|
A California Court of Appeal has ruled that because allegedly unconscionable contract terms were never asserted against them, the Plaintiffs seeking to sue a cell phone service provider lacked standing to bring their claims.
In Meyer v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., No. G037375, 2007 WL 1430343 (Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2007), Meyer, a customer of Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Sprint) – a cell phone service provider – claimed that her customer service agreement with Sprint included illegal and unconscionable terms, including an agreement to arbitrate.
Meyer sued under California's unfair competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq., which allow suits by both private parties and the Attorney General. However, citizens suing under the Acts must show some actual harm to bring a lawsuit.
Given the actual harm requirement, the Court did not rule on the merits of her claims, as neither Meyer nor any of her co-plaintiffs alleged that Sprint had ever asserted, or threatened to assert, any of the allegedly unconscionable terms against them. Instead, the Court found that because no injury had been suffered, and none of the alleged unconscionable terms had prevented Meyer from asserting her rights, there was no actual controversy before the Court. Therefore, the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, and the case was dismissed.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|