Class Action suit against T-Mobile claims it lied to Congress and ripped off minority-owned stores

Class Action suit against T-Mobile claims it lied to Congress and ripped off minority-owned stores،

T Mobile East currently involved in a class action lawsuit (via Main class actions) brought by individuals T Mobile stores. The owners of these stores claim that T-Mobile lied to Congress by claiming that the merger with Sprint would result in the opening of hundreds of retail stores. Instead, these store owners say that T Mobile ended up buying out minority-owned locations for little to no compensation.

According to Top Class Actions, stores and T Mobile met virtually on December 18 to try to reach an agreement through mediation. In a letter to U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati, the plaintiffs said the two sides had not reached an agreement. T Mobile will now ask the court to hear its motion to dismiss the suit while the stores ask the court to begin the discovery process in which both parties exchange a list of evidence they plan to present to the court .

T-Mobile Fails to Reach Mediation Agreement in Trying to Stay Class Action Against It - T-Mobile Class Action Lawsuit Claims It Lied to Congress and Scam Minority-Owned Stores

T-Mobile fails to reach mediation agreement in attempt to delay class-action lawsuit against it

The class action claims that T Mobile conspired with the national T Mobile Retailer and master dealer Arch Telecom to close or buy majority-minority company T Mobile stores. The complaint alleges that “Arch Telecom is attempting to close plaintiffs' stores for absolutely zero compensation, depriving them of their livelihood and disgorging them of their investments. This is occurring as this complaint is filed” (i.e. i.e. last March). ). Arch Telecom is the third largest T Mobile retailer with more than 400 stores in 32 states.

The filing goes on to say: “Plaintiffs are primarily community organizations. T Mobile stores, and that's what T Mobile and Arch Telecom prefer to call them “sub-resellers”. T Mobile and Arch Telecom consider the latter as a “Master Dealer”. Using its operating standards, T Mobile controls virtually every aspect of the plaintiffs' activities.

The suit cites comments made by former T Mobile CEO John Legere, at the time of the Sprint merger announcement, said, “We're going to build hundreds of stores. Legere also highlighted “jobs” as the reason why the T Mobile buying Sprint made sense. The plaintiffs pointed out that “T-Mobile never informed the sublicensees, prior to approval of the merger, that it
planned to close stores such as the plaintiffs' stores.

The plaintiffs are seeking $100 million in compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees that are likely to be substantial. The filing explains how many plaintiffs suffered a financial hit. A sub-dealer was initially offered $35,000 for his store, which was later increased to $100,000. However, the store had recently been renovated, costing the owner $120,000, so the offer was declined.

But with the contracts between T Mobile and the applicants are expected to expire in June 2024, T Mobile had the upper hand by attempting to create what the plaintiffs called an “artificial termination date” of March 2023. The plaintiffs say T Mobile played a dirty game of squeeze and buy.

The lawsuit says the April 2020 merger between T Mobile and Sprint was an anti-competitive acquisition that collectively cost America's small businesses and AT&T and Verizon subscribers billions of dollars.