You are on page 1of 9

VIA EXPRESS MAIL AND EMAIL General Counsel Arbitration Office 12502 Sunrise Valley Drive Mailstop VARESA0202

-2C682; Reston, Virginia 20191 Email: charles.wunsch@mail.sprint.com July 18, 2013 Dear Mr. Wunsch / Office of the General Counsel: In view of the material changes to the Terms and Conditions (available at http://www.sprint.com/termsandconditions) that went into effect on July 1, 2013, I have repeatedly notified Sprint from July 1, 2013 onward of my wish to cancel Services. Unable to have my Services canceled without incurring an Early Termination Fee (“ETF”), as is my desire and my right under the Terms and Conditions, and further in view of the unfair and deceptive trade practices to which I have been subjected while attempting to assert my right to so cancel my Services, I am contacting you pursuant to the Dispute Resolution section of the Terms and Conditions that govern my account (Account # 854403711) with you. As an initial matter, I note that the website referenced above, as of July 2, 2013, displayed both the terms and conditions governing my relationship with Sprint as of September 9, 2011 (hereinafter, the “Previous Ts&Cs,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) and the terms and conditions purportedly governing my relationship with Sprint as of July 1, 2013 (hereinafter, the “New Ts&Cs,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B). The website referenced above no longer displays the Previous Ts&Cs, suggesting that it is Sprint’s position that the New Ts&Cs now govern my relationship with Sprint, despite (a) my not having assented to those terms, and (b) my repeated attempts to terminate my relationship with Sprint without incurring an ETF. Upon learning of the then-upcoming New Ts&Cs in June, I compared the Previous Ts&Cs with the New Ts&Cs to determine the changes that Sprint was planning to implement in its relationship with me. In doing so, I created a redline document comparing the Previous Ts&Cs with the New Ts&Cs (hereinafter, the “Ts&Cs Redline,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C). In my review of the Ts&Cs Redline, I identified numerous material changes in the New Ts&Cs. Pursuant to the Previous Ts&Cs, I may terminate each line of Service materially affected by the changes without incurring an ETF if I “(a) call [Sprint] within 30 days after the effective date of the change; and (b) specifically advise [Sprint] that [I] wish to cancel Services because of a material change to the Agreement that [Sprint has] made.” I called Sprint on July 1, 2013, twice on July 2, 2013, and twice on July 5, 2013, speaking with a total of seven (7) Sprint representatives (including service agents, supervisors, and account managers) and specifically advised each of them that I wished to cancel my Services because of a material change to the Terms and Conditions1 that Sprint has made. Accordingly, under the clear and unambiguous language of the Previous Ts&Cs, I have satisfied my obligations and am thus entitled to terminate my account with Sprint without incurring an ETF. 1
Per the Terms and Conditions available at the website referenced above, the term “Agreement” includes the Terms and Conditions.

Although it is not required by either the Previous Ts&Cs or the New Ts&Cs, in the interest of resolving this dispute as amicably as possible, I summarize below five (5) of the material changes between the two documents that I identified, which I believe materially affects my lines of Service. I identify and summarize the changes in the order in which they appear in the Terms and Conditions. I do not contend that these five material changes are the only material changes introduced by the New Ts&Cs, but I do contend that any of these changes taken individually, and certainly when taken together, enable me to cancel my Services with Sprint without incurring an ETF. After I identify and summarize these changes, I then describe the process I have already gone through with Sprint in trying to resolve this issue, to show that I have repeatedly tried to reach a solution with Sprint. I have not been helped through this process, and instead been subjected to repeated unfair and deceptive trade practices by Sprint, which entitles me to other judicial and/or regulatory remedies. Material Change 1 – Termination Procedure The first material change relates to the very procedure by which I am entitled to terminate my Service without incurring an ETF in view of a material change. This change appears in the section titled “Our Right To Change The Agreement & Your Related Rights.” As noted above, in the Previous Ts&Cs, in the event of a material change, if I wish to terminate my Service without incurring an ETF, I must “(a) call [Sprint] within 30 days after the effective date of the change; and (b) specifically advise [Sprint] that [I] wish to cancel Services because of a material change to the Agreement that [Sprint has] made.” Under the New Ts&Cs, Sprint adds a condition (c), which does not allow me to terminate unless Sprint “fail[s] to negate the change after [I] notify [Sprint] of [my] objection to it.” This change is material for numerous reasons. First, it imposes on me a new burden – having to identify to Sprint what I believe the material changes are. Indeed, because of this very burden and Sprint’s unwillingness to honor the terms of the Previous Ts&Cs, I am being forced to bear this burden at the moment and expend the time, effort, energy, and legal resources to identify these changes to Sprint, both over the phone and in this letter. My Services have therefore already been subjected to a materially adverse effect due to the material changes introduced in the New Ts&Cs. Second, it affords Sprint an opportunity to undo changes on an individual basis. This ability will empower Sprint to enact far more material, sweeping changes to the Terms and Conditions in the future. Under the Previous Ts&Cs, Sprint had a strong disincentive against enacting material changes that would materially adversely affect its customers – namely, that doing so would permit all of its customers to terminate their Services with Sprint. However, under the New Ts&Cs, there is no such disincentive. Sprint is freed from this burden, as it may enact sweeping changes that materially adversely affect its customers (e.g., increasing surcharges by a few dollars), and if numerous customers desire to cancel their Services, Sprint may simply negate those changes as to those specific customers, while still retaining the benefit of those changes as to all other customers. There will not be any risk to Sprint in enacting such material changes in the future which would serve as a check on Sprint’s desire to do so. This fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between Sprint and me, and indeed, between Sprint and all of its customers. I do not wish to be forced to bear the risk of Sprint enacting such sweeping changes in the future, and to be forced to waste time communicating with Sprint in the future if I wish to terminate my Services, particularly in view of how much time I have already spent trying to exercise my rights under the Terms and Conditions with respect to the current changes.

The most poignant evidence that this change is material is my current situation. Under the Previous Ts&Cs, I would have already been entitled to terminate my Service with Sprint, as I satisfied conditions (a) and (b). Yet, under Sprint’s changes in the New Ts&Cs, I would have to further identify my changes to Sprint and allow Sprint to have an opportunity to negate them for me. Accordingly, I am in a materially adverse position in view of these changes – i.e., still under contract awaiting a decision by Sprint to negate the changes I have been forced to identify versus already having a terminated contract without having incurred an ETF. Material Change 2 – Maximum Call Duration The second material change relates to Sprint creating for itself the ability to set a maximum call duration. This appears in the section titled “How We Calculate Your Charges For Billing Purposes.” Sprint added the following sentence to this section in the New Ts&Cs: “Call time for a single call may be subject to a maximum duration and may be automatically terminated if the maximum duration is exceeded.” The materiality of this change should be obvious. Sprint, under the New Ts&Cs, may now set a maximum call duration and terminate calls that exceed it. Notably, Sprint does not have any requirement (a) to communicate that maximum call duration to its customers, (b) for the maximum call duration to be reasonable, or (c) to impose the maximum call duration consistently, whether among different customers, at different times of day, at different locations, or otherwise. For example, Sprint, under the New Ts&Cs, may set a maximum call duration of 5 minutes for unprofitable customers or unprofitable uses to actively discourage such use. Customers who use roaming frequently, customers who make calls at high-traffic times or locations, or customers who begin a call at 6:59AM hoping to be able to enjoy a long call without using their allocated minutes, may now have their calls terminated at any time, to discourage such use, even though such use is permissible under the customers’ Services with Sprint. Even if Sprint imposed on itself a reasonableness standard or a reasonableness standard were legally implied, Sprint is still reserving for itself the right to terminate a call after, for example, 2 hours. Such a limit, though arguably reasonable, still reduces the rights that I and other customers currently have with Sprint. Moreover, the reduction in rights relates to the very core of the Services that Sprint provides – mobile telephone service. Material Change 3 –Surcharges The third material change relates to the types of additional charges that Sprint is asserting it can levy upon its customers. This change appears in the section titled “Surcharges.” Under the Previous Ts&Cs, Sprint required customers to pay certain Surcharges and included in the types of Surcharges the following miscellaneous category: “certain other taxes imposed upon Sprint; or charges for the costs that we incur and pass along to you.” In the New Ts&Cs, this miscellaneous category is replaced with a much broader “other charges.” This change is material because it now empowers Sprint with an unlimited ability to add new Surcharges. Although Sprint already had broad discretion to impose new Surcharges on customers under the Previous Ts&Cs, at least the discretion was limited to passing along taxes or charges that Sprint incurred itself. Under the New Ts&Cs, this discretion is not so limited, so Sprint is asserting the right to add Surcharges based on its own desire to seek additional revenue, and not merely to recoup taxes, fees, or other costs Sprint itself incurred. I do not wish to be subjected to such discretion by Sprint. Material Change 4 –Disputes

The fourth material change relates to what constitutes a “Dispute” under the Terms and Conditions. The definition of Dispute is critical because it defines the types of disputes that are subject to the onerous dispute resolution procedures specified in the Terms and Conditions, which procedures have also materially changed and are the subject of Material Change 5, below. The definition of Dispute has been broadened in several ways under the New Ts&Cs. First, the Previous Ts&Cs stated that “Disputes are any claims or controversies against each other…”, yet the New Ts&Cs state that “Disputes shall include, but are not limited to, any claims or controversies against each other…”. Thus, the plain language of this definition indicates that the New Ts&Cs are expressly broadening the scope of Disputes for which customers are stripped of their rights to pursue judicial remedies. Second, the definition of Disputes is broadened by the New Ts&Cs because, for the first time, it includes disputes that not only I may bring against Sprint, but also those that any “authorized or unauthorized user of the Services or Devices.” So if my wife, other family member, friend, or anyone else uses my phone and has any claim at all arising out of such use, they too are subjected to the dispute resolution process in the New Ts&Cs. Third, the definition of Disputes is also broadened by the New Ts&Cs to include claims I may have against not only Sprint, but also any retailers, equipment manufacturers, or other third parties relating to the Services. Accordingly, the New Ts&Cs are forcing me to waive my legal rights against not only Sprint, but also against HTC (the manufacturer of my phone) and other third parties that in any way relate to the Services. I do not believe that Sprint’s dispute resolution process will provide me an avenue to adequately address any damages I suffer due to Sprint’s actions, and I certainly do not want to be placed in a materially adverse position by having to submit to the dispute resolution process as to my disputes with third parties. Fourth, the definition of Disputes is broadened by the New Ts&Cs to include “claims that arose before this Agreement or out of a prior Agreement with Sprint.” This change materially adversely affects my rights by retroactively waiving rights that I had prior to July 1, 2013. Though the Previous Ts&Cs also required me to subject to Sprint’s dispute resolution process, the retroactive waiver now applies to the much broader set of disputes outlined in the New Ts&Cs, thereby placing me in a materially adverse position. Accordingly, these four changes to the definition of Disputes, each independently and certainly when taken together, materially adversely affect my rights to resolve disputes with Sprint, and thus materially adversely impacts my Services with Sprint. Under the New Ts&Cs, I am subjected to fewer options for recourse when Disputes such as the present one arise. Given my difficulty in resolving my current dispute with Sprint, I do not wish to have to subject myself to this same procedure for future (or indeed, past) disputes with Sprint or other third parties, nor do I wish to require my friends and family to do the same if they happen to use my phone, as would be required under the New Ts&Cs. Material Change 5 –Dispute Resolution Procedure Sprint has overhauled and re-written entirely the dispute resolution procedures in the New Ts&Cs. Any change to the Terms and Conditions that affects a customer’s right to pursue his or her legal avenues for dispute resolution must be considered material, as legal options serve as the only check against Sprint’s ability to take advantage of individual customers still under contract. Despite the complete overhaul of the dispute resolution procedures specified in the New Ts&Cs, I focus on one specific change – the inability to pursue small claims court actions without first using Sprint’s 45-day dispute resolution procedure.

The Previous Ts&Cs (a) required that we bring claims arising out of Disputes only through arbitration or small claims court, (b) required that Sprint and I contact each other regarding any Disputes, and (c) required that we agree to a 45-day period during which we attempt to resolve such Disputes prior to initiating arbitration (but not a small claims court action). Thus, to comply with the Previous Ts&Cs, if I wanted to bring a small claims court action, I needed only to first contact Sprint regarding my Dispute. Only if I sought to arbitrate my Dispute would I need to use the 45-day period to follow the dispute resolution process specified in the Previous Ts&Cs. To comply with the New Ts&Cs, I must follow the dispute resolution process over the 45-day period prior to initiating arbitration or a small claims court action against Sprint. Accordingly, this change has already materially affected my rights and the Services to which these rights relate. The terms of the New Ts&Cs would preclude me from bringing a small claims court action against Sprint until 45 days after the date of this letter, whereas under the Previous Ts&Cs, I could have already brought a small claims court action against Sprint. Accordingly, this change is material, and has already placed me in an actual, materially adverse position when compared to the Previous Ts&Cs.

Mishandling of This Process by Sprint, Including use of Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices As discussed above, in view of the five material changes outlined in this letter, as well as other material changes, I am entitled to terminate my Services with Sprint without incurring an ETF. I describe below my attempts to contact Sprint to date, and Sprint’s mishandling of this process, including the use of various unfair and deceptive trade practices that have caused me (and likely countless other Sprint customers) injury. Initial Call With Sprint on July 1, 2013 I first called Sprint customer service to provide notice of my desire to cancel my Services without incurring an ETF in view of the material changes introduced in the New Ts&Cs on July 1, 2013, at approximately 12:30 PM Central Time. I spoke with an initial representative and then his supervisor. Both the representative and supervisor informed me that there were no material changes in the Terms and Conditions, and thus I was unable to terminate my agreement without incurring an ETF. I explained to the supervisor that there were in fact material changes, and although I was not required to identify them to her, I was happy to do so to facilitate the process. I identified material changes as I described above, despite being constantly interrupted by the supervisor. After I informed her of the material changes, she told me that (a) none of these were material changes, and that (b) a material change (i.e., a change that would allow me to terminate my Services without incurring an ETF) was only one in which there was a direct monetary impact, such as an increase in fees. I immediately disputed that contention with her and asked her where in either the Previous Ts&Cs or the New Ts&Cs that appeared. She informed me that it was a “long document” and that language was “somewhere” in the document. I then explained that I had read both documents and did not believe that statement was in either document, but would be happy to review it if she could identify where in the document it was. She placed me on a long hold, indicating she would review the documents and consult with others, and then indicate to me where the statement was. When she returned, she did not provide any indication where the statement was, but merely returned to her assertion that there were no material changes causing a monetary effect and she would not be able to allow me to terminate my Services. I then again asked her to point out where in the document the termination rights required a monetary effect. She initially stated that it was in the “last paragraph” or the “end of the document.” I read the entire last paragraph on the phone to her (under the heading “Other Important Terms”), which does not relate to materiality of changes or monetary charges. She then stated it appeared in the section titled “Our Right To Change The Agreement & Your Related Rights.” I immediately told her that was the section I had been citing all along and did not contain that language. She stated again that a monetary change was required and that she would not be able to tell me anything further, and that she would disconnect the call. I stated that my questions had not been resolved, that I requested my ETF be waived in view of the material changes, and failing that, a truthful explanation as to why that could not be done. She disconnected the call despite my indicating my question had not been answered. Subsequent Calls With Sprint on July 2 and July 5, 2013 Still desiring to cancel my Services without incurring an ETF and bothered by the

misrepresentations by Sprint regarding the New Ts&Cs, I called Sprint at least four more times on July 2 and July 5, 2013. I spoke with at least seven additional representatives and supervisors during this time, most of which were not particularly helpful, relying on many of the same (and additional) deceptive practices and misrepresentations as I was subjected to during my initial call with Sprint on July 1. For example, during the course of my calls with these representatives, I was subjected to many false statements including, but not limited to, the following: • There were no material changes caused by the New Ts&Cs • I could not terminate the Services without an ETF because no additional costs or fees had been imposed • If I was concerned that I only have 30 days to terminate after the New Ts&Cs went into effect, yet must submit to Sprint’s 45-day dispute resolution period (after which time my window to cancel would be closed), I should not have waited until July 1 to attempt to cancel, but rather should have called to cancel as soon as I was aware of the New Ts&Cs going into effect2 • The only changes introduced by the New Ts&Cs, none of which are material and none of which affect me, are: o Changes to the IDEN Network o Change in billing practices o Changes to the dispute resolution section3 The above are mere examples of actions taken by Sprint that (a) mislead consumers (b) in a way that consumers are likely to reasonably rely on Sprint’s misrepresentations (c) in a material way (i.e., by leading them not to terminate their Services with Sprint). Moreover, the above are also examples of Sprint making false and misleading statements about its Terms and Conditions and takes advantage of consumers’ lack of knowledge and ability to a grossly unfair degree. Accordingly, these practices could be considered deceptive trade practices under various federal and state laws and/or regulations. Unfair Aspects to Sprint’s Process Many aspects of Sprint’s handling of this situation and the processes Sprint has in place are unfair trade practices. Based on the above, it appears that Sprint’s strategy is to mislead any consumers such as myself who desire to terminate their Services in view of the material changes. Sprint likely concludes (quite rationally) that most consumers – even those that identify changes in the Terms and Conditions – are unlikely to make repeated calls to Sprint to attempt to cancel their Services, and will either (a) believe the misrepresentations provided by Sprint or (b) otherwise abandon their efforts and decide to continue their Services with Sprint rather than continuing to waste time. In addition to the above, the process set forth in the New Ts&Cs effectively preclude 2
This is a misrepresentation because the Previous T&Cs and the New T&Cs both require that I wait until the changes go into effect prior to calling Sprint to cancel.

3
This is a misrepresentation because, as discussed in this letter, the three identified changes are not the only changes introduced by the New T&Cs, and

customers from being able to terminate their Services with Sprint without incurring an ETF. Specifically, to have their ETF waived, customers are required to actually cancel (not merely notify Sprint of the intent to cancel) their Services due to a material change to the Terms and Conditions within 30 days of the effective date of such material change. Per the New Ts&Cs, customers must call Sprint to effectuate this cancellation. If the Sprint call center representatives are told that they are not permitted to waive ETFs for customers in this situation, then customers’ only recourse (per the New Ts&Cs) is to submit to Sprint’s dispute resolution procedure, which requires that customers engage in a 45-day process to resolve the dispute prior to seeking relief through arbitration or smallclaims court. By the time the dispute resolution procedure has concluded, a consumer’s window to terminate the Services without incurring an ETF will be closed. This practice is likely to cause substantial injuries to Sprint customers that are unavoidable by the customers. Accordingly, Sprint’s New Ts&Cs, in addition to the other practices detailed above, constitute unfair trade practices, as they effectively prevent customers from exercising their contractual right to terminate their Services due to material changes to the Terms and Conditions implemented by Sprint. Request for Relief In view of the material changes introduced by the New Ts&Cs, including without limitation those identified herein, please provide me written confirmation that I may terminate my Services with Sprint immediately without incurring an ETF, providing me at least one billing cycle to port my phone numbers associated with my account out of Sprint. In view of Sprint’s unfair and deceptive trade practices to which I and other Sprint customers have been subjected, including without limitation those identified herein, causing me economic injury and mental anguish arising therefrom, including without limitation (a) spending many hours speaking with numerous Sprint representatives, (b) forcing me to consult with attorneys regarding this matter, (c) causing me to continuing remaining with Sprint and paying for the Services after I desired to cancel the Services, (d) causing me to miss the opportunity to purchase certain phones with Sprint competitors to replace my Sprint Services prior to the prices of such phones increasing, please provide the following remedies: • damages in the amount of $2,500; and • written confirmation that Sprint will (a) immediately cease all unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the New Ts&Cs, including without limitation those practices identified on pages 5-7 of this letter, and (b) not engage in any unfair and deceptive trade practices, including without limitation any practices identical or similar to those practices identified on pages 5-7 of this letter with respect to future changes to Sprint’s Terms and Conditions. I look forward to your response. In view of the short window I have to terminate my Services with Sprint without incurring an ETF, I request a response within five (5) days via email or phone. If I fail to receive a response within five (5) days, I will consider other legal avenues, including my right to pursue the matter in small claims court4 and/or 4
Although the terms of the New T&Cs preclude me from seeking redress in small claims court until 45 days after the date of this letter, I do not believe I should be subject to the New T&Cs as I have not assented to them and indeed have continuously indicated my strong objection to them.

to seek the assistance of various regulatory and other agencies including the Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau, and various state Attorney Generals’ offices. Sincerely,