Legal


By: www.mountainviewcellphones.com  9/14/08

When you get a new phone or upgrade with Sprint, you will be asked whether you want Total Equipment Protection with the phone.  As a service center, we of course promote this because we want users to be protected in their investment, but the reality is, we really don’t understand the risk profile of each customer.

First, let’s understand the economics of Sprint’s insurance or service and repair program.  Sprint has divided the service criteria into four quadrants for walk in customers.  These prices are for walk in customers without insurance.  On the X axis, we have damage classifications as “Normal Wear and Tear” and “Physical Damage.”  On the Y axis, we have “Phone and Mobile Broadband Cards” and “PDA” devices.  My little diagram is below for clarity. 

Normal Wear and Tear                    Physical Damage

Phone & MBC           $35                                                 $99

PDA                            $55                                                 $119

Normal Wear and Tear on devices is considered anything outside of physical damage.  Physical damage is considered cracked or broken screen or housing, cracked or separated flip or hinge assemblies, cracked or bleeding LCD, cracked or broken lenses, and/or a broken charging port.  In other words, any significant repair is going to cost you $99 or $119 dollars.

However, not included in this chart is that basic software problems with the phone that can be fixed free of charge.  These use to be $15 service charges but are now free for all Sprint customers.       

I would highly recommend you get the insurance if you are a “high” risk profile.  How do you know you are high risk.  Here are some questions to ask yourself.

1.  Have dogs or other animals that like to play with things you touch?

2.  Have little children that take things and drop/throw them or put them in their mouth?

3.  Are active outdoors and have the phone on you while outdoors?

4.  Are you in a profession requiring you to use the phone while outdoors or on the road?  (Sales, construction, mobile technicians, mobile nursing etc…)

5.  Have you destroyed many phones in the past?  (Left in pocket and went thru washing machine?)

6.  Are you prone to losing items?  (Frequently leave your personal belongings on airplanes, restaurants, client sites, etc…)

7.  Are you a heavy phone user?  Use more than 2000 minutes per month?

If you answered “yes” to any of the above, then I would consider you as “high” risk.  

If you are high risk, then it makes the greatest sense for you to get the Equipment Replacement Program for the Physical Damage coverage or the Total Equipment Protection program.  This is assuming an incident happens to you and you are able to redeem the benefits you have pre-paid for.  However, the advantage here is that you the consumer know more about how you treat your phone than the carrier.     

For physical damage, the cost with the Equipment Replacement Program is $4/month + $50/deductible.  Assuming the replacement cost of a new phone is about $280 the first year, you would save about $226-$184 for the year.  Your savings for the 2nd year, if an incident happened would be $102-$68 versus a 1 year upgrade eligible phone.  After this point, it becomes a better value proposition to buy a new phone with the upgrade credits provided in the 2nd year.

The Total Equipment Protection program would yield a benefit of $223-$148 in the first year and $43-$7 in the second year.

For a phone that costs more than $280 in value for replacement and you are in a high risk category, it almost always makes sense to get either protection program.  All PDA and smartphones fall in this category.       

If you were hesitant about spending $7/month, get the $4/month Equipment Replacement program as these are the incidents that cost the most money and pay for walk-in service as needed.    

By: www.mountainviewcellphones.com 8/2/2008

I recently reviewed the tentative ruling by the Alameda Superior court awarding damages to the plaintiff’s for ETF’s and essentially stating early termination fees as illegal due to their premise not based on damages for the liquidated damages. AKA (Ayyad vs. Sprint, case number RG03121510, http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/service?ServiceName=DomainWebService&PageName=itree&Action=21704699). It was tough reading due to the poor resolution of the documents, but it was very interesting.

This case pertains to subscribers and actions that happened from around 2000 to 2006, a time of great change and innovation in the wireless business. Plaintiff’s claim that early termination fees (ETF) were not legal under California Civil Code 1671 because of the punitive nature of the fees. However the court, because of a mixed up jury decision, found that ETFs were not illegal provided they take into consideration the ACTUAL DAMAGES incurred.

Here is a rewrite of the major conclusions:

1. Sprint proved it was impractical to calculate actual damages by the early termination of contracts (due to complexity of business and measuring avoidable costs).

Other court evidence: The courts analysis on this matter clear found the Sprint GREATLY underestimated damages from ETF fees and was inconsistent in this regard versus a true liquidated damage for the contracts.

2. Sprint did not prove that ETF was created or set based on analysis of damages.

I think the court correctly determined that the marketing department of Sprint made ETFs to keep up with the other carriers and lower the risk of the business with its main competitors.

3. Sprint did not prove ETF varied with amount of ACTUAL DAMAGES.

This is an actual criteria in case law as a test for liquidated damages being legal in California.

4. Sprint proved that the ETFs actually underestimated damages.

So, given points 1 to 4, under the Civil Code 1671 of California, the motivation and purpose (another case law test) of the ETF was something outside of collection of damages brought about by early termination of the contract. This makes them illegal.

This opens up the can of worms that had Sprint made better efforts to align actual damages to the ETF provisions and set up systems for this, this would have been very legal.

Remarkably, the judge ruled that despite Sprint’s unlawful ETF, the plaintiff (consumers) benefitted from Sprint’s UNDERSTATEMENT of actual damages estimated by the court had the ETF been legally structured.

In a strange ruling of damages, Sprint is ordered to return the $73MM that it has collected already from ETF damages in the form of $18.3MM payment and reversal of $54.7MM in charges.

In concluding, this was a mashed up decision due to a jury that did not make a consistent decision and a judge that tried to rule (”I think rightly”) on case law and the actual structure of the fees.

Read the rest of this entry »

This blog is the personal opinion of the team members and are not to be taken as anything else other than opinions presented to help the readers. Any opinions expressed here are not of Sprint Nextel corporation and/or Guide Services. The team members, Guide Services, and/or Sprint Nextel are not liable for actions or consequences of the reader's actions due to any content presented in this site. The reader assumes all personal responsibility for actions and consequences the reader takes thru or because of the opinions expressed on this site.