- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Everyone reads their cell phone service contract very carefully, combing through it for unreasonable terms, right? We’ve all seen the seemingly unreasonable early termination fee, thought to ourselves that it was far too high, and then signed on the dotted line anyway. Cell phone companies claim that the fees are necessary to recover the cost of cell phones, but it certainly seems the goal is to make it harder to switch providers. In an attempt to address this problem, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering taking some action to make it less painful to switch service providers and avoid early termination fees. Sounds nice, doesn’t it?
Cell phone companies recently submitted a proposal to the FCC that would allow consumers to cancel service for up to thirty days without any penalty. It would also cap the fees at a more reasonable level and force providers to reduce the fees on a monthly basis as a customer’s time remaining on the contract decreases; however, it looks like the FCC plans to get rid of early termination fees altogether.
There are several lawsuits underway in the courts and a number of groups think that the states should be regulating these contractual provisions instead of a federal agency. Is this an appropriate area for a federal agency to regulate? Federal law prohibits states from regulating wireless rates, but they do have some authority over certain contractual provisions. Maybe the better question is, “Does it really matter?” The cell phone companies are actively trying to get the FCC to take this question away from the state courts to avoid several lawsuits that have been filed. Their fear seems to suggest the possibility that the court system is already on the verge of settling this dispute in the consumer’s favor.
- Joshua Bohannon
Recent Blog Posts
- Obama’s Cybersecurity Executive Order: Private Sector Must Help Police the “Wild West”
- Qualcomm Settlement May Reconfigure the Smartphone Market in China
- Who Rightfully Owns the Village People’s YMCA?
- Internet Elections Regulation: Another Pie in the Partisan Food Fight?
- Great Artists Steal? A Music Theory Thought Experiment & a Worry about the Litigation of Popular Music
- What to Expect After Teva v. Sandoz?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution