Notice that your freshly-purchased N75 smells more like a week-old head of cabbage than a bundle of brand new plastic, glue, and circuitry? That's gross, and no, we don't want to touch it (seriously, get that thing away from us). Turns out you may not be alone, though -- a new class-action suit filed in federal court alleges that CommClub, an independent retailer in California, was selling used Nokias for AT&T's network as brand new devices. For whatever reason, AT&T and Nokia are also named as defendants in the suit, though we're not sure exactly what role they played in CommClub's potentially nefarious dealings; at any rate, the class is looking to bring home some bacon for "injuries" suffered as a result of the bait-and-switch. You're going to go smell your N75 now, aren't you?

It's a far cry from the $1 billion potential pay-out we heard about initially, but it looks like Verizon will still be forking over a hefty chunk of cash as a result of that class action lawsuit over early termination fees -- $21 million, to be exact. Verizon still isn't about to admit to any wrong doing, however, with its spokesman saying simply that the suit "was a distraction," and that "this was a quick way to resolve it." As Dow Jones points out, the resolution of suits like these could well put a renewed focus on FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's efforts to curtail carriers' ability to charge ETF fees, which he hopes will eventually be governed by some national rules.

[Via Phone Scoop]

It's just the tip of the iceberg for the legal fallout from deceptive charges rung up by cellphone users hoping for a shot a free ringtones, wallpapers, and winning shots at contests simply by sending off a text message or an online form with their mobile number. Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and others are likely going to have to end up taking it on the chin after AT&T was taken to task -- first by the state of Florida and now by a series of class-action lawsuits that the carrier has chosen to settle (without admitting any wrongdoing in the process, for the record). It seems that customers will be able to file for refunds for such charges rung up between January 1, 2004, and May 30, 2008, for a total of up to three bill cycles' worth. AT&T will be sending out notifications of the settlement to its subscribers shortly; meanwhile, the lawyers involved in the suits collect a nice paycheck of $4.3 million -- a shade more than the average class action member is liable to get, we'd imagine.

[Via Phone Scoop]

For most, the Treo 600 and 650 are old enough so that we don't really remember if we had troubles with 'em or not -- but apparently we did, and some owners are now entitled to a little chunk of cash to show for it. A class action lawsuit filed against Palm "claimed that the Treo 600 and Treo 650 smartphones had certain defects, failed at unacceptable rates, and that Palm made misrepresentations concerning the Treo 600 and Treo 650 smartphones," and Palm just decided to settle the whole tiff rather than take it to trial. This means that if you owned a Treo 600 or 650 that required two or more repairs and ended up purchasing a new device within a certain period, you get a little spending money -- or you're entitled to some free repair work, even if your Treo didn't require two or more trips to the shop. Naturally, there are some rules and regs involved -- this is a legal matter, after all -- so head on over to the site to figure out whether you're affected and how you can cash in.

[Thanks, Michael G.]

It goes without saying that if you sell enough of pretty much anything, you're going to eventually get someone riled up over a missing feature, a broken feature, or in this case, an unwanted feature -- and that someone might just happen to know a lawyer (or worse yet, be one). The latest class action suit against Apple and AT&T over the iPhone, filed in California, reads like a what's-what of complaints we've heard since before the phone was even released: the carrier shouldn't be charging an early termination fee for a phone that isn't subsidized, its international roaming plan is a total ripoff compared to a prepaid SIM that you'd normally buy to use with an unlocked handset, and most notably, that neither AT&T nor Apple have the right to purposefully damage (via firmware update) or void the warranty of a "lawfully" unlocked iPhone. All told, the suit rocks the two companies with a grand total of six counts -- alleging violations of a garden variety of state and federal laws -- each asking for between $200 and $600 million in cold, hard cash. Anyone who's bought an iPhone and "sustained damages" from it is entitled to participate, so put on your lawyerin' pants and enjoy the courtroom action.

[Thanks, Mark]

Apple has obviously made some enemies over this whole iPhone firmware situation, and clearly not everyone wants to follow the straight-and-narrow when it comes to the company's factory-limited and locked device. Now, at least one California resident named Timothy Smith has decided to bring the fight to the Cupertino monolith's doorstep -- and he showed up with lawyers. According to papers filed last week, the angry iPhone owner is suing Apple in hopes of barring the company from selling locked phones, and forcing the Mac-maker to provide warranty service for customers even if they've bricked their phones via third-party software -- though there seems to be no definitive evidence that Apple's update is the source of the brickings. The suit claims that, "Apple forced plaintiff and the class members to pay substantially more for the iPhone and cell phone service than they would have paid in a competitive marketplace either for the iPhone or for AT&T's cell phone service," and that the company, "Acted in defiance and without sufficient consideration of consumers' rights to unlock their iPhones because it knew that the probable result of its update would be to render unlocked iPhones inoperable." The lawyers in the case have set up a website where owners can join in on the suit -- so if you're feeling slighted, maybe they can help.

If you're sick and tired of wireless carriers charging an arm and a leg for so-called "system access fees," you aren't alone. As wireless carriers up north rack in close to $800 million a year in said fees, they continue to brand the fees as required by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission -- even though the Government says that fees are no longer valid and don't need to be charged. Carriers were whacking Canadians with charges ranging from $6.95 for Rogers and Telus and up to $8.95 for Bell customers. Naturally, that kind of apparent overcharging can only lead to one thing: a class-action lawsuit. Get in while the gettin's good!

If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling holds up, that is. Basically, the court found that a clause in AT&T's (Cingular's at the time, actually) customer contract forcing customers to arbitrate instead of sue via class action was uncool -- "unconscionable under California law" was their exact wording, but you get the idea. We guess AT&T was looking to avoid having to make pesky public statements about lawsuits filed against it, and hey, who can blame 'em? Nice try, guys! [Warning: PDF link]

[Via Wired]

We know that having your phone stolen or lost can be a traumatic experience, however if you subscribe to wireless insurance through your carrier it makes the process a little less painful. Except when your wireless insurance provider tells you that one dreaded word you don't want to hear: You're getting a "refurb." The problem occurs when people pay the $50.00 deductible and more often the cost of the refurbished phone is less than the deductible. Last week a federal judge approved an initial settlement between Asurion and Lock\line that affects approx 15 thousand customers and soon they will be receiving the details of their settlement. Signal Holdings, the other major cellphone insurance company, is waiting their trial date to be issued.


[Thanks, Sergio]

You don't like early termination fees. We don't like early termination fees. In fact, with the exception of the carriers' bean counters, we can't think of anyone that likes 'em. But the fact of the matter is, a contract's a contract, and the ETF is the (relatively small, in the scheme of things) penance we pay for the right to break it. Be that as it may, a new class action suit brought against T-Mobile in an Idaho federal court claims that the nation's #4 carrier is breaking thirteen state consumer protection laws by charging customers $200 to wiggle out of their agreements. Specifically, the claim stems from the fact that T-Mobile doesn't make allowance for reducing the ETF based on the amount of time the user has been with the carrier, nor the "quality of service" they receive. For its part, T-Mobile isn't commenting on the suit, but we're guessing we can imagine the hand gesture they're doing their best to not display right about now. To the plaintiffs: can we recommend Sprint?

[Via The Wireless Report]

We've personally had more trouble with headsets not being loud enough, but a California man has worked himself into a lather over "injury" allegedly suffered from using a Motorola Bluetooth headset at high volume. A lawsuit has been filed (naturally) against Moto on behalf of the suffering individual, seeking class action status with unspecified damages -- suggesting that many of us are victims of our own stupidity and are hard of hearing as a result. Ultimately, the issue is that the headsets can apparently reach 85-100 decibels, a volume that risks causing gradual hearing loss, and nothing in Motorola's safety documentation makes mention of the danger (someone actually reads that booklet?). Though we think this is a typically silly suit looking to shake the Motorola tree for some free goodies, we'll admittedly be the last to complain if a free H5 comes our way. Sorry, could you speak up a bit?

[Via The Inquirer]

We trust folks frequenting Engadget Mobile don't fall into this category (do they?), but for the 4.7 million Cingular customers soldiering on with legacy AMPS and TDMA hardware, the pressure to upgrade is about to get kicked up a notch. Starting next month this, uh, very special contingent of users will find a new $4.99 monthly charge on their bill, having committed no crime other than failing to make the switch to GSM. What's more, Cingular seems to be offering little or no incentive for folks hoping to avoid the surcharge by getting a new handset, saying only that "some customers will qualify for discounts on their new phones." If anyone was still in doubt that Cingular was thumbing their nose at their pending TDMA class action suit, this pretty much seals the deal.

[Thanks, BeeRT and Tim UF]

Wireless carriers in this country are no strangers to all manner of legal action, so it comes as little surprise to us to hear that we have a couple fresh lawsuits brewing of the class-action variety. In Cingular's case, it seems a group of former AT&T Wireless customers are worked up over the degredation of AT&T's legacy network following the merger, forcing many of them to either deal with the inferior reception, buy so-called "orange" phones and get on Cingular's network proper -- often incurring a transfer fee in addition to the cost of the phone, or leave Cingular entirely and pay the early-termination fee of $175. Verizon meanwhile is taking heat for covertly slapping some of its customers with their roadside assistance option starting in January 2004 at $2 / month, then later refusing refunds when folks got wise to the charge. We dream of one day achieving world peace between human- and carrier-kind -- but in the meantime, good luck sticking it to the Man, folks.