The complaint is “pro se” (not written by a lawyer) and difficult to read, but plaintiff Roy A. Day’s anger comes through pretty clearly.
Day claims that he bought a Nokia 1520 mobile device on June 7, 2014 and that he was told that AT&T Mobile had exclusive rights to provide services to that model of phone based on the semiconductors inside the device. He claims to have followed AT&T’s instructions to have the phone unlocked, but that the company refused, based on a clause in Day’s contract that said, “Prepaid/GoPhones: Device has been active for at least six months.”
Day claims that a Prepaid/GoPhone device is a Nokia 520 which costs $48.93 at Walmart, but that his phone is a Nokia 1520, which cost $600 at a Microsoft store.
Day has a second complaint against AT&T Mobile as well. When he bought the phone, he alleges, it was a very sophisticated model with a Microsoft Windows Phone 8.0 operating system. However, when Microsoft released the 8.1 version, he claims, AT&T Mobile “upgraded” his device in a way that omitted source code for what he calls “controlling applications” such as Cortana and Shapewriting.
Day alleges that upgrades should only be performed by the software company itself, and that AT&T should be forbidden from doing it because it does not provide a true and complete copy of the software.
In both cases, Day alleges that the purpose of AT&T Mobile’s action was to force him to buy a new phone, and he associates this with violations of antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, as well as claiming that they violate the intent of 2016’s Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. It seems likely that the actions Day complains of may also violate some state or federal laws on unfair business practices.
The class for this action are all US persons to whom AT&T or AT&T Mobile have denied the unlocking of their device in a timely manner, or who have received a Microsoft Windows Phone operating system upgrade in a version that omits features and/or controlling applications.
Article Type: LawsuitTopic: Consumer
Most Recent Case Event
AT&T Mobile Unfair and Monopolistic Phone Device Practices Complaint
August 30, 2017
In this pro se case, Plaintiff Roy A. Day claims that he bought a Nokia 1520 mobile device on June 7, 2014 and that he was told that AT&T Mobile had exclusive rights to provide services to that model of phone. He claims to have followed AT&T’s instructions to have the phone unlocked, but that the company refused, based on a clause in Day’s contract that said, “Prepaid/GoPhones: Device has been active for at least six months.” Day claims that his is not a Prepaid/GoPhone device. He also claims that it had a Microsoft Windows Phone 8.0 operating system, but that AT&T Mobile “upgraded” his device to the 8.1 system in a way that omitted source code for what he calls “controlling applications” such as Cortana and Shapewriting. In both cases, Day alleges that the purpose of AT&T Mobile’s action was to force him to buy a new phone, and he associates this with violations of antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, as well as 2016’s Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act.
att_mobility_antitrust_complaint.pdfCase Event History
AT&T Mobile Unfair and Monopolistic Phone Device Practices Complaint
August 30, 2017
In this pro se case, Plaintiff Roy A. Day claims that he bought a Nokia 1520 mobile device on June 7, 2014 and that he was told that AT&T Mobile had exclusive rights to provide services to that model of phone. He claims to have followed AT&T’s instructions to have the phone unlocked, but that the company refused, based on a clause in Day’s contract that said, “Prepaid/GoPhones: Device has been active for at least six months.” Day claims that his is not a Prepaid/GoPhone device. He also claims that it had a Microsoft Windows Phone 8.0 operating system, but that AT&T Mobile “upgraded” his device to the 8.1 system in a way that omitted source code for what he calls “controlling applications” such as Cortana and Shapewriting. In both cases, Day alleges that the purpose of AT&T Mobile’s action was to force him to buy a new phone, and he associates this with violations of antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Act and Clayton Act, as well as 2016’s Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act.
att_mobility_antitrust_complaint.pdf