Proposed Class Action Filed Involving T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

A proposed class action was filed by a group of AT&T and Verizon wireless subscribers against Deutsche Telekon AG, T-Mobile U.S., Inc., and SoftBank Group Corp. of Japan (the former owner of Sprint Corp.). The suit alleges that the T-Mobile/Sprint merger violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act for anticompetitive competition. T-Mobile and Sprint, who merged in the Spring of 2020, removed one wireless carrier, leaving only three. The lawsuit claims that the result of this reduction led to consumers paying more for their wireless service.

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division, working with a group of states, wanted to block the deal in the Summer of 2019. During these discussions, an agreement was reached where Sprint would move prepaid cellular and wireless spectrum assets to Dish Network Corp. which also included the option to acquire 20,000 cell sites among brick-and-mortar purchases.

According to the proposed class action lawsuit, the reduction in options caused by the merger unfairly causes consumers to pay higher costs.

The lawsuit is Dale, et al. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al., No. 1:22-cv-03189, N.D. Ill.

This blog is intended to provide information to the general public and to practitioners about developments that may impact Oregon class actions.

Sign up to receive Class Actions Blog posts in your inbox!

Steve Larson

An experienced trial lawyer who handles both hourly and contingent fee cases, Steve has expertise in class actions, environmental clean-up litigation, antitrust litigation, securities litigation, corporate disputes, intellectual property disputes, unfair competition claims, and disputes involving family wealth. Steve regularly represents individuals and businesses in federal and state court and has obtained class-wide recovery in multiple class actions. A veteran practitioner, Steve’s clients value his creative approach to resolving complex litigation matters.


Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.