As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
“Make T-Mobile feel the pain”
We got 900 grievances the FCC got about T-Mobile’s notorious rate walking.
Credit: Aurich Lawson|Getty Images
T-Mobile assured users who purchased specific mobile strategies that it would never ever raise their costs for as long as they lived– however then raised their rates this year. It’s no surprise that 2,000 T-Mobile clients grumbled to the federal government about a rate walking on strategies that were promoted as having a life time cost lock.
“I am still alive and T-Mobile is increasing the price for service by $5 per line. How is this a lifetime price lock?” one consumer in Connecticut asked the Federal Communications Commission in a grievance that we got through a public records demand.
“I am not dead yet,” a consumer in New York composed candidly, stating they had actually purchased a strategy with a “guarantee for life.”
Both of those clients stated they acquired T-Mobile’s senior strategy marketed to individuals aged 55 and up. While the cost walkings use to consumers on numerous strategies despite their age, much of the problems to the FCC originated from individuals in the 55+age. Some mentioned that if T-Mobile just waits enough time, the provider will not need to serve 55-and-up clients permanently.
“What happened to my price lock GUARANTEE?” a Massachusetts local composed. “You can charge more to new customers, but do not change the terms of our contract!! Eventually we will age out…” A California citizen on the 55+strategy, who reported being a T-Mobile consumer for over 18 years, composed, “We want that rate back for the remainder of our lives.”
Lots of consumers have 2 or more lines. Some individuals grumbling to the FCC even reported having 8, 9, or 10 lines, all of which get the rate boost. “I got a text message stating my monthly rate will increase $5 per line, that is [a] $50 increase because I have 10 lines,” a New York resident composed.
A Pennsylvania homeowner informed the FCC that T-Mobile “straight up lied to millions of people.” A North Carolina resident composed, “This is not the deal we signed up for and to change our price after guaranteeing it would be locked for life is fraudulent and a direct breach of contract.”
FCC states it overcame 2,000 problems
An FCC representative informed Ars on September 28 that the firm had “received over 2,000 complaints” about the T-Mobile rate walkings of$2 to$ 5 per line. The firm decreased to talk about whether it is carrying out an official examination.
“If this is allowed to stand, then words have no meaning, businesses are able to lie directly and blatantly to the American people, and the FCC is apparently unable to protect the citizen[s] of this county from the unethical practices of business[es] they are charged with regulating,” an Indiana citizen informed the FCC.
A Texas homeowner who stated they utilized to operate in T-Mobile customer support stated in a problem that the “company’s attempt to backtrack on their promises through obscure caveats in FAQs should not be allowed to stand. As a former employee and long-time customer, I feel deeply betrayed by T-Mobile’s conduct and strongly advocate for regulatory intervention to protect consumers.”
The FCC problems began right after T-Mobile, which has stated it is “passionate about winning customers for life,” revealed the rate boost in late May. We sent out a Freedom of Information Act demand to the FCC on June 24, looking for all of the grievances.
The FOIA procedure frequently takes months, and the outcomes, which are based upon look for keywords recognized in the records demand, can be unforeseeable. In the end, we got over 900 of the approximately 2,000 problems submitted to the FCC, with names redacted. You can check out all of them here, and we will price estimate more of them in this short article.
We likewise acquired about 60 grievances relating to T-Mobile’s rate walking to the Federal Trade Commission, which implements laws versus tricking customers. The FTC decreased to discuss any prospective examination.
United States companies might do something about it
The FCC and FTC have actually both penalized T-Mobile for other type of infractions, so it’s possible that the firms might step in. Previously in 2024, the FCC fined T-Mobile for information breaches and for offering users’ real-time area information. In 2014, T-Mobile accepted pay a minimum of $90 million to settle an FTC suit over undesirable third-party charges as part of an offer that consisted of refunds to clients.
State chief law officers might likewise do something about it. Almost every United States state was associated with a suit that declared the huge 3 providers incorrectly marketed cordless strategies as “unlimited” and phones as “free.” The providers settled the suit this year, with T-Mobile consenting to pay $4.1 million. (Verizon likewise consented to pay $4.1 million, while AT&T consented to pay a little over $2 million.)
If the federal government does not do something about it, there’s at least another prospective opportunity of option. A class-action claim submitted versus T-Mobile in July is looking for “restitution of all amounts obtained by Defendant as a result of its violation,” plus interest, in addition to statutory and compensatory damages.
The class action in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey looks for to represent T-Mobile users across the country and was submitted on behalf of complainants by law office Nagel Rice. T-Mobile is asking the court to require the lead complainant into arbitration and dismiss the claims of other complainants since they do not reside in New Jersey.
“T-Mobile will never ever alter the rate you pay”
We described in previous protection that in January 2017, T-Mobile brought its “Un-contract” guarantee to T-Mobile One strategies. “Now, T-Mobile One customers keep their price until THEY decide to change it. T-Mobile will never change the price you pay for your T-Mobile One plan,” the business stated in a promise that attracted many individuals to change strategies and even change from another provider to T-Mobile.
In a different FAQ, T-Mobile exposed a caution that basically nullified the price-lock guarantee. The FAQ explained the Un-contract as “our commitment that only you can change what you pay and we mean it! To show just how serious we are, we have committed to pay your final month’s recurring service charges if we were to raise prices and you choose to leave. Just let us know within 60 days.” That huge caution wasn’t pointed out in the main statement.
John Legere, then-CEO of T-Mobile, at an occasion on March 26, 2013, in New York City.
Credit: Getty Images|John Moore
John Legere, then-CEO of T-Mobile, at an occasion on March 26, 2013, in New York City.
Credit: Getty Images|John Moore
The Un-contract was presented for other strategies in 2015, and marketing of the allegedly price-locked strategies went on for many years. “We’re the Un-carrier. Everything the carriers do, we un-do,” T-Mobile’s then-CEO John Legere stated in March 2015. “The other guys have been throwing out all kinds of desperate, short-term promotions to suck you in and lock you down—only to jack up rates later. We’re not playing that game. The Un-contract is our promise to individuals, families and businesses of all sizes, that—while your price may go down—it won’t go up.”
T-Mobile ceased the Un-contract in 2022 however makes the very same promise about presently used strategies with what it calls “Price Lock.” Much like the Un-contract, T-Mobile’s Price Lock just provides clients the right to cancel and get a refund for one month if the cost increases.
In 2015, T-Mobile informed some consumers that it would instantly change them to more recent, more costly strategies unless the clients called the business to pull out of the modification. T-Mobile client service representatives were advised to inform users, “We are not raising the price of any of our plans; we are moving you to a newer plan with more benefits at a different cost.”
T-Mobile backtracked on that undesirable 2023 relocation within weeks however has actually persevered on this year’s cost walking on price-locked strategies. T-Mobile did not react to an ask for remark.
T-Mobile addressed problems with kind letter
The FCC grievance procedure can be exasperating. T-Mobile has actually reacted to grievances with a type letter discussing the limitations of the rate assurance, in which it declares there was never ever a pledge to never ever raise costs.
“With Un-contract, T-Mobile committed to its customers that if we were to increase prices and customers chose to leave as a result, T-Mobile would pay the customers’ final month’s recurring service charge, as long as we are notified within 60 days… Customers simply need to request reimbursement within 60 days of the price increase,” the letter stated.
Consumers aren’t purchasing that description. A few of the FCC problems priced estimate Legere’s guarantee and other declarations in which T-Mobile made what appeared to be a clear warranty that rates would never ever be raised.
“I am under the T-Mobile One Plan which was marketed to me as a guaranteed rate lock plan,” a New Jersey resident informed the FCC. “I just received information that my plan would increase by $25 per month ($5 per line x 5 lines). How can this price increase happen if the plan was guaranteed and ‘price locked’? This is marketing deception at the highest level and a flat out lie to consumers. Please help!”
“They are reeling in customers like me with a promise to never raise the monthly rate, but then they… raise my rate? If this is not fraud, I don’t know what is,” a Wyoming local composed.
Another individual grumbled about T-Mobile not honoring the final-bill pledge. The plaintiff, a Kansas citizen, stated they had 8 lines that were all getting $5 cost boosts. There is “not enough wireless provider competition for me to switch” and “even if I switch, they refuse to pay the final bill,” the FCC problem stated.
Consumer: T-Mobile action “factually inaccurate”
We heard just recently from T-Mobile client John Bradshaw, who resides in Maryland. After getting T-Mobile’s reaction to his problem, he composed to the FCC that “T-Mobile has not addressed my specific issue in the complaint but rather submitted a general letter of explanation that is factually incorrect.”
Bradshaw’s e-mail to the FCC on October 2, which he showed Ars, indicate regards to conditions that were active when he registered in February 2019. He priced estimate an area that stated, “If you are on a price-lock guaranteed Rate Plan, we will not increase your monthly recurring Service charge (‘Recurring Charge’) for the period that applies to your Rate Plan, or, if no specific period applies, for as long as you continuously remain a customer in good standing on a qualifying Rate Plan.”
Contrary to T-Mobile’s action, “there is nothing in the Ts & Cs stating that T-Mobile could increase prices, and if I chose to leave, they would pay the final month’s service charge,” Bradshaw informed the FCC. “We remain in good standing (we use their auto-pay service) and have remained on our original plan since we first signed up with T-Mobile. Therefore, T-Mobile cannot raise our prices nor can they terminate our service and pay our final month.”
Bradshaw, who has a T-Mobile One company strategy, stated he has actually called T-Mobile every month and encouraged a representative to credit his represent the quantity of the rate boost. This has actually permitted him to pay the previous rate of $215 rather of $232 on his four-line strategy, he informed Ars.
“I’ve had to call T-Mobile each billing cycle to have them credit my account for the difference (which after time and escalation to a supervisor they have done) and intend to stand firm that I will not pay the increase nor will I terminate service and accept their final month payment as ‘settlement,'” he informed us.
Clients blast T-Mobile/Sprint merger
Many FCC grievances stated T-Mobile’s habits was allowed by its 2020 acquisition of Sprint, a merger that was authorized by the FCC and other regulators. “This is what happens when the government lets companies swallow the completion (the latest being Sprint). We have antitrust laws in the country that are being ignored and ultimately the consumer loses,” a New York resident informed the FCC.
A California homeowner composed that T-Mobile is guilty of incorrect marketing which the cost walking reveals “why Sprint never should have been allowed to merge with T-Mobile.” The individual asked the FCC to “re-investigate the merger and require one or more of the current mobile telecom corporate behemoths to split up.”
A Texas local composed, “This is what happens when mergers are not blocked; T-Mobile never should have been allowed to acquire Sprint. Now, they have no lower-price competitors… T-Mobile lied out of pure greed, and false advertising cannot be allowed to go uncorrected.”
Numerous grievances explained how the users gotten in touch with T-Mobile customer care after getting notice of the cost boost. An Ohio homeowner who registered for the 55+ strategy in 2020 composed, “When I spoke with a customer service rep, I was told that the price lock was a special program that began in 2022 and was time-limited. This is obviously bull puckey, but the company seems quite satisfied with its revisionist history.”
A California citizen who reported getting a $20 cost boost ($5 over 4 lines) composed, “I talked to T-Mobile and they said it’s because my plan is a ‘retired’ plan, which makes no sense. All that means is that I am not on of their more expensive plans. The T-Mobile buyout of Sprint has created a monopoly in the market and they are taking advantage of customers by raising prices, knowing customers have fewer choices.”
A Colorado citizen composed, “I called customer service and was told by a rep and the rep’s supervisor that they made such a promise, but their board and CEO have decided to no longer honor the promise. I told them this is fraudulent.”
An Idaho local informed the FCC, “I spoke to T-Mobile and they recognized that these price lock promises do exist and were advertised to customers but that T-Mobile is increasing rates anyway, with the justification of ‘we have raised rates less than other carriers.'”
Users feel caught by gadget payment prepares
Some consumers feel locked into T-Mobile due to the fact that they consented to gadget time payment plan. A T-Mobile assistance page states that if a consumer closes an account, the whole gadget time payment plan “will be charged in full on your final bill.”
“I was told that we had T-Mobile’s Price Lock Guarantee and now I’m being told that my price will go up by $5 per line for a total of $35/mo. for the exact same service I’m currently getting,” a Utah citizen informed the FCC. “This is dishonest and deceptive marketing and should not be allowed. I can’t even switch carriers because I have device installment plans and T-Mobile will require me to pay off the phones before leaving.”
A Utah homeowner composed, “My husband is a Disabled Veteran. I am his caregiver. We live on an incredibly fixed income. We signed up for the Magenta Military plan years ago. I would love to switch to a different provider, but we just bought phones with T-Mobile in November on an EIP [Equipment Installment Plan] promo for 24 months. We feel trapped and discouraged.”
T-Mobile’s description that it’s raising rates since the business’s expenses have actually increased hasn’t calmed clients. “I am in my late 70s and my Social Security already doesn’t come close to covering my monthly expenses, let alone the continual price increases on all fronts. Is there any recourse with T-Mobile?” a New Mexico resident composed.
“Immoral, deceiving, and unlawful”
A South Carolina resident prompted the FCC to rule that the rate assurance is “an irrevocable contract from which they cannot remove themselves, nor can they breach that contract by changing my plan at all.”
“I called reps at T-Mobile and they confirmed that the ‘forever prices’ that they promised us was, in fact, untrue,” the client’s grievance stated. “One representative actually said that the price lock promise was true at the time, but now they find it necessary to raise the price!”
Some clients who grumbled about the cost walking are likewise mad about a previous choice to need a debit card or connected savings account to establish automated payments and get the business’s AutoPay discount rate. The requirement is stressing to users because of T-Mobile’s history of information breaches.
“I signed up with T-Mobile based on their advertisement that they would never raise rates on my plan. Now they have raised rates twice—once charging me if I don’t leave a debit card on file and once again simply just raising my bill by $10. I don’t appreciate their false advertising,” a Colorado local informed the FCC.
One North Carolina resident mentioned that T-Mobile will “get a little more from the millions of customers (that will add up to big profits) and deal with the few complaints and loss of customer base. In the end, what they will profit will outweigh the loss. So sad—and immoral, deceitful, and illegal.”
No relief for individuals we spoke with in June
In a June 27 post, we detailed the experiences of 3 T-Mobile clients who called Ars and submitted problems with the FCC and other regulators. We connected to them once again before composing this post.
Among them, Rhode Island resident Kathleen Odean, informed us that she had numerous current discussions with a T-Mobile staff member who “seems to have been appointed to contact people who filed complaints with the FCC and/or their state attorney general. During our contacts, her argument kept changing and finally settled on telling me that the press release [announcing the Un-contract deal in 2017] was essentially a broad overview and not to be taken literally.”
In 2017, Odean and her hubby changed from Verizon to get the T-Mobile price-lock offer that cost an overall of $60 a month for 2 lines. Odean stated they are still on the exact same strategy however included, “I will look around at other options once I have the energy and accept that they won’t keep their promise.”
Another client we talked to for the previous post, Georgia resident Michael Moody, had actually changed his organization and household accounts from T-Mobile to Verizon upon knowing of the rate walkings. Moody attempted to get T-Mobile to cover his last month’s costs, however the provider informed him that he didn’t act quick enough. An e-mail from T-Mobile to Moody stated the provider would not pay the last expense due to the fact that “notification of cancellation from your end came after the cancellation had already been processed.”
Moody informed us just recently that T-Mobile never ever altered its position and has “continue[d] to deny and deflect, including in their response to the BBB.” On the plus side, Moody is pleased with his brand-new provider.
“I’m very glad I switched to Verizon. Their customer service has been far more responsive, and they uphold their commitments, unlike T-Mobile,” Moody informed us.
Client’s objective: “Make T-Mobile feel the discomfort”
We likewise formerly spoken with T-Mobile client John Schlatter in South Carolina, who submitted grievances with the FCC and FTC. He informed us on September 23 that he hasn’t gotten any additional follow-up from T-Mobile and isn’t going to alter providers “because of the hassle involved.”
“I figure if the [class-action] suit is successful, I’ll get some communication about a settlement,” Schlatter stated. “I’m not interested in money, although it would be nice if they’re forced to roll back the price increase. My goal has always been to make T-Mobile feel the pain for their shady actions.”
T-Mobile hasn’t reversed the rate walking yet, Schlatter stated the numerous problems to federal regulators and the class-action suit need to cause “a good bit of pain.”
Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom market, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, high speed broadband customer affairs, lawsuit, and federal government policy of the tech market.
Find out more
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
