`NO.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff Jose Luis Garcia Moreno (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys,
`individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this action against
`Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”). Plaintiff alleges the following based on
`personal knowledge as to his own acts and based upon the investigation conducted by
`his counsel as to all other allegations:
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff brings this consumer class action lawsuit because Defendant
`1.
`developed, marketed, distributed, and advertised the launch of their 5G Network (the
`“Network”) without disclosing to its customers, including former Sprint customers
`following the merger between Sprint and T-Mobile, that they intended to shut down older
`networks without adequately addressing Network incompatibilities for numerous devices
`dependent upon them, including but not limited to the Samsung Galaxy S10 5G, LG V50
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 1
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`ThinQ 5G, HTC 5G Hub, OnePlus 7 Pro 5G, and various tablets, security systems, and
`other devices (the “Class Devices”). Many of the Class Devices have or will become
`wholly unusable as the non-Network older Sprint and T-Mobile networks with which they
`are compatible, including Sprint’s 3G (CDMA), 5G, and LTE networks as well as T-
`Mobile’s 3G UMTS network, get shutdown (the “Defect”). The Defect represents a
`serious omission and is therefore a material fact. Defendant has been unwilling to
`acknowledge the Defect, much less remedy it, and Plaintiff hereby seeks to correct that
`injustice.
`Defendant marketed the Network as “[t]he next generation of wireless
`2.
`service” that delivers “coverage and mobility with blazing fast download speeds.” 1
`Sprint, which is now owned by T-Mobile, advertised that its 5G network “covers
`approximately 2,100 square miles, with approximately 11 million people expected to be
`covered in total across all nine market areas in the coming weeks, more than any other
`U.S. carrier to date.”2
`3.
`Defendant marketed that, along with three other 5G-enabled devices, it
`would expand its selection of 5G ready devices to include the OnePlus 7 Pro 5G and
`“give Sprint customers a truly mobile 5G experience all across these great cities.”
`4.
`Keeping the, at-the-time, upcoming merger in mind, and actively
`advocating for it, Sprint pitched one advantage would allow the carriers “to accelerate
`the deployment of a ubiquitous, nationwide 5G network that includes coverage in rural
`locations.” Within months of touting the deployment of Sprint’s own 5G network, on July
`
`
`1 Sprint Lights Up True Mobile 5G in New York City, prnewswire.com (Aug. 27 2019), available at
`https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sprint-lights-up-true-mobile-5g-in-new-york-city-300907615.html
`(last visited January 5, 2021).
`2 Id.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 2
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`2, 2020, T-Mobile shut down Sprint’s 5G network.3 Tech websites noted the inoperability
`of Sprint’s 5G-enabled devices, including the OnePlus 7 5G, on T-Mobile’s 5G network.4
`5.
`The shutdown of Sprint’s 5G network left approximately 75,000 sold 5G
`phones without the ability to receive a 5G signal.5 Rather than offer owners of these
`phones free upgrades, customers would have to switch their phone and phone plan to
`a new offering from T-Mobile.
`6.
`The inability to connect to a 5G network, despite some being equipped
`with a 5G-enabled modem, limits the capabilities of these phones and devices to what
`is already available on 4G LTE-only devices. Purchasers of 5G-enabled phones paid a
`premium to benefit from massive improvements in download speeds and lower latency
`enabled by 5G networks. Rather than achieving download speeds 100 times faster on
`a 5G network, to a top speed of 20 gigabytes per second, owners of 5G devices will be
`limited to a max download speed of 100 megabytes per second, with real world
`performance topping out at 35 megabytes per second. Latency, too, increases between
`the two networks, from one millisecond on a 5G network to fifty milliseconds on a 4G
`network.6
`Dozens of owners and lessees of 5G-enabled phones previously
`7.
`compatible with Sprint’s network have voiced complaints on various online forums. For
`example, two complaints lodged with the Consumer Affairs website describes the
`frustration felt by those whose devices are no longer supported because of the Defect:
`The main reason I upgraded to the LG V-50 from my LG V-40 was its
`supposed access to 5G networks. During the last year, I only got
`connected to 5G about three times at a few hot spots around Austin,
`where I live. Anyway, now that Sprint and T-Mobile have merged, the 5G
`
`3 T-Mobile shuts down Sprint’s legacy 5G network, xda-developers.com (July 2, 2020), available at
`https://www.xda-developers.com/t-mobile-shuts-down-sprint-5g/ (last visited January 5, 2020).
`4 Sprint 5G rollout: Everything you need to know, digitaltrends.com (March 3, 2020), available at
`https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/sprint-5g-rollout/ (last visited January 5, 2020).
`5 T-Mobile shuts down Sprint’s legacy 5G network, xda-developers.com (July 2, 2020), available at
`https://www.xda-developers.com/t-mobile-shuts-down-sprint-5g/ (last visited January 5, 2020).
`6 4G vs. 5G: The key differences between the cellular network generations, businessinsider.com (December 22,
`2020), available at https://www.businessinsider.com/4g-vs-5g (last accessed January 5, 2021).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 3
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`networks that the V-50 could access are no longer going to be
`supported. I got gypped on this phone, not because it isn't a great device
`- it is - but the 5G promise has been broken by Sprint's being bought out
`by T-Mobile. At minimum, owners of the Sprint version of the LG V-50s
`should be compensated by getting a substantial allowance for a new 5G
`capable phone that will work in the future.7
`
` I
`
` purchased the new HTC 5G Hub to use with Sprint's 5G service. 45
`days after I purchase it they remove 5G service from the ENTIRE service
`area and expect me to honor my contract with them. Upload and
`download speeds are now at 10% of what I had prior to the change.
`They also lied to me for three months telling me they were overhauling
`the system so it should be up in a month. Now they tell me it will no
`longer be available. Watch out for this company.8
`8.
`Other accounts from consumers who have been impacted by the Defect
`show that the alternate “offers” made to transition them to 5G-enabled devices
`compatible with T-Mobile’s network would force them into more expensive plans and
`new payments for replacement devices. For example:9
`
`
`
`7 Sprint, consumeraffairs.com (October 17, 2020), available at
`https://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell_phones/sprint_pcs.htm?#sort=top_reviews&filter=none (last accessed
`January 5, 2021).
`8 Sprint, consumeraffairs.com (August 10, 2020), available at
`https://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell_phones/sprint_pcs.htm?page=5 (last accessed January 5, 2021).
`9 Sprint 5G is no more, as T-Mobile focuses on its own network, techcrunch.com (July 2, 2020), available at
`https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/02/sprint-5g-is-no-more-as-t-mobile-focuses-on-its-own-network/ (last
`accessed January 5, 2021).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 4
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`The rippling consequences of the impending Network release did not stop
`9.
`with T-Mobile’s shutdown of Sprint’s 5G network. To the contrary, customers with other
`Class Devices dependent on non-5G networks received similar notices wherein T-
`Mobile marketed the Network as a beneficial change despite it requiring that many
`customers purchase entirely new devices and/or sign up for more expensive and
`comprehensive Network plans.
`10. Specifically, less than a year after the shutdown of the 5G network, T-
`Mobile announced intentions to “retire” Sprint’s “older 3G (CDMA) network” as well as
`Sprint’s LTE network, their own 3G UMTS and GSM 2G networks all within 2022.10 The
`first of these shutdowns was to be of the CDMA network, however it has quickly turned
`into a convoluted and burdensome process for consumers, representative of the Defect
`as a whole.
`T-Mobile set December 31, 2021 as the final day of CDMA service, later
`11.
`pushing the date to March 31, 2022 and offloading blame for the transitional failure and
`consumer dissatisfaction onto their “partners,” like Dish who uses the CDMA network
`for their Boost Mobile customers and has shown resistance to the shutdown.11 T-Mobile
`claims the delay resulted from these partners failing to appropriately “help their
`customers through [the] shift,” ignoring their own role and duty to their customers.12
`March 31, 2022 passed by without the end of the network and consumers are left
`wondering about the longevity of the functionality of their devices. Certain consumer
`advocates suspect T-Mobile “silently delayed the sunset of the [CDMA] cell service by
`an additional two months to May 31, 2022.”13
`
`
`10 T-Mobile Coverage: T-Mobile Network Evolution
`https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/t-mobile-network-evolution
`11 T-Mobile’s CDMA shutdown already harms consumers, says coalition
` https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-s-cdma-shutdown-already-harms-consumers-says-coalition
`12T-Mobile: Update on our CDMA Network Transition Plans
`https://www.t-mobile.com/news/business/update-on-our-cdma-network-transition-plans
`13 T-Mobile once again delays Sprint’s CDMA network shutdown
`https://www.androidpolice.com/tmobile-again-delays-sprint-cdma-network-shutdown/
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 5
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`If such delays have occurred in only the first of four network shutdowns,
`12.
`consumers face unpredictable consequences and inconveniences as a direct result and
`part of the Defect which may last throughout the coming year and perhaps beyond.
`Defendant failed to adequately warn its customers that certain devices and contracts
`that they bought into would become useless before their reasonably expected lifespans.
`Now they fail even further to clearly communicate the impacts and timeline of the Defect
`which places the already biased onus of the network transitions even further onto
`consumers of the Class Devices.
`13. Plaintiff and members of the Class (defined below) who have experienced
`the Defect have been locked in their contract without being transitioned free of charge
`to T-Mobile’s Network, so that they may take advantage of 5G connectivity without
`having to pay out of pocket for compatible devices or upgraded service to which they
`did not anticipate nor initially agree upon.
`14. Selling 5G data plans, in particular, with a limited shelf life and Class
`Devices unable to connect to existing 5G and other networks is a fraud on consumers.
`Sprint and T-Mobile refuse to honor their commitment to their loyal customers and are
`forcing customers to bear the expense of their mistakes and malfeasance.
`15. As a result of Defendant’s unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business
`practices, owners of the Class Devices, including Plaintiff, have suffered an
`ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or loss in value. Plaintiff and the Class
`members expended monies to benefit from higher data speeds or signed on for limited
`data plans to conserve money, but were not warned of the impending Defect and have
`suffered and continue to suffer financial and other injuries relating thereto. They have
`also suffered from a diminution in value of their non-Network compatible devices owing
`to the existence of the Defect. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class members have
`suffered injury in fact, incurred damages, and have otherwise been harmed by
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 6
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`Defendant’s conduct. The unfair and deceptive trade practices committed by Defendant
`were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances.
`16. Defendant was aware of the Defect. Not only did Defendant have
`exclusive, non-public knowledge and data concerning the continuing functionality of the
`Class Devices through their own testing and marketing data, customers’ complaints, and
`warranty claims, but also it is or should be aware of consumer complaints on public
`forums. Therefore, Defendant was well aware of the Defect but failed to notify customers
`of the nature and extent of the problems to arise with the Class Devices which they
`continued to sell and for which they have failed to provide any adequate remedy.
`17.
`The Defect is material because it makes it impossible for Class Devices to
`take advantage of any T-Mobile network. Cellular network enabled and dependent
`devices cannot possibly serve their purpose when no network is compatible with them.
`As attested by Class members in scores of complaints on online forums, the Defect
`completely eliminates the device’s network capabilities because they are not configured
`for the Network and compatible networks will no longer exist. As a result of the Defect,
`customers paid more for devices, particularly for those who invested in Sprint’s 5G
`compatible devices, that can no longer meet even a fraction of their marketed
`capabilities.
`18. Defendant’s failure to disclose the defect at the time of purchase is
`material because no reasonable consumer expects to spend more for a device whose
`advertised and differentiating features will be rendered useless in a few months’ time or
`otherwise before its reasonably anticipated lifespan.
`19. Had Defendant disclosed the Defect, Plaintiff and Class members would
`not have purchased the Class Devices or would have paid less for them.
`20. Plaintiff demands that Defendant accept responsibility for phasing out
`Sprint’s 5G network and the other various Sprint and T-Mobile networks while continuing
`to sell the Class Devices and allowing consumers to sign contracts for existing Devices.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 7
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`T-Mobile refuses to accommodate, as well as reimburse Plaintiff and the Class for losses
`suffered as a result of the Defect. In addition, or alternatively, Defendant should be
`required to buy back the Class Devices.
`21.
`This case seeks protection and relief for owners of Class Devices for the
`harm they have suffered from Defendant’s breaches of express and implied warranties
`and Defendant’s unfair, unlawful, and deceptive trade practices.
`II.
`JURISDICTION, VENUE AND GOVERNING LAW
` This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`22.
`U.S.C. § 1332(d) because: (i) there are 100 or more class members; (ii) the aggregate
`amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs; and (iii) at
`least one Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different states. This Court has
`supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`23. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391
`because Defendant transacts business in this district and is subject to personal
`jurisdiction in this district, and therefore is deemed to be a citizen of this district.
`Additionally, Defendant has advertised in this district and has received substantial
`revenue and profits from the sales and/or leasing of Class Devices in this district.
`Therefore, a substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving rise to the claims
`occurred, in part, within this district.
`24.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has
`conducted substantial business in this judicial district, and intentionally and purposefully
`placed Class Vehicles into the stream of commerce within this district and throughout
`the United States.
`25.
`In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue is proper in this district
`because a substantial part of the conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in or
`emanated from this District, Defendant transacts business in this District, and Defendant
`resides in this District.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 8
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`III. PARTIES
`
`A. Plaintiff Jose Moreno
`26. Plaintiff Jose Moreno is a citizen of California and resides in 45-601
`Monroe Street, Apt. 32, Indio, CA 92201.
`27. On February 7, 2020 Plaintiff Garcia Moreno purchased a Class Device
`from Sprint’s retail store located in 81952 CA-111 B, Indio, CA 92201.
`28.
`In deciding to purchase a Class Device, Plaintiff Garcia Moreno relied on
`Sprint’s representations about the compatibility of his phone with T-Mobile’s 5G network,
`none of which disclosed the Defect described herein.
`29.
`To fully benefit from the increased data speeds and usage enabled by
`Sprint’s 5G network, Mr. Moreno opted to purchase Sprint’s most expensive data plan,
`the Unlimited Premium plan, at $80/month.
`30.
`Two weeks after purchasing his phone, Plaintiff lost 5G connectivity and
`could only access 4G LTE data speeds.
`31. Plaintiff contacted Sprint to try to regain 5G connectivity, spending a
`considerable amount of time with customer support. He updated his device’s profile and
`completed all troubleshooting steps recommended.
`32. Sprint advised Plaintiff to go to a T-Mobile Store to get a new SIM Card. A
`T-Mobile employee told Plaintiff that their SIM card was incompatible with his device but
`could not explain why. The T-Mobile employee told Plaintiff to search for his issue online
`to see whether other users had experienced the same problem and even went so far as
`to tell Mr. Moreno that Sprint had given him the short end of the bargain.
`33. On April 25, 2020, Plaintiff spoke with a Sprint representative using
`Sprint’s chat feature and asked whether his device would lose 5G service due to the T-
`Mobile and Sprint merger. The Sprint representative responded, “No it will not [be] like
`that.”
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 9
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`34. After months of going without 5G connectivity, Plaintiff again opened up
`the chat support on December 3, 2020. The Sprint representative recommended going
`through the same steps Plaintiff had already completed months back. Rather than being
`provided with a T-Mobile compatible device, the Sprint representative advised Plaintiff
`that he would have to pay off his current device and then upgrade to a new device.
`35.
`The OnePlus 7 Pro 5G Mr. Moreno purchased features 5G logos
`prominently on its packaging and even upon the device’s start up screen.
`36. Had Mr. Moreno known of the Defect at the time of sale, he would not have
`purchased the phone or would have paid less for it to account for the defect.
`B. Defendant
`37. Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc. is a telecommunication corporation that
`developed and distributed 5G infrastructure within the United States.
`38. Defendant is incorporated and headquartered in the State of Washington
`with its principal place of business at 3625 132nd Ave SE, Bellevue, Washington 98006.
`39. Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc. merged with Sprint Corporation and now
`oversees sales and other operations previously belonging to Sprint, across the United
`States. Sprint Corporation, prior to and pending its merger with Defendant T-Mobile US,
`Inc., through its various entities, marketed and distributed 5G-enabled devices in
`Washington and multiple other locations in the United States.
`IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`A.
`Sprint’s 5G Network
`40. Since at least May 30, 2019, Sprint rolled out its 5G coverage to include
`major metropolitan centers throughout the country, starting with Houston, Kansas City,
`Atlanta, and Dallas-Fort Worth.14 Over the following months it would expand its 5G
`
`
`14 Sprint Lights Up True Mobile 5G in Houston, prnewswire.com (May 30, 2019), available at
`https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sprint-lights-up-true-mobile-5g-in-houston-300858920.html (last
`accessed January 6, 2021).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 10
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`network to nine metropolitan areas and increase its coverage to include approximately
`16 million people.15
`41. On August 27, 2019, Sprint supplemented its 5G offerings with an
`additional 5G enabled device, the OnePlus 7 Pro 5G16, and a cloud gaming service that
`would be preloaded on 5G handsets.17 Because of the faster download speeds and
`lower latency made available by 5G, Vice President of Sprint’s 5G strategies said:
`“Sprint 5G customers will be able to play games instantly without having to wait to
`download or update games – a true breakthrough in the mobile universe."18 Sprint’s
`development and rollout of its 5G network, along with the representations it made to its
`customers, are material to a reasonable consumer because consumers want to ensure
`that devices purchased through the carrier will be compatible with the carrier’s network.
`42. Sprint marketed, promoted, and expressly warranted that their deployed
`5G network would work with 5G enabled devices.
`43.
`The Samsung Galaxy S10 5G, LG V50 ThinQ 5G, HTC 5G Hub, and the
`OnePlus 7 Pro 5G all run on Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X50 5G modem. While the
`modem used supported Sprint’s 2.5 GHz 5G network, it did not support T-Mobile’s
`redeployed 5G network.19 By contrast, another Sprint offering, the Samsung Galaxy S20
`5G, featured a newer iteration of the Qualcomm chip—the X55 5G modem—which was
`
`
` 15 Sprint Expands True Mobile 5G to Cover Approximately 16 Million People Within Nine Metropolitan Areas,
`prnewswire.com (Oct. 22, 2019), available at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sprint-expands-true-
`mobile-5g-to-cover-approximately-16-million-people-within-nine-metropolitan-areas-300942693.html (last
`accessed January 6, 2021).
`
`16 Sprint Lights Up True Mobile 5G in New York City, prnewswire.com (August 27, 2019), available at
`https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sprint-lights-up-true-mobile-5g-in-new-york-city-300907615.html
`(last accessed January 6, 2021).
` 17 Sprint & Hatch FTW! Hatch Cloud Gaming Now Available for Sprint 5G Customers, prnewswire.com (August
`27, 2019), available at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sprint--hatch-ftw-hatch-cloud-gaming-now-
`available-for-sprint-5g-customers-300907292.html (last accessed January 6, 2021).
`
`18 Id.
`19 T-Mobile deactivates Sprint’s legacy 2.5GHz 5G ahead of redeployments, fiercewireless.com (July 1, 2020),
`available at https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/t-mobile-deactivates-sprint-s-legacy-2-5-ghz-5g-ahead-re-
`deployments (last accessed January 6, 2021).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 11
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`compatible with T-Mobile’s 5G network because of its support for Sub-6 and Millimeter
`Wave 5G connectivity.
`44.
`T-Mobile’s 5G network was initially based on a 600MHz low-band signal.
`The carrier repurposed Sprint’s 2.5 GHz mid-band spectrum into its own network.20
`When it did so, the Class Devices were no longer able to receive a 5G signal.
`45. Sprint uniformly marketed, advertised, and warranted that its 5G
`smartphones would be compatible with its 5G network, all the while it awaited approval
`of its merger with T-Mobile, as shown in the packaging of the OnePlus 7 Pro 5G below:
`
`
`
`
`46. Plaintiff Garcia Moreno purchased a OnePlus 7 Pro 5G Smartphone
`through Sprint, along with its Unlimited Premium data plan, in order to fully utilize Sprint’s
`5G network. The fact that Sprint advertised and warranted that it possessed
`
`20 Have a Sprint 5G phone? T-Mobile will force some of you to upgrade, mashable.com (April 25, 2020), available
`at https://mashable.com/article/t-mobile-sprint-5g-incompatible-phones/ (last accessed January 6, 2021).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 12
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`compatibility with its 5G network was material to Plaintiff Garcia Moreno and to other
`reasonable consumers. Plaintiff Garcia Moreno specifically sought a phone with 5G
`connectivity because it provides faster data speeds than what is available, or even
`possible, on 4G LTE, and Plaintiff Garcia Moreno reasonably relied upon Sprint’s
`representations and warranties contained in Sprint’s marketing materials when he
`purchased his phone.
`B.
`Defendant Had Superior and Exclusive Knowledge of the Defect
`47. Upon information and belief, Defendant knew, or should have known,
`about the Defect through their exclusive knowledge of non-public, internal data about
`the Defect, including: (1) Network testing and market data; (2) their own records of
`customer complaints about the Defect from Defendant’s retailers; (3) their own records
`of customers’ complaints on consumer forums run by Defendant; (4) large swaths of
`consumer complaints on various public forums; (5) warranty and post-warranty claims;
`(6) any research, surveys, or other internal processes followed to investigate and
`respond to customer complaints described herein; and (7) other internal sources of
`aggregate information about the Defect. Defendant was well aware—or could and
`should have been reasonably aware—of the Defect but failed to notify its customers of
`the nature and extent of the problems with Class Devices or provide any adequate
`remedy for the Defect.
`C.
`Defendant Has Actively Concealed the Defect
`48. Despite its knowledge of the Defect impacting the Class Devices,
`Defendant actively concealed the existence and nature of the Defect from Plaintiff and
`Class members. Specifically, Defendant failed to disclose or actively concealed at and
`after the time of purchase of Class Devices:
`a. that the Class Devices would become useless upon launch of Defendant’s
`Network and consequent network shutdowns;
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 13
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`b. that the Class Devices grandfathered into previous service deals would be
`forced to not only end their contracts, often early, but also purchase new
`devices on more expensive plans in order to receive any level of service
`c. that the Defendant had no intention of offering an adequate remedy to the
`class members even upon notifying consumers of the Defect.
`Defendant Has Unjustly Retained A Substantial Benefit
`D.
`49. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant unlawfully failed
`to disclose the alleged defect to induce him and other putative Class members to
`purchase Class Devices.
`
`V. CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`50. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, and on behalf of the
`following nationwide class pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3).
`Specifically, the nationwide class consists of the following:
`
`Nationwide Class:
`All persons or entities in United States who are current or former owners and/or
`lessees of a Class Device (the “Nationwide Class”).
`
`In the alternative to the Nationwide Class, and pursuant to FED. R. CIV.
`51.
`P. 23(c)(5), Plaintiff seeks to represent the following state subclass only in the event that
`the Court declines to certify the Nationwide Class above:
`
`Washington Subclass:
`All persons or entities in Washington who are current or former owners and/or
`lessees of a Class Device (the “Washington Subclass”).
`
`The Nationwide Class and the Washington Subclass are referred to herein
`52.
`as the “Class.” Plaintiff reserves the right to modify, change, or expand the definitions of
`the Class based upon discovery and further investigation.
`53.
`The Class excludes the following: Defendant, its affiliates, and its current
`and former employees, officers and directors, and the Judge assigned to this case. Also
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 14
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`excluded are any current or former owners or lessees of Class Devices with
`individualized claims related to the Defect. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify, change,
`or expand the definitions of the Nationwide Class and Washington Subclass based upon
`discovery and further investigation.
`54. Numerosity: The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
`impracticable. At least hundreds of thousands of Class members have been subjected
`to Defendant’ conduct. The class is ascertainable by reference to records in the
`possession of Defendant.
`55. Predominance: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members
`of the Class. These questions predominate over questions affecting individual members
`of the Class and include:
`a. Whether the Class Devices were sold with a Defect;
`b. Whether Defendant knew of the Defect at the time of sale;
`c. Whether Defendant failed to disclose the Defect;
`d. Whether Defendant actively concealed the Defect;
`e. Whether a reasonable consumer would consider the Defect or its
`manifestation to be material;
`f. Whether Defendant breached express and/or implied warranties;
`g. Whether Defendant must disclose the Defect; and
`h. Whether Defendant violated consumer protection statutes and the other
`claims asserted herein.
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the
`56.
`Class, as all such claims arise out of Defendant’s conduct in designing, manufacturing,
`marketing, advertising, warranting, and selling the Class Devices. All of Plaintiff’s claims
`are typical of the claims of the Class since Plaintiff and all Class members were injured
`in the same manner by Defendant’s uniform course of conduct described herein.
`Plaintiff and all Class members have the same claims against Defendant relating to the
`
`PLAINTIFF’S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT - 15
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00843 Document 1 Filed 06/15/22 Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`conduct alleged herein, and the same events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims for relief are
`identical to those giving rise to the claims of all Class members. Plaintiff and all Class
`members sustained economic injuries including, but not limit