Material adverse change to contract - Invalid Early Termination Fee

I guess what I'm not understanding is whether you actually called
Sprint's customer service and told them why you were terminating.
Everyone is focusing on whether Sprint considers this slight change in
fee to qualify for a nix of the ETF. However, the terms that you
quoted specifically state:

"If a change we make to the Agreement is material and has a material
adverse effect on Services under your Term Commitment, you may
terminate each line of Service materially affected without incurring
an Early Termination Fee only if you: (a) call us within 30 days after
the effective date of the change; and (b) specifically advise us that
you wish to cancel Services because of a material change to the
Agreement that we have made..."

If you called them as they require, and advised them of the reason you
were terminating, shouldn't you have been made aware at that time that
Sprint wasn't accepting your reasoning and why? Were you told that
they would indeed cancel without the ETF?

Didn't the fee go from .99 to $1.50 -- so you are actually talking
about .51 cents? Right?

Which just over $6.00 a YEAR?!



Your claiming "materially adverse change" on $6 and change a year if I
understand this correctly.

Read the T&C of your contract. Almost all T&C that I have seen state
somewhere that the terms and conditions are subject to change, and you
are usually given ample notice of said changes. If you accept the
service and then disagree with the terms, that does not mean that you
are not still bound by said terms.

The problem you're facing is that you may have to actually PROVE 1.50
is actually causing an "Adverse material change" to your budget.


Simply saying, "Adverse material charge!!!" because you don't want to
pay the fee does not actually mean it's going to be approved.

Effective September 9th, Sprint changed the T&C of the contract by
increasing the Administration Fee from .99 to $1.50. They also changed
the arbitration clause in the contract to mandate that the company
JAMS be used. Both of these are materially adverse changes to the
contract with them.

In Cunningham vs. Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, page 611 of the third
Federal Reporter, volume 253, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that arbitration clauses are material terms to a contract.

In addition, Sprint's additional changes in policies are:
1) $0 upgrade fee online raised to $36 for new phone upgrades ($36 for
each line)
2) Sprint Premiere ends
3) Return policy goes from 30 days to 14 days
4) Raising admin fees and changing arbitration clause (material
adverse that affected me)
5) ETF goes from $200 to $350
6) Charging $1.99/mo for detailed monthly statements

Since September, Sprint has silently added new language to the Terms
and Conditions. They now specifically mention an administrative fee
range:
---
**Monthly charges exclude taxes, Sprint Surcharges [incl. USF charge
of up to 14.4% (varies quarterly), Administrative Charge (up to
$1.99/line/mo.), Regulatory Charge ($0.40/line/mo.) & state/local fees
by area (approx. 5-20%)]. Sprint Surcharges are not taxes or
gov't-required charges and are subject to change. Details:
Sprint.com/taxesandfees.
---

This new language has been added only in the last couple of days,
without any notice to customers whatsoever. Sprint is now openly
flouting the most elementary principles of contract law.

By the way, this new clause still does not give Sprint the right to
change any of these fees without triggering the ETF-free cancellation
clause. The cancellation clause clearly states:
---
We may change any part of the Agreement at any time, including, but
not limited to, rates, charges, how we calculate charges, discounts,
coverage, technologies used to provide services, or your terms of
Service. We will provide you notice of material changes—and we may
provide you notice of non-material changes—in a manner consistent
with
this Agreement (see "Providing Notice To Each Other Under The
Agreement" section). If a change we make to the Agreement is material
and has a material adverse effect on Services under your Term
Commitment, you may terminate each line of Service materially
affected
without incurring an Early Termination Fee only if you: (a) call us
within 30 days after the effective date of the change; and (b)
specifically advise us that you wish to cancel Services because of a
material change to the Agreement that we have made.


Sprint claims to follow the CTIA Consumer Code. However, the Code
says:
---
Carriers will not modify the material terms of their subscribers'
contracts in a manner that is materially adverse to subscribers
without providing a reasonable advance notice of a proposed
modification and allowing subscribers a time period of not less than
14 days to cancel their contracts with no early termination fee.
---

Sprint has thrown its CTIA Code certification out the window.

The same thing still does not prove that $18.00 a year represents a
material adverse effect. Also they are saying the extra charges are
fees. Good luck. A few were able to get the fee waived but Sprint
(and all the other carriers) stopped caving. I really don't think you
have a case for material adverse effect.

You have to prove that $1.50 per month reflects a materially adverse
change. It's going to be hard to prove that $18.00 per year effects.

The BBB is useless against large corporations and the FCC does not
handle individual billing disputes, all they do is file them.

I'd have to see the entire contract to see if it was covered, but I'm
betting that Sprint does not consider an additional $1.50 to be a
materially adverse change to the contact. I suspect that they
classify it as a non-material change.

critical wording of the agreement (at least, the part of it you
present). What does the FCC say about it? The fact that you've
contacted them and still didn't get the resolution you wanted makes me
suspect that Sprint didn't violate any terms of your contract.
It sucks, but big companies like this always dictate contract terms.
We little people have to like it or lump it.