New Headache for Cell Phone Comanies or good news for consumers?

[CaroPhoenix]

Early Termination fees = illegal California Judge Rules

Sprint Nextel has been ordered to pay back $18.2 million.

[MystyGlyttyr]

Whenever I see rulings like this, I always wonder whether or not the individual judge may be an SC carting around a grudge because some cell phone carrier in the past didn't let him dictate his own terms because "I R JUDGE".

...of course, I'm quite cynical and disparaging of most in positions of power...

[tropicsgoddess]

It could be a bad thing for the companies since they'll lose out on a chunk of money from not having the early termination fees. On the other hand it could be good for consumers since they won't have to pay such an exorbitant amount of money just because they chose to terminate their contracts early for whatever reason.

[Aethian]

It is only for California too.

[rvdammit]

The early termination fees are in place, at least partially, to recoup the electronics cost on the "free" phones.

[draggar]

Plus, the consumer should be fully aware of their ETFs when they sign the contracts. People are always expecting to get something for nothing. THEY sign the contract, THEY have time to get out ETF free. The carriers didn't hold a gun to their head and tell them that they have to sign it.

And only Sprint-Nextel's are illegal? Not AT&T, Verison, T-Mobile, Alltell, and the others?

A lot of times lawsuits like this are deliberately taken to judges who almost always rule against the companies (look at where a lot of "class action lawsuits" take place) guaranteeing a ruling in favor of consumers.

We really need to look at our judges, amongst other things.